from a "colored girl...."

From the moment I saw this embedded in Seattle Slim's post - "For Colored Girls" Trailer Looks Good; Complaining Begins..." - I knew that, though I'd not watched a movie in its entirety since Tyler Perry's, "Diary of a Mad Black Woman," I would go and see this movie.

I have no issues with Mr. Perry's work in general, but depending on the Black person with whom you are speaking, he has become a pretty polarizing figure in the Black community. Some of it I get, some I don't.  My main concern about his involvement in this project was - "Will he get it right?"

In my comment to Seattle Slim, I explained why:

Hey Seattle Slim!

No, "the play/choreopoem wasn't all rainbows and unicorn shit either," - but then again, it was
It is well worth reading - before the movie. It's really not that long (my cherished hardcover copy is barely an inch thick!) and I promise it'll help put the movie in perspective - if Tyler does it right (Full disclosure: I don't have issues with Tyler Perry's work in general).

I lived on the Atlantic side of Panama for two years in the early 90s (military move) and my sorors on the Pacific side decided to put "for colored girls..." on during Black History Month. I ran into one of them at the post exchange and they told me about the first meeting to discuss the production. After being there for 10 minutes I knew I wanted to be a part of this powerful expression of Black women's lives - and I wanted to be the "somebody almost walked of wid alla my stuff," Lady in Green. And I was.

I'd read Ntozake Shange's choreopoem already in high school, but being in the play was a much more moving, wonderfully empowering and cleansing experience - particularly since some years earlier, "a mr. louisiana hot link" HAD "tried to walk off wid alla my stuff!"

I went into the military to get far, far away from his ass before he "got away with me." I was so in love with this man who, by his actions, certainly hadn't loved me for some time, but my young, broken self couldn't see that. I had to remove myself, to heal myself. It was what I needed to take my "stuff" back - myself. The Lady in Green was already in me by the time I did the play. She was easy to call forth because we'd already shared so much.

No, "domestic violence, abortion, suicide, and all the other issues addressed in the book are not pretty." But depressing or not, it REMAINS the reality - whether or not people want to face it (which is probably WHY it remains the reality!).

Apologize for the long comment Seattle Slim, but you really hit a nerve - one I wish every one of my sisters would investigate "with all deliberate speed" because my sisters- "what you gotta do, you need your stuff to do it to!"

Shange's choreopoem came to me at a pivotal time in my young, Black womanhood - and it has never left me.  As I listened to this video of her, explaining her life and her motivations - aside from the choreopoem's content - I understand much better, why it didn't:



Though my father was no doctor, and we were certainly not "solid, upper-middle class," I not only share most of the joys about which she reminisced, but the strength of her beliefs -which we do have in common - as well.  The unshakable love that I have for my people, coupled with a deep and abiding respect for our having survived our experiences in these United States - certainly "bruised, but not broken" - make it impossible for me not to be engaged with, and involved in, our continued struggle toward equality and freedom in this country.  Doing so, is like Merriam-Webster's definition "b:" of manna to me - "divinely supplied spiritual nourishment.

Back to the film.

I am so glad that Loretta Devine has been cast as "The Lady in Green!"  I have loved this woman's work since I saw her in the original play, "Dreamgirls" with Jennifer Holliday in the 80s, through her role as Gloria in "Waiting To Exhale" in the mid-nineties, to Marla Hendricks in "Boston Public" in 2000; to Patti in "Eli Stone" in 2008 (I know the whole, "seeing-the-future" premise was out there for some, but I wish they hadn't cancelled that show!).  Now I don't know her personally, but I sure do like what she brings to her characters!

I'm gonna head on to the shower now to get ready for the 12:15 a. m. showing of the movie - because 1) I'm slow as molasses!; and 2) I really hate crowded theaters!

Here's Michel Martin interviewing Ms. Shange on NPR yesterday. Enjoy!:

True Health Care Reform loses as HR 676 withdrawn - and Pelosi wins with HR 3962

Well, well, well!  Weiner folds - Democrat Gives Up Single-Payer Measure to Back Party Leaders...

...and so do Kucinich and Conyers.  Here's what they had to say at commondreams.org (emphasis and link mine)

Co-Authors Question Stand Alone Vote on National Single Payer

by Dennis Kucinich & John Conyers

Dear Friends,

We thank you for your continued devotion to the cause of health care for All Americans. We have worked together for many years to write, promote and campaign for HR676, a single payer, not for profit health care system. Your work, in communities across America, has been instrumental in helping at least ten states create single payer movements, with many more states to come.

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider a single payer bill. As the two principal co-authors of the Conyers single payer bill, we want to offer a strong note of caution about tomorrow's vote.

The bill presented tomorrow will not be HR676. While we are happy to relinquish authorship of a single payer bill to any member who can do better, we do not want a weak bill brought forward in a hostile climate to unwittingly accomplish what would be interpreted as a defeat for single payer.

Here are the facts: There has been no debate in Congress over HR676. There has not been a single mark-up of the bill. Single payer was "taken off the table" for the entire year by the White House and by congressional leaders. There has been no reasonable period of time to gather support in the Congress for single payer. Many members accepted a "robust public option" as the alternative to single payer and now that has disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored the bill scheduled for a vote tomorrow in a manner which is at odds with many credible assumptions, meaning that it will appear to cost way too much even though we know that true single payer saves money since one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to administrative costs caused by the insurance companies. Is this really the climate in which we want a test vote?

While state single payer movements are already strong, the national single payer movement is still growing. Many progressives in Congress, ourselves included, feel that calling for a vote tomorrow for single payer would be tantamount to driving the movement over a cliff. The thrill of the vote would disappear quickly when the result would be characterized not as a new beginning for single payer but as an end. Such a result would be seen as proof that Congress need not pay attention to efforts to restore in Conference Committee the right of states to pursue single payer without fear of legal attacks by insurance companies.

We are always grateful for your support. We are now asking you to join us in suggesting to congressional leaders that this is not the right time to call the roll on a stand-alone single payer bill. That time will come. And when it does there will not be any doubt of the outcome. This system of health care injustice will not be able to endure forever. We are pledged to make sure of that.

Sincerely,
Congressmen John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich
Dennis Kucinich is a Congressman (D) from Ohio. John Conyers is a Congressman (D) from Michigan.

Seems strategy trumps everything and the "urgency of now" is only for selecting empty suits.  Where are those Nextel Firemen when you need 'em???

And this is pretty interesting Ladies:

PLANNED PARENTHOOD CONDEMNS PASSAGE OF STUPAK/PITTS AMENDMENT

“Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill that, if enacted, would result in women losing health benefits they have today. Simply put, the Stupak/Pitts amendment would restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money. This amendment reaches much further than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortion in most instances since 1977..." (emphasis and link mine)

 Make sure you thank Miss Ann Madam Speaker and all those Dems for looking out for the rights of women, mkay?