POTUS and gay marriage: leading from behind?

This has been an interesting few weeks for marriage equality--but if you rely on mainstream media for your news, you might not know just how interesting. The biggest story on the hamster-wheelish news cycle lately has been the battle over contraception for women and its threat to religious freedom. That--and the race to see how many millions of dollars the GOP is willing to spend to lose the general election--keeps pushing news of state-level gay marriage victories off the front pages of magazines and news sites.


But the latest news from the White House might turn some heads: 

"...Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration would no longer defend in court legislation that forbids giving benefits to the legal spouses of gay military members. In a letter to Congress, Talking Points Memo's Ryan J. Reilly reports, Holder said the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A year ago, the administration said it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, but legally married gay military couples still couldn't get benefits."

President Obama has been less than the "fierce advocate" to the LGBT community he claimed to be during the 2008 election. It's one disappointment in a relatively short--but no less significant--list of walkbacks or just plain broken promises throughout his first term (for instance, his administration is exceptionally tough on illegal immigration, a stance that should be praised by the GOP).

Still, the president's promises kept include a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell--fought for and won in Congress. Along with a refusal to block military benefits for same-sex couples, the Commander in Chief is standing behind his gay and lesbian service members. It's a surprisingly effective example of benign neglect: by ignoring the "problem" and refusing to litigate it in court, LGBT members of the military can have many (if not all) of the same rights that cisgendered heterosexual couples receive.

Meanwhile, New Jersey's state legislature just voted to allow same-sex couples to marry; and although governor Chris Christie has vowed to veto the bill, the fight isn't over. Just last week Washington made same-sex marriages legal, joining six other states and California, a state still grappling with the law in court. It might be fair to say that the president has led from behind on the issue of gay marriage: By agreeing not to stand in the way, Obama is making it easier for states to enact their own laws.

Still, there's the matter of Obama's own stated stance on gay marriage; he's said most recently that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, although that wasn't always his belief. Instead of "evolving" on the issue, why not just come out of the closet? Obama should openly support the right of gays, lesbians and transgender Americans to marry, and he should stand behind members of Congress who support it as well. He should match his actions with his words, and push harder for marriage equality for the entire country.

Of course, we're fighting two wars with the GOP already: birth control and economic inequality. How much political capital should we expect the president to spend in an election year? And isn't keeping the rowdy right-wing trained on Nuvarings, aspirin and Newt's million-dollar implosion a perfect way to distract from the quiet, consistent wins for gay marriage?

Several more states are considering marriage equality--and as more people become involved in the political process,  the tide will continue to turn. This isn't the president's job. It's ours--and we need to stay engaged all year, from local and state legislatures on up to the race for the White House. That means paying attention, and it means voting this November.

Roger Hedgecock, blogger for conservative site Human Events, has it just right:

If the persistent recession, high unemployment, a falling standard of living, rising dependency on government, higher taxes, and too much government debt are the dominating political issues in the 2012 Presidential race, Obama loses.  

If social issues like gay marriage and free contraceptives are the dominating political issues in the 2012 Presidential race, Obama wins.  

Obama's winning. So are we.

Loving stories

Tonight is the HBO premiere of The Loving Story, and since we got rid of cable last month, I can't watch it tonight. But I know the story: a happily married couple was thrown in jail for the crime of miscegenation, and they fought back in a battle that went to the Supreme Court. Their story almost seems like a prelude to the fight for LGBT marriage equality: while the Lovings had a network of supportive family and friends, the law made their relationship illegal.

But Richard and Mildred Loving weren't just denied the right to be together; they were punished for falling in love and building a family. The hardship the Lovings faced together is a world apart from the way gay couples are treated in America today, but the principles are the same: they were denied the right to marry based solely on the beliefs of others.

Still, watching the relatively short struggle for LGBT marriage equality reminds me that just a few generations ago, my marriage would have been punishable by prison time. That I could be denied the right to marry, as Mildred Loving called her husband, "the person precious to me," seems cruel. Denying any American to marry the person he or she loves is no less cruel.

Before Mildred Loving died, she gave support to LGBT marriage equality. After sacrificing years of her life to defend her marriage--a marriage that was seen as unnatural in the eyes of millions of Americans--she still believed that love is all that matters:

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Love. Commitment. Family. Those are the values that shape my marriage, and the values that shape the committed relationships of my gay and lesbian friends. Love and commitment between two people of the same self-identified gender doesn't threaten to unravel the moral fabric our country any more than two people of different races.

It's easy to be frustrated with a judicial system that doesn't grow and change as quickly as its people. But America is a young country, and there's plenty of growing left to do. We'll get there.

America: The Mixtape

Staffers with Barack Obama's re-election campaign debuted the official 2012 Campaign Playlist on the wildly popular music platform Spotify. Obama is our first social media president, but while the man himself might not be as tech-savvy as he'd have us believe, he's got some social media masters at HQ.

