One year ago today Barack Hussein Obama stepped in the presidential spotlight and extinguished racism forever, amen.  One year ago the memory of American slavery was erased, field hollers and spirituals were considered obscene, and white people stepped into the role of the new black—urban, hip and the only authentic interpreter of that old throwback called Pre-Barack Black. Oh, baby, I'm about to have some fun!  Today the New York Times published a hilarious essay by novelist Colson Whitehead about his imagined role as Secretary of Postracial Affairs. Here's a chunk of Colson's riff that had me choking:

"Some changes will be minor. In television, “Diff’rent Strokes” and “What’s Happening!!” will now be known as “Different Strokes” and “What Is Happening?” Other changes will be more drastic. “Sanford and Son” trafficked in demeaning stereotypes. In these more enlightened times, everyone knows that one person’s “junk” is another’s compulsive eBay purchase. A more postracially robust version features Sanford père as the genius behind a community-based auction site, with his son, Lamont, the reluctant Webmaster. Think of the opportunities for fleet-footed banter and sophisticated, pun-based aperçus. Like “Frasier,” but postracial."

If he'd let me, I'd work tirelessly as Colson's advisor to his Secretary of Postracial Affairs.  I would insist all black TV shows prior to Barack's Postracial America be recast and reshot with white actors.  Or, at least, have all the black actors voices dubbed with friendly white ones.  Yeah, that's better.  We can continue to see black (because black is often pleasing to the primal palette), but we don't have to hear black or any of its African-slavery-infused rhythms and cadences.  Come on, now you know that's a damn good idea.  I'd also insist, absolutely demand, that Colson reimagine Aunt Esther, from Sanford and Son, as a Buddhist-chanting, yoga-practicing, culinary chef who specializes in foods that lower cholesterol levels.  Someone please share this with Colson:  I'd be the best advisor a Secretary of Postracial Affairs ever imagined.

I've always been intrigued by adults who never leave their parents' home.  There was something mysterious about that extra room in a friend's basement where some 30 year-old son was living and eating up their momma's grits and eggs.  I wasn't old enough to appreciate any type of economic/emotional disability associated with these dead beat kids:  all I saw was an adult person tied to their momma's apron strings and that was interesting.  See, I was out of the house at 18.  Largely due to my first year in undergrad, but my parents also insisted (by example) to be ruthlessly independent.  I used to get nervous when I had to ask for fifty dollars to help pay for a past-due phonebill.  Oh, the parents were no joke.  They believed if you can't afford to pay the bill then there was no need for the phone.

Over at the New York Times' blog Room for Debate, five writers discuss the rise of "The 40-Something Dependent Child".  I'm not sure how much of a "rise it is, but writer Kathleen Gerson offers a chunk of wisdom on the grown-child crazy:

"The days are gone when middle- and working-class parents could simply pass on their advantages, and, after either paying for college or providing a route to a good union job, rely on an expanding economy to provide upward mobility. In 21st century America, stable, well-paying jobs and self-supporting families have faded just as the gray flannel suit, unionized factory work, and the Cleaver household did in earlier eras.

In this context, children need more years to develop the emotional maturity, cognitive skills and social intelligence to navigate the challenges of uneasy transitions, fluid careers and changing families. Because they must postpone adult independence while developing these personal resources, their parents face tough new choices about how much and how long to support them.

The temptation or need to cut children loose conflicts with giving them the support to prepare for adulthood."

Oh, so that was the deal.  Black parents were actually keeping their grown children hostage to help develop their emotional maturity.  (I say Black because I grew up in a predominately Black albeit suburban environment).  All of this time I thought grown boy was sitting up in moms' living room watching Scooby Doo because he was too distracted by self-indulgence to get a job.  I guess I was wrong. (Folks, I'm joking, I'm joking).  In all seriousness, I wonder if some black families keep their grown babies close in order to protect them from the uneven playing field of America.  I wonder if some families are suffering from a long history of co-dependence and don't know how to break the habit.  I wonder if it's all ridiculous and folks need to get courageous and just kick their 40 year-olds out. No more free grits and eggs.

