Michael Jackson

"If they say, 'why? why?', tell them that its human nature.

'Why? Why?' - Cos they do it that way.

I like living this way."

Those are some of the lyrics which echoed in my head when I heard that Michael Jackson, aged 50, passed away yesterday. I don't want to say much about his life because I don't believe in talking too much about the dead; because you start with the good about them, which leads to discussion about the bad about them, and before you know it you've said way more than is necessary or validated. And that may be human nature, so it may be excusable at times.

All I have to say is: To a man whose music I grew up listening to and was inspired by tracks such as Man in the Mirror, They Don't Really Care About Us, and Heal The World;

To a man whose music my folks thought it was ok to listen to because he wasn't ashamed to sing lovingly to a woman and not demean her in every other lyric;

To a man whose concert I enjoyed as a young girl (except when he performed Thriller, I was scarrrred!);

And to a man who time and time again I wished could get help for so many unseen and unknown issues in his life that manifested publicly -

I hope his soul finds peace.

Why Do We Keep Defending Ourselves?

Race is something that no one can get away from. I mean seriously, you wake up in the morning and the colour of your skin is as it was yesterday, and as it will be tomorrow, and the day after that, and a few years from now and...

Lately though, I've grown tired of reading and hearing a lot of things to do with race and culture and ethnicity. I'll start with the obvious and then delve into other issues which I believe race should not even play as big a factor as they do in. Issues which need to be confronted head on and tackled asap because the longer we keep defending their existence on the basis of race, the longer these issues have a breeding ground to continue to flourish in.

After Ciara and Justin Timberlake did a raunchy video for Ciara's "Love, Sex, Magic" (which, by the way, I saw by chance and was horrified by!), the blogsphere seemed to go mad at the fact that a white man was allowed to check up on it the way that Timberlake did on Ciara. Ok, so I'm guessing that this issue dates back to colonialism and slavery where the white man had a bit of a fancy for black women but was not allowed to make it known because black women were seen as inferior. At this point I'd like to point out that the video and all other sub-topics are about everything except race; namely (in the lyrics of Ciara), love and sex - not so sure about magic! Constantly reading into issues and things based on race is starting to make me yawn. Yes, we are all human. Yes, we inhabit the same planet. And yes, ultimately some of us will choose to date outside our race. And just by the way, I think its hypocritical to go on about a white man licking his lips over a black woman in a music video, when we've allowed black men to do that in music videos for ages. Are we implying that black men are somehow allowed to go on the way they do because of their status and intelligence - or lack of? We need to stop defending the actions of those within a particular racial group for the sake of entertainment or anything else, while condemning another racial group for doing the same thing.

And then last night I was watching a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary titled, Rape in The City. Arguably, this documentary had more to do with gang culture and attitudes towards young girls / women, than race. It was sad to see how young men's attitudes towards women and relationships have developed and how gang culture has fuelled and added to that. As for young women's attitudes, I'm speechless because I'm not sure whether to feel sorry for them or to tell them to take better responsibility for themselves - which borders on blaming them for the ills committed against them. This got me thinking about gang culture in general and how the face of it tends to be black. I understand a lot of the causes of gang culture, but I think that we should stop using race and the marginalisation of certain races as an excuse. Not because this is going to make the issue go away, but because the opposite is achieved: in trying to use race related issues as one of the causes of gang culture, we are in fact in some ways defending gang culture and those of a particular race who get involved in it. I'm not trying to offer a solution which will stop this overnight; rather I'm pointing out that the more we call on race as a factor, the less that gets resolved, as even the perpetrators begin to believe that what they are doing cannot be stopped for as long as they are a certain race and therefore they experience certain things. So are you telling me that for as long as you live - which will be how long you are your race - you will not do right by yourself and leave what is wrong? In the words of Ghandi people, 'we must be the change we wish to see'.

And then there's the issue of Madonna adopting Mercy from Malawi. After the adoption went through successfully, my dad and I watched Sky News and heard one commentator saying how the adoption was only approved because Madonna had donated a lot of money to Malawi and was building a school there. If you read between the lines, he could have actually been saying that, 'once again, black African people have naively sold one of their own'. The news and the media took the latter and ran with it. The undertones of the whole story were demeaning to black people and African culture. And Malawians were so rightly offended that they decided to sue one of the tabloids for their part in the story. Its as if they were defending themselves for wanting one of their own to possibly have a better life.

If all this has been to heavy for you, I do apologise. But in my defence, I sincerely believe that we need to mature out of blaming the same racial and cultural factors for everything.

Am I Okay This Way (Part I)?: Being Single in the Noughties

Growing up in the 90s, I thought it was ok to be single. To be perfectly honest, I thought that being single was as good a state as being in a relationship or being married. Every state of being when it came to one's relational side - whether they were spoken for or not - was fine, as long as they were happy.