The playlist is a fun--if safe--mix of music that represents just about every voter demographic imaginable: country, Latin pop, dance, rock and soul. Some of the selections are impressive: Aretha Franklin's take on The Band's "The Weight;" a shoutout to Latinos (and LGBT listeners) with Ricky Martin; a mix of classic soul anthems (Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions, Al Green) and 2000's throwback R&B (Ledisi, Raphael Saadiq); and all-American troubadours (Springsteen, James Taylor). Whether you're a hipster or a Midwestern mom, this playlist represents the melting pot most of us imagine the country to be.

But a friend/coworker pointed out an absence of rap or hip hop--something I hadn't noticed right away. "What rappers would work on a list like this?" he asked. "In order to attract the kind of folks who might listen to it, what kind of rap wouldn't be even a little bit of a turnoff?" He's a reasonable distance to the right of center (and, interestingly, an earnest Mitt Romney supporter), but I still wondered how right he might be about the lack of rap or hip hop on the list. 

Which rappers would you have added to Obama's Spotify list? The first rapper to come to mind was Warren Buffett's homey Jay-Z; he's managed to sustain that "executive" persona for a long time, and he's worn it more comfortably than Sean Combs ever has. But he got in the game rhyming about his former profession--and while his younger audience is well-mixed, older folks might be turned off.

The Roots could work, though--they're Jimmy Fallon's house band, after all. But there's the issue of the chief rhymer's name being a concept some diehard conservatives might consider an oxymoron. And ?uestlove's awesome (but, yeah, wrong) use of Fishbone's "Lyin' Ass Bitch" as Michele Bachmann's walk-out music certainly caused a stir.

But setting aside the lame (FloRida) and the outright wrong (Odd Future), which artists would be the perfect representatives of both hip hop culture and "friendly?" It's not like we have rappers like Will Smith or MC Hammer, two 90's stars who managed to crossover with little friction. Nas, writer of the tune "Sly Fox?" A shoutout to Eric Cantor with a Wiz Khalifa cut? "Marvin's Room" by fellow two-tone brotha Drake?

It's an interesting question, and a nagging one. Hip hop is just as American as country, the blues, gospel. Why was it so tough for Obama's' staff to find one decent hip hop track?

Maybe the folks curating the playlist forgot. Maybe they wanted to keep the playing time at a solid sixty minutes. Or, maybe the playlist is designed to appeal to as diverse an audience as possible--and a rap or hip hop song would somehow throw off the balance. Even in music, some folks might look for an example of militancy. Kinda sad.

D'Angelo (Slight Return)

For the most part, I ignored a good portion of the "neo-soul" artists that blew up in the 90's. Even though neo-soul attempted to be the lifeline of black music, it sometimes seemed staged and awkwardly posed: headwraps and vaguely Africanized surnames; slam poetry set to hip-hop jazz; songs about how black we could be and how we were much more than our blackness. And for all its rewards--some amazing music was created back then--it became exhausting after a while. In an era that longed to achieve a 1960's level of black consciousness, "neo-soul" represented a well-groomed, carefully packaged awakening.

That's why D'Angelo's 2000 album Voodoo was so mindblowing: it was a dark, heavy, intense, gorgeous album, but it didn't wear blackness like a conversation piece. Instead, the album was influenced by the music of the 60's, not just the attitudes. Yes, "Left and Right"  and "Send It On" were fun and light, and "Africa" was a prime example of the place black consciousness had in music in the 90's--but, as a piece,Voodoo was more music than message. It was refreshing...and it was one of the best R&B albums of the decade.

So, D'Angelo's return to music made me a little nervous. Music isn't what it used to be: the neo-soul movement is still alive, but it's moved on (for the most part). And musical audiences aren't the same: a long wait for an album is now months instead of years. Would D'Angelo's image hold up under more than a decade of absence?

Thank goodness, yes. He appears to have risen above whatever darkness was in Voodoo: "Another Life" is EWF-like and pretty; and "Sugar Daddy" is funky as hell. SoulBounce has one of D'Angelo's shows in its entirety--and it's proof that whatever kept him away for so long isn't weighing on him like it used to.

And I'm glad. Because even though Voodoo managed to transcend the 90's neo-soul aesthetic, D'Angelo never allowed his influences to override his own voice. And, like Voodoo, his new material sounds like it might stand apart from what's hot right now. That's a good thing.

Preview of SOTU Address

In just two minutes and twenty seconds, the president gives us a preview of his third State of the Union address. Obama says that his address will “be a bookend to what I said in Kansas last month about the central mission we have as a country, and my central focus as president.” 

That speech in Osawatomie was as full-throated an endorsement of working-class America as we’ve seen from him; and if he uses this year’s SOTU to accept the role as leader in what the GOP calls “class warfare,” the dynamics of this election year could experience a pretty big shift. How should my governor, Mitch Daniels, use Right to Work as a counter to the president’s call for workers’ rights? How would Mitt Romney—less a sure thing now than just a week ago—massage his wealthbot predator history into the record of a blue-collar ally? How might Newt Gingrich’s gig as a “historian” for hire be explained?

