So, I was on another blog earlier today. And a story they posted from Newsweek caught my eye. The Newsweek article discusses polyamory. Huh? What is that, you ask? Well, according to www.dictionary.com, it is defined as “participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships.” Oh, okay, now I understand.:–)

So then I thought, what’s so special about this that Newsweek had to do an article on it. I mean, people do this all the time, right? Some knowingly (e.g. open relationships, friends with benefits, etc.) and well, unknowingly (e.g. marital affairs, cheating boyfriend/girlfriend, etc.). Just so you’re able to read what I read, here’s an excerpt of the article (if you would like to read the entire article, here’s the link: Newsweek)

“Terisa, 41, is at the center of this particular polyamorous cluster. A filmmaker and actress, she is well-spoken, slender and attractive, with dark, shoulder-length hair, porcelain skin—and a powerful need for attention. Twelve years ago, she started dating Scott, a writer and classical-album merchant. A couple years later, Scott introduced her to Larry, a software developer at Microsoft, and the two quickly fell in love, with Scott’s assent. The three have been living together for a decade now, but continue to date others casually on the side. Recently, Terisa decided to add Matt, a London transplant to Seattle, to the mix. Matt’s wife, Vera, was OK with that; soon, she was dating Terisa’s husband, Larry. If Scott starts feeling neglected, he can call the woman he’s been dating casually on the side. Everyone in this group is heterosexual, and they insist they never sleep with more than one person at a time.”

After I read the excerpt, I began to read the comments that people left pertaining to this article. And what was surprising is most of the commenters believed this type of activity, is race-specific. In other words, the commenters (and there were over 200 plus comments) believed that Whites and/or other races commit ployamory more than Blacks. I was like, really? Then I began to wonder, could this be true? Does one race commit or partake in a specific act, more than another race? Hmmmm. I then thought, well, people believe that Black men are more likely to call Black women (or women in general) a “B&tch” more than any other race, right? So, there may be something to how these commenters think.

So, 7DayBuzz readers, I bring the question to you. Are there race-specific actions? I mean, does one race commit or participate in an act more than another? What about the act of polyamory? After reading the excerpt and/or article, do you think Whites do this more than any other race, as some of the commenters believe on another blog? I’m just throwing it out there and to see if it sticks.:–)

Since Kim has stood in for me, and raised the level of conversation, I’m going to do my best to bring 5 topics worthy of Wordplay Wednesday. Hopefully, you know how this thing works: you have no more than 5 words to express your feelings about current events going on in the world currently. Here we go!

1. The Beer Summit.
2. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s handling of Michael Vick’s partial reinstatement.
3. American health care.
4. Steve McNair’s wife says “Thanks for the support.”
5. Are you sick of Jon and Kate?

What would a poll say about three men sitting down to have a beer together after a heated dispute? Does drinking beer set the stage for reconciliation amongst Americans? Apparently many Americans relate sitting down to a beer as something they would want to do with someone to relax, get to know them and settle problems. Are you buying this? I’m not.

Thursday, President Obama, Sgt. James Crowley and Henry Louis Gates Jr. will site down and have a beer together. By now the backstory is well known and the only thing left to do is find a way to get people to stop talking about it. Someone at the white house had the bright idea to put this thing together and I would like to know who it is. I would ask that person what in the world they are thinking about.

It is being referred to as the “Beer Summit.”

Admittedly, the POTUS, or BHO, made a mistake when he said Sgt Crowley acted stupidly, but don’t we have bigger concerns as a nation? Our economy is still hurting and I would think our leader could use this time in a more productive matter. Yes, I have heard all the talk about the racial issues concerning this event and the “teachable moment” it has created. Quiete frankly, it isn’t really going to change anything concerning racial relations in our country so why waste the time?

For those of us, regardless of color, who truly don’t have severe problems with people of other races, this is just a story that will pass. For those who have racial hatred engrained in their every bodily fiber, do we really think three cold ones is going to make a difference? I have no doubt that some people will try to twist this thing around to make BHO look like he is doing something wrong…again. Whatever.