But now I'm grown (actually grown/forever young lol!) and I've realised that a lot of people have a problem with being single. Now when I say a lot, I mean that I've measured this by people who I know who are not single, people's attitudes to being single and what people say about being single vs. what they actually do when they are single. The results? Singleness doesn't seem to be in fashion anymore. Hence my subtitle, "Being Single in the Noughties [2000AD]". Its not too scientific but its reliable, just take a look around you and ask the same questions of the people you know. And if you find any different, let me know chuck!

Maybe I should have guessed this earlier because our generation has so many tools on hand to help us get out of the state of being single. For instance, dating websites. When these first came out, people may have thought that they are only for those of the 'desperate and lonely' kind. But nowadays, it seems to be more socially acceptable for practically anyone to be affiliated with a dating website. In fact dating websites can now be sectioned and classified according to criteria like race and religion. Sites such as Match.com are just the tip of the iceberg.

Then there's the obvious way I should have guessed that being single is no longer trendy: music. A few years ago Natasha Bedingfield sang about the joys of being single and that it was a choice and not a case of being the last to be picked. And the tune was aptly named Single. And that may have made a lot of people feel good, but at the same time it had a lot of feminist and independent vibes about needing not needing a man for anything - and that admission is even worse than just keeping quiet and living single! Fast forward to a few months ago and Beyonce is telling us that someone needs to "Put a ring on it" in Single Ladies. Are you feeling the pressure yet?

Now, I don't rely on the web or the music charts to dictate to me where I should be relationally as a person. However such mediums do let us know what others are thinking or what they want us to be thinking and what they want us to do about it. And this begs the question, "Am I ok this way?" Am I ok being single in this day and age where its so simple and easy to be in a relationship? Am I ok with getting mixed messages from singers who tell me to go out there and find someone and be happy when I turn on one channel, when news of their divorce is breaking on the next channel? Am I ok being led by my flesh and not my heart and mind for fear of being alone?

Everyone wants to share their lives with someone; hopefully in longer rather than shorter terms too. But we need not conform to the patterns of this world, and instead renew our minds so that we can live out God's will for our lives (Romans 12:2).

Sleepwalking into Minefields

The last few weeks have been very turbulent ones for British politics. Just when everyone was letting the fact that the economic recession won't go away overnight sink in, the expenses scandal shook us up again. It has been outrageous to find out that the very Ministers of Parliament (MPs) who have been assuring us that we can pick ourselves up and get out of debt, are the same ones who've been misusing our taxes by claiming unnecessary expenses.

As the scandal was rocking Westminster, heads were rolling as the Speaker of the Commons, Michael Martin, was forced to step down and other MPs were exposed for their part in the expenses row. But not even all the political scapegoating and media blaming solved anything. Prime Minister Gordon Brown's cabinet has been thinning and the opposition Conservative Party have been gathering fodder with which to attack the Labour Party. While watching the news one evening, I heard a member of the public say that they would not be voting in the European and local elections in protest at the expenses scandal and to show their anger at the handling of the whole situation.

WHAT?!

I was shocked! And as I continued to hear more members of the public say this, and read the same consensus in the newspapers, I asked again, "WHAT?!". Abstaining from voting in protest almost always has the opposite effect of showing one's anger at any political situation. Instead, it allows the political parties on the fringes and margins of society - which are there because they may have extreme, prejudiced and harmful views - to gain momentum and win favour and seats in parliament. Why? Because they are piggy-backing on the fear and hypertension partly worsened by the media.

There are various reasons for not voting: apathy: either due to the political circumstances or through their own choice; no/little means of voting: maybe because means of registering voters are ineffective or too narrow; or even that the civil rights of those entitled to vote are not being upheld. But withholding one's vote is like sleepwalking into a minefield - like subconsciously doing something which will later prove more dangerous and defeatist than waking up and doing something about what you have a problem with. And to prove my point, the British National Party (BNP) won two seats in the European elections early yesterday morning.

There are a lot of issues in our current affairs which need urgent attention such as the economy, accountability, Gordon Brown's leadership style, the unity of cabinet and the government, and whether or not the opposition can indeed offer a turn around, to name a few. But refusing to vote or voting in those who have been left on the margins of politics for a reason, is not the solution.

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Who REALLY decides?

Abortion.

There's not much that I want to say on the subject of abortion, but this week when I read about the US Doctor George Tiller being gunned down for being a late-pregnancy abortionist, the cold and disturbing matter was once again raised. I have personal views about it as well as faith-based views on it, but I don't want to discuss my own views in this post. Rather, I want to discuss the issues that I feel the two main sides of the subject - Pro-life and Pro-choice - have and the contradictions which I think follow.