New York City Coalition for Reason, an organization that works to increase awareness about the secular-minded, starts an atheist ad campaign in the NYC subways today.  Uh oh.  Hold on to your faith and your grandmomma's Good Book.  The ad reads:  A Million New Yorkers Are Good Without God.  Are You?  That's certainly a catchy phrase and it will certainly agitate unwavering God-believers who believe life without God is worse than the Black Plague with the Devil On Top.  Personally, I don't pay attention to most campaigns or commercials, pro-God or against Him.  Shopping, in general, depletes me of electrolytes.  Besides, if it's not available at the Farmer's Market I'm not buying.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield who blogs over at Belief.net feels the atheist campaign is intended to provoke, and not educate.  I'm not sure I agree.  Doesn't one need a sliver of provocation to stimulate a hunger for new ideas?  I don't know.  Call me tragically open-minded.  Hirschfield also appears a bit peeved that the name New York City Coalition for Reason, the organization that's backing the campaign, is suggesting atheists and seculars are reasonable and God-believers are not.

"It suggests, in precisely the way that pro-God groups with names like "union for decency" and "coalition for American values" suggest that atheists are amoral, un-American, or indecent, that atheists are reasonable and theists are not."

Sounds like fighting words to me.  Oh, I should mention the atheist campaign launches a few days before the release of Harvard's Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein's new book Good Without God.

Let me just jump right into it:  a Facebook friend posted an update that read Malcolm is Bisexual. Get Over It.  After I blinked and then squinted, I clicked on the link and I was directed to the Guardian where Peter Tatchell wrote a piece about Malcolm and the "history of his same-sex relations".  You know, in honor of the UK's Black History Month, of course.  Let me provide a sample of Tatchell's thoughts on our beloved icon:

"Perhaps it is unintentional but Black History Month sometimes feels like Straight Black History Month. Famous black LGBT people are not acknowledged and celebrated. Either their contribution to black history and culture is ignored or their sexuality is airbrushed out of their biographies.

A good example of this neglect is the denialism surrounding the bisexuality of one of the greatest modern black liberation heroes: Malcolm X. The lack of recognition is perhaps not surprising, given that some of his family and many black activists have made strenuous efforts to deny his same-sex relationships and suppress recognition of the full spectrum of his sexuality."

I'm not sure what to think.  I certainly believe and advocate for the truth of people.  I believe that men and women all fall under the category of complicated and layered human beings looking for balance and explanation and primal satisfaction, or not.  I guess I'm saying that Malcolm could have had a life layered with a bisexual past.  But I'm not so sure we should acknowledge him as a bisexual icon.  One, Malcolm chose to marry a woman and have a traditional Nation of Islam family.  He chose that.  Two, Malcolm never, to my knowledge, mentioned a bisexual past to the public:  The Nation of Islam doesn't condone pansexuality.  Three, I think a person should be alive on the planet to determine or defend how they'd like to be defined, sexually.  It's about self-definition, not the imposition of communal definition.  No?  I know, I'm a big fat idealist.

Most of Tatchell's outcry is inspired by Bruce Perry's 1991 biography, Malcolm - The Life of A Man Who Changed Black America.  Many feel Perry's biography trumps the Alex Haley-scribed autobiography which Malcolm allegedly controlled content.  Perry allegedly interviewed 420 people who knew Malcolm at some point in his life and revealed his layered past.  In fact, Malcolm allegedly worked as a male sex worker some time in his teens, according to Perry's book.  Mmm, I didn't know teenage sex workers were considered inspiring sexual icons.  Look, I'm certainly not condoning the un-truth of people.  I'm also not denying the possibility of a bisexual past in the phenomenal life of Malcolm X, but bisexual icon?  Not so much.  Maybe Tatchell should honor the UK's Black History Month by writing a piece on the fear of male sexuality in the black community?