BHO needs a special czar and I would gladly volunteer, but more on that another day.

Unless you have been living under a rock, you are aware of the situation with Michael Vick and his conviction for the part in played in dog fighting. Now that he is out of jail, and not under house arrest, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has ruled on whether Vick can continue his NFL career.

1. Vick can immediately take part in preseason practices, workouts and meetings and can play in the final two preseason games — if he can find a team that will sign him.
2. Once the season begins, Vick may participate in all team activities except games, and Goodell said he would consider Vick for full reinstatement by Week 6 (Oct. 18-19) at the latest.

So Vick isn’t suspended from the league, kind of. The “Commish” still has control; his heavy-hand is going a bit overboard in my eyes.

I know the NFL has player conduct and/or morals clauses, but why does this even matter? If you have a field, a football and 22 guys, Michael Vick is one of the most elite human beings on the planet. THE END. No extra yardage, or touchdowns, are scored for being a good human being, but it seems like that is what we expect of professional athletes. Right or wrong (we will get to that) Vick plays a violent sport where physical contact is the norm, yet he is expected to be a role model off the field. I would like to know who decided this and what they were thinking at the time? Why is an elite athlete someone we should look to as a guide to moral behavior? If you haven’t done so before, spend some time with someone who is among the elite in their given field. Many times, that is about all they have to offer – sort of like having all their eggs in one (extraordinary) basket.

The Argument About The Punishment

They were just dogs.

Many people feel like this shouldn’t be a big deal because they were just dogs. I’m not necessarily a dog person, but I’m not a monkey, donkey, pig, hamster, moose or bear person either. Somewhere along the line, dogs were elevated, in the animal kingdom, and became protected by human beings. Hey, it is a law so whatever.

The part that rubs me the wrong way is the fact that Roger Goodell thinks the judicial system isn’t equiped to punish Vick and he must pile on his own punishment. Additionally, he can’t just let him back in the league; he has to regulate how much Vick is allowed to participate and then has the nerve to pass it off as something for Vick’s own good. I would like to know if we should start worshipping Goodell because he is acting like he is God returned to earth. Dude, you run a football league. I know some “money” people may get offended by the “Thugs” in your league, but they don’t mind when those same players are making them a ton of money.

Let’s talk about Donte Stallworth. Stallworth killed a man while under the influence and recieved 24 whole days in jail and a lifetime ban from driving. Oh, and he suspended indefinately by Goodell. I thought the two sentences were way out of whack, but I have learned more about Stallworth’s situation.

1. Stallworth did not drive himself home. He took a cab or was driven home, went to sleep for a few hours and got up to get something to eat. He had basically slept part of his drunken state off although he probably thought he was OK to drive.
2. Stallworth was cooperative with the police. He was the one who called them.
3. The man he hit, and killed, was not using a cross walk. In fact, I read that Stallworth would have hit and killed him if he was totally sober.
4. The family didn’t want Stallworth to have a greater punishment. However, they were OK with the money he gave them.

After reading more about the Stallworth case, I’m not willing to say Vick’s sentence was extreme in comparison. What I am more inclined to say is that they are comparing apples to oranges. If he did sleep for a while before driving and would have killed the man sober makes a difference to me. I still have to process how much of a difference, but it is enough of a difference for me to say it isn’t the same as Vick.

Vick Can (kind of) Come Out To Play

Kathy, from www.kleverkathy.com, recently wrote an article about whether Michael Vick can come out to play. I guess the commissioner, in his controlling way, has said Vick can indeed come out to play. He just can’t play when it counts yet.

You have to admit, this statement coming from the President about a law enforcement department in the Unites States is, well serious. If you haven’t heard the story, Harvard Professor Henry Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct at his home because a neighbor thought he was breaking into, what turned out to be, his home. When the officer arrived to investigate, he asked for ID from Prefessor Gates, who provided the requested documents. It seems the Professor and the cop exchanged words, which resulted in the professor being arrested.