The president will lay out a plan for an America where “everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.” Leaving Speaker “Not as I do” Gingrich aside, Romney’s ball-park 15 percent tax rate plays right into that argument.

We’ve just started seeing commercials from the Obama reelection campaign, and it looks like the president’s third SOTU will also serve as his official campaign speech. Good. This is the time for Obama to list his achievements and his failures; his victories over Congress and the GOP’s earth-salting tactics. And if he uses his record to make his case—something Andrew Sullivan has rightly wondered aloud about—the State of the Union might change the game for the remaining GOP candidates.

It's a joke

That's what the president was saying about the birther issue when he taped a segment for Betty White's 90th birthday bash.


The same night that the GOP presidential candidates were convincing South Carolinians that their state is at war with the federal government, Obama was making light of one of the right's most outrageous--and resilient--charges against him.

The president was making fun of something more than a few Republicans still believe. This is going to be a long election season.

Wireless network

After a quick glance at my Mint.com budget and wondering why I'm still spending $120 a month on TV shows I watch online anyway, my husband and I decided to ditch cable TV. A friend suggested that cable is going the way of the landline telephone, and it's a great analogy--because just as cell phones made communication mobile, the Internet has made entertainment mobile, too. 

Which is why I don't understand what's taking premium networks so long to start reaching out to online consumers. I'm willing to pay for what I watch--it's why we have Hulu and Amazon Prime--but I'm tired of paying for content I don't use. Subscription models like Spotify and (still) Netflix work because they allow users to choose the content they want; and if what a consumer wants isn't available through that service, they'll most likely search until they find what they're looking for. And they'll still buy it.

Piracy is still a major issue, but there will always be a small amount of it on the Net--that's just the nature of the medium. But if premium networks allow their shows to be purchased by the season--say, if HBOGo were a subscription service on its own--media companies could stand to bring in even more revenue. Yes, they'd lose traditional cable subscribers, but who wouldn't watch every season of The Wire for thirty bucks if it meant not having to pay for the whole channel?

And with alternatives to traditional television shows--two of my favorite shows, The Guild and Misfits, don't air on TV--writers and actors are exploring stories and concepts beyond the typical 22- or 48-minute format. If media companies were willing to pump some money into new talent and new entertainment formats, they could use the Internet to gain new, loyal viewers. There is no downside to this--other than media companies who insist on keeping content from users.

I'm sure there are shows my husband and I will miss, but with so many networks already eager to offer content online, there won't be much we won't be able to watch whenever we want. Saving money--and finding new forms of entertainment--is a good incentive to drop cable.

Eat Breakfast in Peace or Die

I’m one of those goofballs who, if staying in a hotel that offers a free breakfast, gets up early to get the freshest morsels. But if I can, I take the food to my room—because, really, who wants to start the day in a strange city eating hash browns next to a table full of screamy kids and groggy parents? Better to eat in relative peace and silence. I can’t be the only person who does this—and, since presidential candidates probably don’t get much ‘me’ time, maybe someone should have suggested this to Ron Paul:

Paul, wearing a white shirt and jeans, insists he doesn’t have time for even one question because he needs to shave before a morning television appearance. A few minutes later, he tries to get the waitress’s attention and fails. Oh bother, he shrugs. And that’s exactly why the people who love the Texas congressman/tea party icon/libertarian standard-bearer love him so intensely. He’s just a cranky old man who wants to eat his eggs in peace before he sets out to save the world. 

Maybe Dr. Paul snuck away from his assistants to have some French toast on his own. Or, maybe he doesn’t believe in gophers and lackeys, and runs a lean, mean campaign without handlers. But someone should have told him that if he needed a breather, he probably shouldn’t have breakfast at an Embassy Suites buffet in Des Moines, less than a week before the Iowa Caucus.

I imagine that, for every man who’s become Commander-in-Chief, private time is a fond memory.

Santorum's Blah Day

So, maybe it isn't fair to accuse Rick Santorum of using racist rhetoric in Iowa last weekend. After all, he said he didn't want to "make black people's lives better with other people's money"; instead, Santorum wants to "give them the opportunity to go out and earn money and provide for themselves and their families."

But...he contends that he never said "black." We all misheard him--he meant "blah" people:

“I’ve looked at that quote, in fact I looked at the video,” Santorum argued. “In fact, I’m pretty confident I didn’t say black. What I think — I started to say a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — mumbled it and sort of changed my thought.” 

See? After looking at the video for himself, he's "pretty confident" wasn't going to say "black"--he was going to say some other word. But, that makes me wonder what word he was planning to say--especially since he didn't tell us. So, what was he about to say? Bland? Blank? Blanched? Bladderless?


It's hard not to see a trend in GOP political discourse that leans toward the xenophobic. Putting the bizarre Ron Paul-adjacent Huntsman attack ad aside, Newt Gingrich was quoted this week as saying that, given an invitation, he would address the NAACP and encourage blacks to "demand paychecks instead of food stamps." And Santorum's stepped in it once already this week, disagreeing with Obama's stance on abortion and finding it "almost remarkable for a black man to say 'now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.'"

