Ms. Keeping It Real

How Many Fights Must A Relationship Endure to Be "Real"?

Ms.keepingitreal — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:34:35 GMT

The other day I was sitting in my living room when Marcel mentioned to me that at one point he felt that he and Chris were not really best friends because they had never had a fight before. Here’s a brief overview: Charles, Chris and Marcel are all best friends. Charles and Marcel have had a fight before in the past, but managed to get past that. Chris and Marcel have not. He said that he used to think that real friends have fights…and it got me thinking.

Is it not real love if you have never gotten into a fight with your significant other or spouse?

Chris Rock did a comedy special entitled “Never Scared.” There is this one part of the show where he states that you have never been in love if you have not thought about killing that person. If you have never sat at the table with a box of rat poisoning thinking how you are going to kill that m’fer, then you were not in love. And the only thing that stopped you from doing it was an episode of CSI. It was really funny, but when you take the comedy out of it…is what he said true?

We all know what it feels like those first days, weeks, and months of finding that special person that you want to share all of you with—sheer bliss. He doesn’t want to hang up the phone and neither does she. She calls him all day, he texts her all day. Now there’s twitter and you can tweet silly love messages to each other that the whole world can see. Technology. No harsh words are uttered to the other person and any behavior, verbal or physical, that can possibly come off has hurting the other’s feelings is immediately apologized for. But one day, all of that changes…you awake from your peaceful slumber or utopia and just like that, BAM!! Reality hits…

I do believe that some confrontation is necessary and vital in ensuring that your love for one another is strong enough to withstand a little wind, how much pain or frustration must one relationship endure in order to hold up against a Katrina??? Additionally, if one relationship can survive the devastation and aftermath of a category 5 storm, does that necessarily mean that it is worth it? Does that mean that you have found true love or that “ride or die” man or woman?

I believe that every man and woman makes a conscious decision to walk face on into a relationship and he/she knows what their limitations are and are not. One knows what will make them walk and what will make them stay. I think that no one really knows what their reaction will be in certain situations until they are in them, but for the most part we all have our “breaking points” or “icings on the cake.”

My aunt and uncle have been married almost 50 years—their 50-year anniversary is next year. While I was writing this I decided to call her. I asked her about her take on this subject and she immediately laughed stating that, “Yes, you will fight. Marriage is not easy. It is a partnership. Men have to understand that bringing home a check is not enough.” She went on to mention that sometimes you may think about killing him, but then you think, “Is this something that I really want to go to jail for? The answer is, no. So there has to be a better solution.” For some relationships, your spouse may argue with you just to see how much fight you have in you and for others their relationships seem to thrive as a result of fighting. (I assume that it is the making up part in these relationships that keeps it “thriving.” LOL). She verbalized that people who are brutally honest can survive in a relationship, but those that skirt on the issues at hand or are in complete denial are the ones that will not work. Her answer is this, fighting is necessary for any relationship or marriage to work; however, for a relationship/marriage to be considered “real” is not something that can be quantified by numbers or can be explained in a manual…it just depends on that person’s tolerance level.

What are your ideas on this topic?

Nightmare on 2816

Ms.keepingitreal — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:10:10 GMT

So last night around 10 or so, I logged onto my lap top and clicked on the "e" button for the internet. My AOL homepage came up which was not unusual. As the page came up though, the headline that was number 1 in the slide (those who have AOL homepages know what I am referring to) was in regards to some individuals being stuck on a tarmac for 6 hours. I immediately clicked on it which is completely out of character for me...unusual...odd...needs to be questioned. I was thinking to myself, what the hell could have kept people on a plane for that long besides a bomber or a damn stand-off. So needless to say, I'm not sure if I will even be able to effectively articulate my sheer infuriation as I deliberately scrutinized the article.

Okay people, first things first. I know I am late on the news as I have not had antivirus on my laptop and I did not want to take any chances on getting on the internet besides the sites that I perceived to be secure. I used to read the news everyday online or at least watch it on TV, but having recently repositioned my entire life elsewhere, setting up cable had been assembled into something that was nothing more than a speck of dust in the left corner in the recesses of my mind. Consequently, I am behind in the news. Yes, sad to say, the people who I am in the company of on a daily basis (i.e. co-workers and friends) do not keep me abreast of current world events.

