Lohan calls Obama first “colored” President – She’s so retro!

Lindsay Lohan - Trendsetter and Racial Uniter!

What does Lindsay Lohan do when she’s not busy stuffing blow up her nose, ramming her car into unsuspecting motorists while intoxicated, grinding on Samantha Ronson, wishing for a career, and praying that someday her mom could be a real mom instead of a stage handling booze pushing friend?

She promotes civil rights progress with a term that throws us back to late 19th century.

In an interview with Access Hollywood this week, Lindsay praises the president-elect Obama and his win by stating he will be “Our first colored president.”  Hmmm, I think I’ve heard that term before…by my wrinkly 90 year old grandma.

Of course people are stunned, but why I ask?  Education obviously took a backseat to her mom’s vicarious ambition for a career.  Or did it?

The term “colored” began in colonial times and was regarded as not only an acceptable term for the black community, but also considered to be a polite reference. Then during the civil rights movement, black society affixed a taboo on the word thus silently declaring a social war against the term and opting for the terms “person’s of color” – “African American” – or “Black.”

As we all know, Lindsay is a trendsetter.  A woman who is capable of swaying the public’s opinion in new, innovative, and exciting ways! She’s not sheltered and uneducated with a family tree written by Archie Bunker.  Clearly Lohan is not only educated on the black struggle (which is evident from how many extensions her scalp can cling to) but she’s obviously a fan in the subject of black history and is showing us something new! Something fresh! She’s not insensitive or uneducated people! She’s retro!

Thanks Lindsay for showing everyone how daring you can be!  For the record though, I’d scrap any plans of White House invitations.

Brave 13 Year Old Declines Heart Translpant

I’d like to say I could have even a fraction of this child’s courage.  What courage you say?  Well, how about the courage to face the unknown of your own demise.  It’s almost an unreal task for any average person, but as we all hope, it should be unthinkable for a 13 year girl.

Though, in Britain this week, a girl named Hannah Jones convinced authorities and hospital officials she is better off without a new heart.  She apparently also conveyed that after being diagnosed with Leukemia at the age of 4 and a subsequent lifelong battle against a heart disease called Cardiomyopathy, she would like nothing else but to be home with her brothers, sisters, and parents without further treatment.

Both her parents, her father an auditor and mother an intensive care nurse, say they are upset that the hospital brought forth official action to place Hannah in foster care in order to authorize the transplant. Even doctors say that if Hannah had a successful transplant surgery, the drugs to help her body maintain her new heart could spur a new round of Leukemia leaving their efforts barren.

So, it was with this information Hannah made a choice of quality rather than quantity.  And as someone who has had a sobering journey watching people withering on deathbeds, fighting diseases that not only ravage a body but rob the happiness of a soul, I understand this decision.

While some may judge their parents unfit to allow such a thing, preaching actions of whatever it takes to save a child, I ask you to consider the life itself.  When we save someone are we really saving them or our broken hearts?

So…cheers to you Hannah and may your life be consumed with the quality of happiness, joy, new memories, and experiences outside the brave hospital life you have known.  For life is always quality and never quantity.