Let's unpack that a little. Maybe Santorum is implying that, since the president is a black man, he should be especially sensitive to matters of personhood; that because many black Americans have family roots in slavery, they should therefore be pro-life. Which, of course, is a false equivalence: blacks, unborn and walking alike, had no rights in antebellum America. Or perhaps Santorum was echoing a pro-life talking point that abortion kills thousands of unborn black children every year.

Now, back to Wednesday's slip of the tongue. Is it possible that a man who would assign a viewpoint to the president because of his race might also suggest to his potential voters that he'd rather help black folks with jobs instead of welfare? And since he's been willing to paint black Americans with a broad brush with regard to abortion, why wouldn't he also do it with public assistance?

Finally, why stand by one statement and not the other? Aren't both statements, if not racist, at least painfully socially tone-deaf? Of course, there's the chance that this kind of rhetoric is what led him to a statistical tie with Mitt Romney in this week's Iowa primary. Still--why not own it? If it's getting him votes, why not go a little further?

Let's see what happens as the primaries head south, where conservative evangelicals control the legislature in many states. I suspect Santorum might find the "ck" he lost in Iowa once he gets to South Carolina.

In the kitchen: this week's menu

With the new year comes renewed commitment to eating healthy, and today I'm getting my GreenBEAN Delivery bins! GreenBEAN is a locally owned organic and natural grocery delivery service that operates in several cities in the Midwest, and I've been a devoted fan for the past couple of years. Now that hubby's on board with healthy eating, I'm excited to get our groceries and plan the week's meals.

Tonight: spiced lamb meatballs and rice with tomato and yogurt sauce
One of the best things about GreenBEAN is the diversity of products available; in addition to locally bred chicken and beef, I've been rediscovering recipes for lamb dishes. I found this one last week while on vacation, and can't wait to try it! The ground lamb is from This Old Farm in north central Indiana--in fact, most of the meat and poultry I buy is from central or northern Indiana, and it's always delicious.

Wednesday: Guinness beef stew
Using this recipe, with a few modifications. Cooking during the week is sometimes a chore, but this dish is easy: just toss the ingredients in, let them simmer for a while, and serve. I'll probably pair it with some bread and a cold beer.

Thursday: spinach fettuccine with mushrooms, onions and marinara sauce (and chicken)
Sometimes quick and easy is best: store-bought pasta, sauce, and quickly sauteed veggies. I'm committed to cutting down my meat consumption to 3-4 days a week, but hubby's not too keen on the idea just yet; so I'll oven-roast some chicken breasts for him to add to his pasta. The upside is that I can cook about a pound of chicken and use the rest of it for other dishes for the rest of the week and the weekend. Marinara sauce is courtesy of Local Folks Foods, another Indy business that makes some of the best sauces and salsas I've had in a while.

What are you planning to make in your kitchen this week? Lemme know in the comments.

"All-American Muslim": 9/11 and its aftermath

I've watched every episode of "All-American Muslim" since it debuted on TLC last November. Not everyone's a fan of the show--some of critics call it "boring" and defend its right to be boring--but it's the mundane obligations of family, friends and work that makes the show so important. The creators of "All-American Muslim" couldn't have picked a better name for the show. And that's because the lives of the families we watch are just like ours--with, of course, a few exceptions.

There's a young, dutiful housewife who's straining under the pressure of a new baby; a Midwestern football coach who shows his players tough love; a black sheep newlywed in an intercultural marriage; a cop who loves his job and loves his country; and a bottle blonde whose ambition just might be more developed than her abilities.

All people you'd encounter in your daily life: your event planner, your kid's teacher, your neighbor. That they're Muslim doesn't figure into their lives any differently than it does for conservative Christians or observant Jews, or even lazy agnostics who make their kids breakfast on late Sunday mornings instead of taking them to church. Just as faith, family and community are the cornerstones of what the GOP calls "real America," it turns out those three concepts are important in the lives of most other folks, too--it just takes different forms.

Last night's episode of "All-American Muslim" might be the most controversial episode of the season--but not because it revealed the families to be radical Islamists. It was controversial because it reveals them to be Americans who are still struggling to regain the peace that was stolen from them by terrorists.

Dennis Richardson, deputy chief of Dearborn and cop Mike Jaafar's boss, gets emotional in the beginning of the episode. "I will stand will Mike Jaafar and be proud to stand with him," he said. "Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy; I'm glad we didn't execute all the white people."

It's a silly generalization, but it's the same logic that changed the lives of Muslim Dearborn residents a nightmare after September 11, 2001. "Those terrorists attacked us as Americans, and hijacked our religion as Muslims," Suhaila said. Narwal recalls that her mother, going door-to-door to advertise her new day care business, was spat at and kicked off someone's porch just minutes after televised news of the attacks.