Whew. Now with all of that out of the way, I can go back to my rant. Evidently, Continental Express Flight 2816 had 47 passengers aboard as it raced down the runway in Houston at 9:23 P.M., and soared into the blue. This was August 7, 2009. The flight from Houston to Minneapolis was supposed to last roughly 2 ½ hours. However, due to matters that were only in the hands of God or Mother Nature (whichever one, you deem to be more omnipotent), dreadful weather prompted air controllers to redirect the plane to Rochester. The plane purportedly landed in Rochester between midnight and 12:30 A.M. in an attempt to wait until the storm passed at the original destination point.

Around 2 in the morning, Flight 2816 was given the go ahead to resume the flight and head to Minneapolis nearly 90 miles away. Conversely, those plans would be rescinded as the dreadful weather began to head right to Rochester. The captain attempted to contact dispatchers back in Houston at nearly 3 o'clock to inform them that the storm appeared to be getting closer, so much so that they could catch sight of lightning off in the distance. It took dispatchers over 10 minutes to respond to that call. Herein lies, the first snag.

Why in the hell did it take dispatchers that long to respond to the captain's, for lack of a better phrase, distress call?! These air traffic controllers that redirected the plane knew what the hell was going on. Everyone should have been checking on this plane and the passengers periodically and also available to respond to dispatches coming from the cockpit of Flight 2816. Is there some sort of time frame for this? I mean, maybe it's just me, but dammit these people were sitting on a plane in the same damn locality for almost three hours. These people were out of food (not that airlines traveling inside of the United States has anything besides some nasty ass peanuts and alcohol, water or juice) and the toilet, ewww. The least the dispatchers could do is be at the damn intercom when the call comes through!!!!!

The dispatcher, in turn, contacted the airport in Rochester where the plane was located on the tarmac. Slowly, the bad dream turned into a nightmare. An earlier flight to Minneapolis had run into the exact same situation and buses were brought into play in order to transport some individuals to their destination point. However, when the dispatcher in Houston contacted a ground worker for Mesaba Airlines, the associate made it crystal clear that no buses were coming. A flash flood warning was in effect on the roads and I quote: "We can't - I mean we were just able to let these guys off. We can't get them a bus. If I can't secure them a bus, I can't have them in a closed airport," the Mesaba associate stated. This representative had the authority to get those passengers off of the plane and inside SAFER conditions. Are you serious?!!!!!!!!!

You have 47 passengers stranded inside of a plane that is outside on a tarmac in the middle of some horrible weather-obviously, more than horrible as air traffic controllers deemed it necessary to have the plane land in Rochester to wait out the storm. Yet, the storm headed towards Rochester and these people were not allowed to deplane and go inside of the airport for shelter. What in the world is going on?! Flight 2816 was not inside of an airplane hangar somewhere not out and exposed to the elements, but it was on a tarmac-a damn runway, and somehow the Mesaba representative used his/hers "better" judgment to advise the dispatcher that the passengers would not be allowed inside.

From the information that I gathered, this employee repudiated all efforts made by the captain and the dispatchers to have the passengers allowed to get off of the plane due to a lack of understanding airport security rules and regulations. Let's step back for a moment.

Mesaba Airlines is a subsidiary of Delta Airlines. I am not at all surprised that they had their hands in this somehow. Delta has the absolute worse customer service ever! These people answer the phones and proceed to talk to you, the customer, with some apparent great disdain as if you giving them your money is some great feat that requires the phone representative to take time out to do what they should already be doing-their damn JOBS!!!!!!! Ugh! Not to mention that the associates who work inside of the airports for Delta lack all etiquette, decorum and business acumen! That associate should be handed their walking papers and told to kick rocks. If I would have been that associate I would have gotten fired, because if that was the rule, which it was not, I would have let these people inside of the airport despite the consequences that I may have had to incur. If you have a heart, you would have done so. I mean if Mesaba Airlines would have fired me, I would have sued them. In this economy, people are looking at anything and everything as an excuse to be penny pinchers. I would have contacted every media network and I would have certainly made friends with those passengers once they were safely inside. Oh, I would have gotten some numbers and names so that should I be fired, they would serve as my witnesses, which I'm sure these passengers would have been more than happy to accede to had I mentioned that I could lose my job for this-and believe you me, I would have let them all know that my neck was on the line, but that I had opened the airport and let them in because right is right and wrong is wrong.