Pro-Choice
This side of the argument, as I understand it, justifies a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before the foetus is legally recognised as a human being at twenty-two weeks. The main logic for this is that seeing that the woman is the carrier or incubator of the unborn child, she ultimately has sole power over what happens to it until it enters the world where external powers and pressures may decide otherwise. But carrying something, and in this case someone, does not necessarily mean that your decision is right - hence follows the main argument against pro-choice supporters. The only question I have is: what choice does the child have? Because if we take away the legal, moral and parental constraints, then really the child's best interests are the only ones which ultimately count. I'm not condemning anyone or trying to make pro-choice seem useless. I just believe that some people involved in the issue of pro-choice seem to forget that the child - 22 weeks or not- needs a voice.

Pro-Life
On the other hand, pro-life supporters seem to recognise that the foetus is a child right from the point of conception, and therefore should be treated and recognised as such. In other words, termination of a pregnancy is not an option. In my observation a lot of pro-life supporters are religious fundamentalists who argue that only God who gives and allows life may take it away. Whether or not one believes in God, the argument has a crucial point that life is sacred and that as human beings we should no be allowed to give and take it as we see fit. But when we couple this view with the fact that some pro-life supporters believe that it is ok to take the life of an abortionist such as George Tiller in order to prevent further abortions, the pro-life argument falls apart. Life is life- whether it belongs to a foetus or a doctor.

I don't like sitting on the fence, especially when the paint on each side is still wet and yet to dry. It looks to me as though both sides of the "abortion:yes vs abortion:no" argument miss vital points about children, responsibility and life. Murder, however, does not solve any of the endless questions on the subject of abortion. But in the midst of all the choas which surrounds the debate, it looks as though those who take extreme and sometimes vicious actions are the ones who really decide where the debate stands. Those who vandalise abortion clinics and stalk the people coming in and out of them, or who take it further and kill the abortionists are deciding that rights and laws are not enough to determine the future of an unborn foetus. And those who continue to drive home the point that it is a woman's right to choose are deciding that by overlooking the rights of the foetus they are simplifying something far more complex.

And so my nit-picking of the two abortion arguments comes full circle without being able to fully reach a definite conclusion, as does the debate about abortion itself. What next?

Priorities and Options

"Never make someone a priority when they only make you an option."

Wow, I remember the first time I read those words and thought, 'that's exactly what I need to hear after what I've been going through'. Those words are harsh but true, and the older and wiser I get, the more that I sometimes see them played out before my very eyes...

Priorities, as I relearned earlier this week, are the things which we choose to do or accomplish or hold in esteem above or put prior to anything else that we may have to do, accomplish etc. Its good to have priorities and to know and remind ourselves that certain things matter first and foremost, and that in fulfilling them most of the other things we are trying to achieve will fall into place or follow suit. However when you have a lot to prioritise and not many resources or much knowledge with which to accomplish what is necessary, you begin to work with a short fuse - everything becomes urgent and everything seems like it requires drastic measures all the time.

I used to work like that, and I used to thrive in such environments. The main reason for that is I'm a perfectionist at times; and if things do not turn out exactly as I envision them or want them to, then anything to make what I want possible seems a priority. But, again as I relearned this week, we need to be able to distinguish between what is important and what is urgent - and that will determine our effectiveness and our outcome; the rest is secondary and usually an option. I'm glad that now more than ever I'm really taking this on board and living life with the view that the things I value now and today and feel like I have to achieve so much, will not always be that way in the future. As I grow my priorities will change, evolve, some will continue and others will become futile. In other words, I've learned to let go when I have to.

Unfortunately with a change of priorities sometimes means that we have to change our scene and leave behind - or to the side, to the left or just right where they are so you don't get done for GBH*! - people who may not be helping us to achieve what is dear to us or part of our purpose in life. Again, harsh but true. I've been an option before for some people, I know it and I think that admitting it shows my strength and character rather than what I didn't have to be part of who they are. And no matter how hard that lesson was, it taught me to love and embrace always but to also keep a healthy balance of myself in that mix too; because if I can be myself and still be with certain people, then who I am is as much a priority to them as they are to me.

With this lesson in mind and more, I'm really excited about where I can go, be and love.

*GBH: Grievous Bodily Harm

Top Marks for Spencers!

When I heard that Mark and Spencers (M&S) was having a one penny bazaar, I really didn't get it. I'll say that again for those of you, who like me, missed the part where M&S, one of the most classy high street stores decided to have a one penny bazaar: Marks and Spencers had a 1p giveaway. There, now I know that you've just relived the shock which I went through.

M&S turned 125years old today, and to mark such an achievement it decided to have a one penny bazaar where customer could purchase up to five of a few select items for one pence each. In fact, the items were free and each customer was asked to make a small donation to a charity instead. So what were M&S trying to do? Apart from retain the customers they do have and attract more customers by giving away a few quality items, not much else.

And I think it worked considering that its very rare that a good quality store decides to give away items to customers. It might not have worked for those who were expecting to get expensive items for just 1p - sorely disappointing. But overall, I'd give Marks and Spencers top marks for their genius, and loyalty to the same customers who have been loyal to them.