Suddenly, a group of people was being harassed and blamed for something that had nothing to do with them. And instead of hiding, they've lived their lives, building families, telling their stories. But there's still tension--and while some in the community want to reach out to their non-Muslim neighbors, others are justifiably defensive: "I'm not going to put a sign out in my front lawn that says "I do not agree with Islamic extremists,"" Samira said at one point during the show. There are marked differences in how some of the people in Dearborn believe they should deal with the aftermath of 9/11, even a decade later; and a desire for acceptance--along with the defiance and anger at constantly having to prove oneself--are a sad, necessary part of the healing process for American Muslims.

That the families of "All-American Muslim" have to defend their patriotism and their faith is dismaying. But their willingness to do it on TV every week is brave.

New year, new stuff

So, that was a fun year, wasn't it?

2011 was one of the toughest years of my life: my husband and I both lost our jobs, several family members had health scares, and other family and friend issues made me nervous. Writing and blogging became a terrifying prospect; it's hard to explain, but suffice it to say that I'd lost all confidence in my writing ability. So, I took a hiatus from writing and holed up for a while to recover.

It was also an incredibly wonderful year: hubby and I both hit some firsts in our professional lives, our new jobs are the best we've ever had, and we're planning to start a family of our own. I've also met some amazing folks, both online and in person, and the friends I gained last year made my life much brighter.

And since things are so awesome, it's time for me to get back to what I love. This year, I'll be writing about the usual cultural and political stuff--it's an election year, and there should be plenty of drama to discuss on the political stage. I'll also be writing more about the music I listen to, the books I read, and the food I cook--now that hubby's on board with really getting healthy, I'm looking for new ways to eat well.

I also want to communicate more with other bloggers and my readers--so feel free to leave comments on what you'd like me to write about this year. 2012 has already gotten off to a great start--and this year, I'm going to write about all the awesomeness as often as I can.

Will Cain's campaign survive the weekend?

NPR just did a story on "All Things Considered" about one of Herman Cain's accusers. She's requesting a release from her confidentiality agreement so that she can answer Cain's denials of sexual harassment; but she's also not going to reveal her identity. Instead of doing everything she can to attract attention and possible "career momentum" as so many on the right (and the left) have done this year, she's choosing not to be a character in this show. She wants her story heard, but she has no desire to be seen.

A few things jump out at me immediately:

Despite the woman's insistence on not giving her name, Cain's campaign is becoming increasingly cagey. As quickly as Cain's story changed in just 24 hours, I can't help but wonder if that excuse carousel will kick into high gear if one of his accusers is allowed to issue a statement. And because she won't release her name, she's free from the scrutiny of the media. But the tired line of "anonymous accusations should be disregarded" doesn't hold up here: surely Herman Cain, his campaign advisors, and the attorneys involved all know who this woman is. She's just fighting to keep us from finding out.

But: who's paying this woman's attorneys? There has to be someone--and that someone is probably not her. If one of the accusers was given a year's salary in a severance agreement, she would have been set for a little while. But $35k ain't what it used to be, even in just twelve years. And make no mistake--if she is paying her own attorney fees, she's not making peanuts. A middle-class woman with a decent job and her husband's income wouldn't be able to afford the kind of money that's buying this woman's anonymity. Someone bigger than this woman will benefit from Cain leaving the race. That someone might also have no trouble paying high-powered attorney's fees.

And--I just realized this today--there are no major black conservatives rushing to Herman Cain's defense. During an appearance on last week's Real Time with Bill Maher, Ron Christie got into a slapfight with Cornel West--but when Cain was mentioned, Christie suggested the president is responsible for Cain's popularity (which makes no sense, but whatever). Where's Michael Steele? Where's Juan Williams? Last I heard, he was blaming all of Cain's trouble on Republicans--but he hasn't addressed the possibility that Cain's accuser has a valid right to speak.

That's why I'm starting to doubt that Herman Cain will be running for president come Monday. If this is just one big, messy misunderstanding, Cain will still be weakened by his response(s) to the situation. But if there's even a shred of truth to any of these allegations, he'll need to have a seat.

Michael Arrington isn't a racist, but...

...at the very least, he's incurious as hell. After reading his blog post about his interview with CNN for their "In America" series, there's one thing I keep asking myself: "Why didn't he check on who he was talking to?" I mean, it seems like some of his gripes would have simple answers. Like this:

In July CNN reached out to me and AOL to ask if I’d do an on camera interview with Soledad O’Brien. Not A SINGLE WORD about the actual topic of the interview.

Now, if you've watched CNN at all for the past 3 years or so, you'd know that delightfully ambigously brown reporter Soledad O'Brien hosts series on how various races and ethnicities have been woven into America's cultural fabric. Mike Arrington, however, did not--otherwise, he would have read the pitch and known exactly what was going on:

The CNN “In America” documentary unit, led by special correspondent and anchor Soledad O’Brien, has produced a number of award winning long form documentaries.

So--let's say that you, like Mike Arrington, aren't familiar with the "In America" series. "Well," you might say. "I don't think I've heard of these award-winning long form documentaries." What might be your next step? If you said "look it up on Google," you win a prize.