In an article by the Chicago Tribune, I read that the Department of Transportation said that the graveyard workers "simply made bad judgment calls." Simply. Webster has these words listed behind simply in the dictionary: clearly, plainly, and merely. None of these words are fiery enough or have enough depth in them to convey the severity of what has taken place. Simply. I'm appalled that the department even chose such a nonchalant word to downplay this-simply.

Simply put, I would have gotten up out of my seat, crossed over people if necessary and proceeded to open the overhead compartment. I would have started to remove my belongings. If a stewardess would have walked up on me asking me what I was doing, I would have politely (as politely as I could considering the circumstances) told her that I was leaving. Maybe she would have asked me to "sit down please" and maybe not. Maybe she would have appreciated that someone was actually going to do something in spite of being told no. If she didn't, I would have advised her that if she touched me, I would be forced to touch her and that would be a promise as being held on a plane against my will is kidnapping..."leave me the hell alone. Since the captain cannot get results, I can."

I'm sure that no passengers would have attempted to stop me as they would have all been too busy looking to see what I would do next. I would have slid by the stewardess and then proceeded to open the emergency exit. I would have dropped my bags onto the ground and then lowered myself to the ground. I don't need a damn slide to go down in order to exit safely or any stairs. I'm from New Orleans. Period. We don't take kindly to our time being wasted or our money and being told no, especially after being more than patient, understanding and compromising. If Hurricane Katrina, considered one of the five deadliest hurricanes in the history of the United States, could not keep me down I'll damned if a stewardess, pilot or passenger will! They would not have had any effect on the adrenaline and the fight or flight response that would have been overriding what others may have deemed my ability to rationalize.

Oh, I would have gotten off of that plane and headed to the closed airport. I would have knocked...maybe once...maybe even three times. That is me following proper protocol and having manners. When my knocks would have gone unanswered or perhaps turned away, I would have broken the damn window. Even if they had to put me in a cell inside of that "closed" airport, I would have been better off in there than in that damn plane. I'm sure that my audacity would have inspired others on that plane to do the same-a woman, black, taking matters into her own hands and doing what should have been done a long time ago. And even if that did not happen, the fact that I had to resort to those measures would have gained me much media attention and once Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Oprah or even President Obama got wind of this utterly ridiculous and uncalled for fiasco, I would have been pardoned and some serious finger pointing would be done. This little BS pending investigation is nothing more than an effort to make it look like some actions will be taken, but really all of this is just black words on white paper sitting amongst other paperwork on the desks of officials who have declared the pile to the left of their Montblanc pens overrated and a waste of funding.

At 5 a.m., Flight 2816 received clearance again that this time the plane could actually leave and head to Minneapolis. Again too good to be true, would prove to be the case. The plane would not get back into the sky for another hour as the passengers and crew had to postpone departure again due to another airplane crew having to be flown in because the current crew had labored past the number of hours permitted. And to add insult to injury, the passengers were required to re-board the same plane with that disgusting toilet, irritated babies, and barely any food to head to Minneapolis. The frightful ordeal that was endured on Flight 2816 finally came to an end at 9:15 a.m., almost half a day after leaving Houston.

Ray LaHood, U.S. Transportation Secretary, verbalized this: "There was a complete lack of common sense here. It's no wonder the flying public is so angry and frustrated."

My sentiments exactly; however, all of this "official" drivel is doing nothing more than enervating my ability to hear. Hold the necessary people accountable or shut the hell up!

The New Season Is Finally Here!!!!

Ms.keepingitreal — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:43:23 GMT

Tonight was the first competition for the top ten couples on "So You Think You Can Dance?" I felt like a child trying brush sleep off of my shoulders while hiding in the dark waiting to hear some bells and hooves signaling the arrival of Santa Claus dropping down the chimney so that I could catch him leaving my gifts. Needless to say, I was more than ready for Wednesday to get here! There were a couple people in the top twenty that I had remembered auditioning last season, but they had not made last year. I'm always impressed with seeing individuals who are relentless in their pursuit of their dreams.