Now, according to Professor Gates, it was racial. He is not upset that a neighbor called to report, what she thought was a “suspicious Black man” trying to break into a home. The issue is once he showed his ID to the officer to prove he lived at the residence, the officer should’ve basically said it was an honest mistake and left it at that. Unfortunately, the incident escalated.

The Cambridge Police have dropped the charges. Although Professor Gates is happy that the charges have been dropped, he also wants the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, to publicly apologize. Sgt. Crowley refuses to apologize as he feels he did not do anything wrong. Sgt. Crowley said he is not a racist, that he feels bad about the fallout, but no apology will be forthcoming.

In President Obama’s prime time conference this evening, a reporter asked him about race relations as it pertains to Professor Gates arrest. President Obama said he was biased because he personally knows Professor Gates. President Obama says that although he is standing proof that race relations in the U.S. have progressed immensely, race is still an issue in America. President Obama informed racial profiling is still a problem here in America and what happened to Professor Gates is an indicator of that.

Now, do you think that because President Obama called the Cambridge Police stupid, that NOW Sgt. James Crowley will be offering an apology? Hmmmmmm, I don’t know about you, but I see an apology on the horizon.

On Wednesday, July 16, 2009, Pat Buchanan appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC to discuss whether or not Sonya Sotomayor is qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge. Of course, being a staunch Republican, Buchanan is against Sotomayor because he feels she is an affirmative action appointment and well, affirmative action is evil!

When asked to define affirmative action, Buchanan states, “Affirmative action is to increase diversity by discriminating against White males….” He also said, “this has been a country built, basically, by White folks …..”

Now, if you ask most Black people, they will tell you that this is a bunch of crap! Why? Because, slaves were the laborers who built this country, not White people! In regards to affirmative action, if Pat Buchanan sees it as being evil, Black, Hispanic and Asian people (most, not all) see it as a necessary evil. Why? Because it is the only method in place to help level the playing field when it comes to getting certain jobs (e.g. a Supreme Court Judge) or getting into certain schools (e.g. Yale, Harvard).

Now, I’m sure those who are against affirmative action agree with Pat Buchanan and that’s fine. But, if affirmative action is not used, how else would people, of other races, be given an opportunity to hold certain positions or attend certain schools, that White people, like Pat Buchanan, feel Whites are entitled to?

I will say, I agree with Pat when he says people should be judged on their own merit and get a job on their own credentials. I mean, if everyone in the Unite States of America thought this way AND acted this way, there would be no need for programs like affirmative action. BUT, we know (or those of us who are willing to admit it) that the U.S. does not, consistently, work that way. Hence, the need for a method of providing equal opportunity — the evil affirmative action.

In case you haven’t seen the video that I referenced in this post, here it is:

“”We need a new mindset, a new set of attitudes — because one of the most durable and destructive legacies of discrimination is the way that we have internalized a sense of limitation; how so many in our community have come to expect so little of ourselves.”

Yesterday, President Obama spoke at the NAACP’s 100 year anniversary celebration and pretty told Black people there is no excuse not to be the best and expect the best! In a nutshell, here is what President Obama told Black people:

To Black parents, he advised them to force their kids “…set aside the video games and get to bed at a reasonable hour, and push them to set their sights beyond such iconic figures as NBA star LeBron James and rap singer Lil Wayne.” He also said, “Our kids can’t all aspire to be the next LeBron or Lil Wayne. I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors and teachers, not just ballers and rappers. I want them aspiring to be a Supreme Court justice. I want them aspiring to be president of the United States.”

To Black people, in general, he stressed the importance of education. He said Black people need to recapture the spirit of those civil rights pioneers — committment, urgency and sacrifice!