Everything after that initial lack of curiosity led to his whiny, blame-flinging blog post. He doesn't like doing interviews, he says--but AOL talked him into it. Why not prepare--do a little research, come up with some talking points--to make the process as quick and painless as possible?

It's this plain laziness--and his refusal to take responsibility for being caught flat-footed--that makes me think Arrington might harbor more than one or two prejudices. And if he does, it's only because he can't be bothered with investigating anything outside his immediate interests. Ignorance isn't really bliss for anyone.

James Blake: "Enough Thunder"

James Blake's new EP, Enough Thunder, debuted on Spotify this week, and I haven't been able to stop listening to it. James Blake's songs are sparse, slow, deliberate, sometimes sounding less like melodies and closer to sketches. But Blake's voice, a thin, silvery tenor, is surprisingly flexible--and his voice is the centerpiece of Enough Thunder. Blake's production talents are what got him attention, but the man really is sort of an incredible singer. 

Lingering piano ballads account for about half of the EP, and the other half is Blake's signature twitchy, post-dubstep electronica. But even songs like "Not Long Now"allow him to showcase his light, almost pretty voice. His cover of Joni Mitchell's "A Case of You" is an example of his vocal abilities--that run he does is almost operatic, and he's not afraid to take time with his phrasing. The song is also the second time he's covered a song by a formidable female artist--it's a trend I hope he continues. 

James Blake has had a rather successful year; he's gaining popularity here in the States, and his debut album was nominated for a Mercury Prize. After this latest EP, another full-length album would be eagerly welcomed--I'd love to hear what he does next.

Baby steps

December is fast approaching. It's the ball-park month my husband and I have targeted for starting to try to have a baby.

We're both a little terrified. We've saved money, but not the fluffy cushion we wanted to have for this occasion. I've never been pregnant--and though I've watched my mother, aunts, cousins and both sisters experience the long-term labor of carrying and birthing a child, even though I've changed diapers and cleaned up baby barf, I don't know how I'll handle morning sickness, swollen ankles, weight gain. I want to be healthy enough to give my little one a safe and wholesome place to develop, but I'm worried I'm not in top shape for it.

And right now, I'm the only woman--and the oldest--in my family without children. My circle of friends has done things much later than others--most of my friends and I got married in the past three years, and are just beginning to start families--but I still feel left behind somehow. And that scares me, too--like by starting late, I'm at some sort of disadvantage. As much as I know about pregnancy, childbirth and caring for babies, I'm still afraid that I'll blow it.

But my husband's fear is of the unknown: his family was small compared to mine, and he didn't grow up around a regular harvest of babies like I did. He's never changed a diaper, and infant spit-up grosses him out. My little sister's munchkins--adorable two-year-old twin girls and a bouncy, Hulkishly large nine-month-old boy--are easy for him to relate to, since the girls are talking and the boy is already crawling and playfully wrestling. But newborns and infants baffle him: "They don't do anything," he says. My twin nieces were just a hair over four pounds each when they were born, and my husband held them carefully, like they'd break if he sneezed.

Of course, our parents, siblings and friends will patiently walk us through every stage of this new journey. And, of course, my husband is a man with seemingly infinite supplies of patience, curiosity, compassion and love. We're blessed to have the opportunity to plan for our first child, and to have such a strong support system already in place. Almost all of my fears are ones of convenience: will I be able to work out and maintain a healthy weight while I'm pregnant? Will I have enough time to breast feed? Will my husband's work schedule allow one of us to be home every day with the baby? Will our parents get enough "Grama and Grampa" time?

I don't have to worry about prenatal treatment or other medical coverage for me and my future little human. And, as average as we are financially, I'm confident that our baby will want for nothing. It's sobering to think of how many women worry about their health and safety during pregnancy; how many American women receive little or no prenatal care; how many woman are pushed further down into poverty simply because they've given birth. Knowing that a little planning and a lot of luck are the only things separating me from millions of other women in this country makes me sad, and a little angry.

So, before we get pregnant, I'm doing what I can to learn how I can help other pregnant women in my community stay healthy and have healthy children. If you're in the metro Indy area, e-mail me at solikecandyatyahoodotcom to tell me about women's shelters, healthy eating initiatives, family planning centers, and programs to help families overcome poverty.

I've got a great job, medical coverage, a loving husband, and a huge network of family and friends. Whether she has those things or not, every woman deserves the chance--if she wants it--to have a safe pregnancy and a healthy, happy child.

Alan Ball Doesn't Care about Black People: POC in "True Blood"

The fourth season of True Blood ended as it began: in a confused, disjointed flurry of action. The writing this season wasn't just scattered, but lazy: my friend Alyssa Rosenberg’s recap of the season finale exposes the show’s callous treatment of Jason Stackhouse’s sexual assault, and how dismissively the issue was dealt with. And the finale did little to resolve the numerous plotlines that unspooled and frayed throughout the season. But, it did hammer home a major flaw in True Blood’s writing: the paucity of good plotlines for the show’s characters of color.