The first partners up were Jeanine and Phillip. They definitely set the tone for the rest of the show. They did a routine by Tabitha and Napoleon D'umo. Amazing!!!! I love these choreographers and their lyrical hip hop dance routines! They never disappoint me and I love them about as much as I love Mia Michaels. They danced to Ne-Yo's "Mad" song. Their dancing was believable and you could clearly see that there was tension between the two lovers that Jeanine and Phillip were depicting. Moreover, at the end, the final not "wanting to go to bed mad" line was so clean and sexy and just on fire! I was like, get it!!

Asuko and Vitolio did a broadway sort of routine where Vitolio was the director of the movie and Asuko was the actress. It was okay...just...okay. I was not all that impressed with it, especially after it coming right behind Jeanine and Phillip's performance. Maybe I could have felt it a little more if they had gone after the foxtrot was completed, but coming after such an on fire performance, did not go in their favor. Mary Murphy said that the dance was just safe, but Nigel gave them more credit than that by saying the lines and dancing were beautifully performed. However, he followed that comment up with the routine lacking personality. I concur.

Jamie and Randi performed a Tyce Diorio piece to Jamie Cullum's "I Only Have Eyes For You." The routine was unbelievably enchanted and authentic! I was surprisingly pleased. Tyce has some really good routines, but I think that the dancers that he is given fail to convey the message that he trying to get across in the songs he has chosen and the routines that he has choreographed. In stark contrast to previous dancers, these two worked this song and Tyce's routines like they learned this out of the womb. It was as natural and fluid as breathing. You couldn't help but love how these two floated across the floor and maximized the most of the space between them. It was literally like the song says--they only had eyes for each other...the audience did not exist!

My favorites were back again, much to my delight! Tabitha and Napoleon also taught another routine to Paris and Tony. They danced to "Let the Beat Rock." Tony who is a hip hop dancer failed to bring it like I thought he would. I was like, "boy, pop and lock." Pop and lock. He could pop it, but he couldn't lock it. Paris, who is not a hip hop dancer, came hard with it. I mean she was moving in and out of those hip hop moves with ease and you would never have known that this was not her thing. With all that being said, I thought that the routine was hot, but not fierce or on fire. Apparently, my idea of what dancing is completely different from the judges' perceptions. Adam thought they were cool, but that the clothes were too distracting. I thought the clothes that Paris and Tony wore were very appropriate for the dance style and song that they were performing to. Nigel and Mary both thought the dance was not memorable and that America would not remember who they were or what dance was done. I would have remembered them. Additionally, Tony was supposed to have this hard persona and this supposed "stank face." This came back to get him as Nigel said, "your stank, stank." Hilarious.

Last, but not least, the bollywood routine was something worthy of some long-standing applauses. I commend anyone who has danced this style, because it looks difficult and is extremely fast spaced. The moves switch at random and it's just something that you really have to dedicate time to and practice, practice, practice. Jason and Caitlin performed to a song from the Academy Award winning Slumdog Millionaire. This was the first duo that Adam jumped out of his seat, literally, for. He was like, "you rocked!" Mary was screaming her head off as usual--no tamale train, but she was still yelling. Nigel was on board as well and you know it takes a lot to wow this guy.

For all of the other couples, I didn't mention, it doesn't mean that their routines were not good or great. It just means that I need to save something else to write about next week (God willing that I will still be here) when I'll be excited for Wednesday night again! I'm so excited to see tomorrow's results and who will make it on to the second week of competing.

So you think you can dance, dance.

Are Omissions Truly Betrayals?

Ms.keepingitreal — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:36:42 GMT

Cheating.

What exactly constitutes cheating has been the age old question for men (the more operative word should be little boys). It seems that the tables have turned in that women are now on the prowl and out getting their "swerve" on outside of the relationship or marriage. Having been thoroughly intrigued by this topic, I decided to type "what is the definition of cheating in a relationship" into Google. Boy, were the results overwhelming!!! I wanted to get into contact with everyone and ask how they arrived at some of the answers that I read! On the website, www.answerbag.com, one lady by the name of Berenise said:

"cheating to me is having an inappropriate physical connection with someone outside of the relationship. Doing something that will betray me and put my trust towards you on the line. cheating is lying...hiding something from me no matter if is not doing something specifically with someone is still cheating because there should be no need to lie to me. not being true to me, not being faithful to my love, being able to hug and touch someone else's body without ever once thinking about me and how much this would hurt me...that is cheating"

I wanted to know if she is a woman scorned. The way in which she went into detail and how she ran off everything like a list as if she was deep in thought or perhaps, day dreaming, piqued my interests.