In my opinion, truer words haver never been spoken! Now, some Black people may be offended. The reason I say this is because a few years ago, Bill Cosby pretty much said the same thing, and Black people were upset that he would “air our dirty laundry.” In addition, there are other races who have tried to convey the same sentiments, but the delivery hasn’t been quite right, if you know what I mean.

Well, let’s see how it’s received coming from the President of the United States, who just so happens to be Black!

Hi everyone, here are the topic for this week’s WordPlay Wednesday. Remember, for every topic, keep your comments to five words.

1) Debbie Rowe Sells Parental Rights For $4 Million

2) House Democrats Want to Tax Wealthy to Pay For Health Care Plan

3) Military Robot Could Use Dead Bodies As Fuel

4) Bank Robber Says Bad Economy Forced Him to Rob Bank

5) Girl’s Heart Heals Self

Make Things Right Before You Say Goodnight!

On the heels of retired NFL quarterback Steve McNair’s murder, former champion boxer Arturo Gatti was allegedly murdered by his wife. The disturbing thing these two murders have in common is they were both killed in their sleep. I can’t imagine going to sleep for that final time due to someone killing me. Although it could be a less painful way to die – Gatti was strangled – it is still so wrong and brings about grief for the children and other loved ones left behind.

I guess the moral of this short story is to make sure things are right with your significant others before you drift off to sleep. Would you think the two women below are possible killers?

Below you will find several comments from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Obviously, they follow party lines – the Democrats normally say good things while the Republicans say bad things. Two things caught my attention when reading an article about the hearing:

1. How many times the word “prejudice” was used.
2. How many times the committee took the opportunity to say something about BHO.

They, the Republicans on the committee, are going out of their way to be careful not to talk negatively about Sotomayor as it relates to her race – they are avoiding bringing up the Hispanic element if possible. But the fact that they are avoiding it says something about what is really on their minds. It matters.

In addition to the race element, I find it funny, in a convenient way, that they would use this opportunity to take pot shots (in a political way) at BHO. Instead of talking about gender and race, they are talking about the president – they basically know Sotomayor will be confirmed so they are using this opportunity for other purposes.

Looking at some of the comments below and using a little common sense, it is easy to see a big deal is being made out of some things that shouldn’t be. Does it really make sense, common sense, to think that Sotomayor has progressed to this point without making sound judgements? Would she really use race/gender/upbringing/whatever to make decisions and still be in a position to become the next Supreme Court justice? Would the first President Bush have helped her career if she was as bad as some people make her out to be?

It just doesn’t pass the litmus test to me. I think she will be OK.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
“I would trust that all members of this committee here today will reject the efforts of partisans and outside pressure groups that sought to create a caricature of Judge Sotomayor while belittling her record and achievements, her intelligence. … Let no one demean this extraordinary woman.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
“I will not vote for — no senator should vote for — an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court.”
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
“One attack that I find particularly shocking is the suggestion that she will be biased against some litigants because of her racial and ethnic heritage. This charge is not based on anything in her judicial record because there is absolutely nothing in the hundreds of opinions she has written to support it.”
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa
“The Supreme Court is meant to be a legal institution, not a political one. But some individuals and groups don’t see it that way. They see the Supreme Court as ground zero for their political and social battles. They want justices to implement their political and social agenda through the judicial process.”
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
“We cannot simply brush aside her extra-judicial statements. Until now, Judge Sotomayor has been operating under the restraining influence of a higher authority — the Supreme Court. If confirmed, there will be no such restraint that would prevent her from — to paraphrase President Obama — deciding cases based on her heartfelt views.”
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
“First, as we will hear in the next few days, Judge Sotomayor puts rule of law above everything else. Given her extensive and evenhanded record, I am not sure how any member of this panel can sit here today and seriously suggest that she comes to the bench with a personal agenda.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
“There must be a vigorous debate about the kind of judge America needs, because nothing less than our liberty is at stake. Must judges set aside, or may judges consider, their personal feelings in deciding cases? Is judicial impartiality a duty or an option?”