It’s not just that Tara Thornton—a damaged but resilient young woman in the books—is morphed into a misery junkie with cosmically bad luck. Or that Tara’s mother and husband played primitive gospel healers in their spiritual cleaning of Terry and Arlene Bellefleur’s home. Or that Mavis, mourning ghost mother and original owner of that creepy ass doll, was killed along with her child to hide her white lover’s shame.

It’s the writers’ halfhearted attempt at addressing issues of otherism and civil rights, while relying on tired clichés and stereotypes to do it. Alan Ball and his writers have been sloppy all season, but they've also revealed the indifference with which the characters of color have been written since the show began. It’s a heavy charge to make, but I’m making it: Alan Ball doesn’t care about black people.

Tara is True Blood’s whipping girl. The abuse she suffered at the hands of her alcoholic, Jesus-dependent mother has made her angry and brittle; this means she doesn’t or can’t open up in any romantic relationships, closing her off from a healthy relationship and the ability to become whole on her own.

And her history of abuse—being beaten by her mother, being kidnapped and raped by a psychotic vampire, losing a lover to violence—guarantees that if Tara does find love, she will certainly lose it or push it away. Her breakup with New Orleans cage fighter Naomi proved that. With the ending of the season finale, Tara’s fate is even bleaker: she’ll either die saving the life of her white best friend, or be resurrected as a vampire, the being for which she blames all of her troubles. No matter what happens to Tara, she will never get to be a happy human being.

Lafayette’s storyline was more involved this season, but the show’s strong, fierce short order cook was little more than a pretty stereotype from the first episode. Of course, the only black man on the show was also a V dealer; and on the side, he serviced middle-aged white men for cash and favors. His sexuality and flamboyance, while treated as strengths, never shielded him from being a shifty, scheming criminal. Nelsan Ellis is an amazingly skilled actor and has made Lafayette a highlight of the show, but there are times when he cannot escape being a parody of black manhood—like the second season’s plotline of Lafayette’s imprisonment by Eric. That echo of slavery was just a bit too much, and it was almost certainly done on purpose.

And, like his cousin, Lafayette is unlucky in love: Jesus, the first Latino character and the only seemingly decent person this season, dies by Lafayette’s own hand. But his transformation into a literal magical negro is what’s most disturbing about this season: not only does Lafayette's talent make him a tool for other souls (including the tragic negress Mavis), but he’s ridden like a work animal. While inhabiting Lafayette’s body, Marnie injures him—and calls him “boy"--a shocking insult in addition to making him kill his lover.

My excitement about True Blood has ebbed, and I'm left with the dregs of a frantically boring season. I'm also left with more proof that the show has lost its way, particularly in its treatment of its characters of color. It's just one more aspect of the show I think I'll be able to live without if I stay away from season five.

True Blood: And When I Die

Despite getting some major surprises--and a few setups for next season--this episode was the end of a season-long failure for True Blood. I'll make this quick , but--just so you know--there are spoilers ahead. Don't say you weren't warned.

A friend and I have a theory about Tara's death. Either Bill and/or Eric are going to hear Sookie's call for help and bring Tara over, or Tara's going to die and Lafayette's going to go nuts. I know many people (myself included) have grown to dislike Tara's character, and they'll either have to do something even more drastic with her to save her character, or kill her off. I don't really care which, at this point, though I wouldn't be heartbroken if she left the show. It's a shame--Tara's character could have been so much better than what Rutina Wesley had to work with.

Can we talk about the setup for next season? This episode seemed like one big prologue to season five: Terry's old army buddy decides to visit, and looks rather crestfallen when Terry introduces his friend to his wife. Andy's faerie romp was just last week, but this week he's beginning his relationship with Holly--that means we'll see the faeries again (damn it). Nan's spectacular death sets Bill and Eric up as partners in a takeover of the AVL and the Authority. And with Jessica growing into her womanhood with Jason as her, eh, tool, their relationship could get dangerous. (Also, are we seriously done with the werepanther plot? Just, dropped? Okay.)

And then, we have King Russell Edgington returning to reclaim his crown--that hole in a parking lot looks mighty suspicious. And Sookie's shotgun killing of Debbie, and Alcide's awkward play for Sookie's affections. So much went into setting up season five that season four ended with a muddled, frustrating whimper. It was such a weak season, that the fact that its season finale focused on next season means the writers know they screwed up. I'm not sure if I want to watch them attempt to fix things.

There are a couple of things Ball and co. could do to revive True Blood:

Make Tara a vampire. She'll have to stop wallowing in self-pity, though becoming the thing she hated could send her into even deeper whiny depths.

Let Sookie get at Alcide. I don't even care about how it would advance the plot; I just want Alcide naked.

Have Jessica break Jason's heart. If being sexually brutalized doesn't phase him (seriously, writers?) maybe a broken heart will.

Have Russell Edgington join Eric and Bill in the fight against the Authority. Russell could be a powerful ally.

That's all I've got. What'd you think of "And When I Die"? Tell me in the comments.