As I further read through the list of responses, I came across one by someone called "thinkin." This person said:

"Anything that do think you need to hide from you partner.

Lunch with someone a phone call a kiss a touch and of course sex."

This definition seemed to line up almost perfectly with my own. I believe that all of thinkin's response constitutes cheating. If you feel that you have to hide it, it's cheating. If you would be mad if I did the same thing or have trust issues with me from there on out, then it's cheating. Emotional infidelity constitutes cheating. Omissions are betrayals.

All of this came up because I was reading an article and this excerpt from it stated the following:

"Cheating on your guys is almost always a selfish act--and so is telling him about it. Confessing an indiscretion can shatter your man's trust in you and make him feel inadequate and insecure. More often than not, it also results in an ugly breakup."

Here's the killer part...

"So unless you get caught with your pants down, stay mum."

Unless you get caught with your pants down...stay mum. Stay mum?! A leading psychological expert by the name of Robi Ludwig said, "If you're at a point where you can stop cheating and are ready to deal with the dissatisfaction in your relationship that likely caused you to stray, you may not need to burden your partner with your impulsive, regrettable choices." Who are these people??????????

I apologize in advance, but I just have to go on a tangent for a minute. I'm utterly appalled by this information that is being fed to women from a leading magazine that is targeting women--Women's Health. First things first, it is never okay to cheat. Yes, confessing what you have done does release a burden off of your shoulders and releases you from having to keep a secret or tell lies after lies to cover your tracks. However, I believe that the other person has a right to know. With so many sexually transmitted diseases going around, people need to have more open relationships where the lines of communication are not broken down. I do not believe that your partner will welcome your random indiscretions with welcoming arms, but I do feel that you owe that person that much. You have already lost a huge chunk of that person's trust; must you lose it all because you want to "stay mum." It's disgusting if you ask me.

One indiscretion could lead to an incurable disease, a baby, or something worse and far more sinister...an obsessed stalker who does nothing but take distinct pleasure in getting under your skin with the clout that he/she holds over you due to your supposedly inadvertent malfeasance.

My grandmother always said that what is done in the dark will come to the light. How is it possible that you can go to sleep and wake up to the person that you say that you love, in the same bed, knowing that you have not righted a grievous wrong? How can you utter words like, "I love you." Do you? I mean do you really? It truly takes a strong person to hear that you have been cheated on; however, it takes an even stronger man or woman to admit what he/she has done. No, you cannot change the past. There is no rewind, pause or flag on the play in life. On the other hand, there is always room for improvement and healing and even possible, forgiveness.

If you are going to cheat, please get out of your marriage or relationship. I mean who wants to honestly be with someone you cannot trust. I always feel that cheating relationships are unhealthy. They are like cancerous viruses that only get worse unless you have chemotherapy and even after that, it is known to come back and strike this time with a vengeance. Some say that revenge is a dish best served cold. I always think that if you have cheated on me, what is to stop you from cheating again. If I stay, will he keep cheating on me because I stayed this time? If he does step out on me again, who do I have to blame this time?

He, on the contrary, would have to worry about...yes, he. Oh, best believe he will worry. Even if a woman does not do anything out of spite, a man will always have it in the back of his mind because of his own guilty conscience. So again, he will worry about where I am at when I don't answer my phone. If any guy is standing too close or I am laughing too hard with a guy who's conversing with me way too low, then he is going to flip out. He's going to wonder what I am doing and if I have gotten even or settled the score, because in his mind what woman will truly put up with his cheating keister without tip--toeing outside the door herself.

And yes, all of this true regardless of if he intends to truly stop cheating or not.

All of that to say this, I do not believe that honesty is not always the best policy. Yes, an ugly break up may be an end result, but at least you can leave with some dignity and respect. The other person can always say that at least he/she told me instead of me having to find out from someone else. Even I, myself, can respect that.