True Blood: "Soul of Fire"

The season finale of True Blood is next week, and I'm breathing a sigh of relief...because it'll finally be over.

This season tossed everything at viewers but the kitchen sink--though you could argue the kitchen sink was replaced by that creepy ass doll. Sookie's faerie story started out lame and--much like the werepanther plot line--was dropped. That is, until Sookie's magic fingers zapped away Eric's amnesia. Tara's new identity was overshadowed by Lafayette's discovery that he's a medium. Southern witch Marnie was ridden to power by the spirit of Antonia, a Spanish witch who took revenge on vampires before being burned at the stake. Oh, and Sookie smashed Eric a lot. In the forest, on the foyer floor, in a hallucinatory snow bedroom, etc.

And I don't care. I don't care about any of it. The sub plots like Sam's family and Arlene's baby have been tossed out like shiny objects to distract the viewers from an undeniable fact: True Blood has lost its way. Ball and co. wrote some of the sloppiest, insensitive, ham-fisted episodes the show has ever seen. And, with surprisingly little sadness, I'm glad it'll be over soon.

So, on to this week's episode, "Soul of Fire." We saw Marnie and Antonia switch places last week, with Marnie becoming power-mad and ready for revenge. This week, Marnie's bloodthirst killed one of her coven, and compelled Antonia to leave Marnie's body. The final scene of this episode--Marnie's entering Lafayette's body--pisses me off. Because it means we'll see her in the finale, if not beyond, and I was really hoping we were done with her.

It appears, though, that we're really done with Tommy Mickens, and Sam is out for justice. I wondered earlier in the season if Alcide and Sam might join forces to protect each other--and it looks like I sort of got it right. But this is another example of the writers' laziness: both Tommy and Marcus die without much digging into their backstories. For instance, did Maxine just forget that the boy she used to replace her estranged son is missing? And what about the set-up of Tommy stealing from Maxine?

It was a little heartbreaking to watch Alcide break all ties with Debbie, not only because it was so deliberate and ritualized. But it's also a bit annoying, because this means he's free to pursue Sookie, whose supernatural dance card is already full. It also means we'll probably get crackheaded Debbie back, and I don't know how I feel about that just yet.

A lot went on in this week's episode, but it's mostly setup for the finale. A few little gems:

--Annoying Hippie Dudewitch, with an apt description of this season: "Don't you get it? This is the Hotel California, baby. You can check out any time you want, but you can't never fuckin' leave!"

--Pam, winning Best Quip of the Season: "I can't believe you'd put our entire species at risk for a gash in a sundress."

--Dear True Blood writers: Obviously, you have not taken my requests to kill Andy Bellefleur seriously. Instead, he's humping faeries with ET fingers in the woods. Can't wait to see where this goes next season.

--Jesus carved into his arm and ingested the blood of a corpse and the vamps almost died...but Sookie saved them all with her magic fingers. "Sometimes, it just happens." Okay.

-Did Tara really call Annoying Hippie Dudewitch an Uncle Tom? Man...

You can give me your episode highlights in the comments. I won't be disappointed if you don't, though. Sigh.

Sunday dinner: eggplant fries

I don't usually do a lot with eggplant. My husband's not fond of it and, besides, I'd never had the occasion to buy it much before anyway. But this week's GreenBEAN Delivery came with a gorgeous specimen, so I decided to try something that my husband might like.

Alas, he didn't--but that's okay, because the eggplant fries I made were too good to share. This recipe has tons of variations, but the one I whipped up is simple, tasty, and even a little healthy. Mine is another recipe without many measurements--just eyeball what you think is enough of each ingredient.

Ingredients:
One medium-sized eggplant
Panko breadcrumbs
Grated Parmesan (the good stuff--avoid that Kraft crap at all costs)
Fresh cracked pepper
Powdered garlic
Peanut oil (or canola, if you're allergic)

We bought a deep fryer not long ago, so I use it to make my eggplant fries. But you don't need one: a shallow cast iron skillet will suffice. Heat your oil til it's almost smoking before putting your fries in the pan; eggplant is very porous, and the less oil it soaks up, the better.

To make the breading, add about one part of Parmesan to two parts panko breadcrumbs, and season it with pepper and powdered garlic. You'll want to peel your eggplant and cut it into steak fry-sized pieces. Then, whip one egg and season it with a bit of salt and pepper. Dredge your fries in egg, then coat them with breadcrumbs. If you're deep-frying, cook them for 2-3 minutes, stirring occasionally so they cook evenly. If you're pan-frying, cook for about a minute on each side until they're golden brown. Remove from the oil and drain on a paper towel-lined plate, then season with salt, pepper, or whatever suits your fancy.

There are a few options for dipping sauces. You can't go wrong with marinara sauce, but I'm fond of a simple mayo mix with fresh minced garlic and lemon juice. You can also eat them plain: the crispy outside and the creamy inside offer plenty of taste and texture. I've paired these fries with a salad, but you can use them as a side with sandwiches or other casual main dishes. Enjoy!