« Page 4 of 7 »

Well, not really. More like sleep deprivation. If you've never noticed the time stamp on my posts, I usually write in the wee hours of the morning or later in the day. But lately, I'm finding that with my age (that's right, all 23 years) has come a decrease in my normally sharp mental aptitude at the crack of dawn. The late night/early morning used to be some of my best thinking time. Instead, it's now become my best sleeping and staring blankly at the screen time.

I'm not currently coherent, and so instead, I offer a few links to some of the writing that has interested me over the last few days.

I'll update in a few hours, like, when I wake up.

- The Evangelical Outpost asks, "Is Colin Powell Really Black?" In other news, Ambra asks, "Is Tiger Woods?"

- Writer, lecturer, and all-round renaissance woman Star Parker's most recent column further explores the fight for black voters and why she feels the foundation of the Republican Party has more to offer blacks than the Democrats. I'd say so.

- I am not easily impressed. Stephen Green recently impressed me.

Lastly, for further stallage, I offer a few photo ops. A few weeks ago, I had the sincere privilege of meeting my very first fan. And yes, I've worn that shirt before in a different photo, and yes the thought of that disturbs me greatly. Fashion faux-pas? I think so. Remind me to do one of those soon.

Elsewhere, here is the look of disgust on my face as I read comments in response to my Bush t-shirt post, that began with "Oh my goodness, you look like you're 8-years-old".

If there's such a thing as giving the virtual cold shoulder, this would be it. See if you guys get presents come Christmas.

 

I must express my displeasure with the attitude of many in the hip-hop community as it relates to their remarks on the current state of our nation. The apathy is disgraceful. In that respect, I can say that I somewhat appreciate efforts like the Hip-Hop Action Summit Network and Sean Combs's "Vote or Die" campaign. Somewhat. However lacking important elements, at least there is a palpable sense that the culture should even give a care about politics. That's more than we've been able to say in the past.

Still, hip-hop culture is not without its "heroes" who are willing to make idiotic political statements a la "Cameron Diaz" for the newspapers to report. The media bothers me in that reporting-wise, they represent the "part" of the culture as the "sum" and it only gives more ammunition to the many who think hip-hop is worthless.

A few days ago, reports surfaced in the New York Daily News about now defunct rapper-producer, KRS-One who I personally think is "all washed up" (and at age 39, is notably too old to still be called a "rapper") and his remarks of pleasure in the wake of the events of 9/11. At a recent New York Festival panel discussion, KRS-One falsely noted that many blacks "cheered" when 9/11 happened. File this under "Dumb and dumberer".

In their article titled "KRS-One, decency zero", the NY Daily News reported:

"The hip-hop anarchist has declared his solidarity with Al Qaeda by asserting that he and other African-Americans "cheered when 9/11 happened."

The rapper, whose real name is Kris Parker, defiled the memory of those who died in the terrorist attacks as he spouted off at a recent New Yorker Festival panel discussion.

"I say that proudly," the Boogie Down Productions founder went on, insisting that, before the attack, security guards kept black people out of the Trade Center "because of the way we talk and dress.

"So when the planes hit the building, we were like, 'Mmmm - justice.'"

The atrocity of 9/11 "doesn't affect us [the hip-hop community]," he said. "9/11 happened to them, not us," he added, explaining that by "them" he meant "the rich ... those who are oppressing us. RCA or BMG, Universal, the radio stations."

Parker's screed drew a loud boo from novelist Tom Kelly, who was in the audience. "I lost six friends there on 9/11," Kelly told us afterward.

Parker also sneered at efforts by other rappers to get young people to vote.

"Voting in a corrupt society adds more corruption," he added. "America has to commit suicide if the world is to be a better place."

Since this has made the press KRS-One has issued a statement, claiming his comments were taken out of context by the Daily News. Still, he never refuted that the comments were his,

"These are not my views only; these views represent a popular truth that few people are really ready to hear. No one wished death on anyone or just sat and "cheered when 911 happened". But....

You can read the rest yourself. The presence of the "but" means he's about to make a statement that will refute his initial assertion. This is the type of press I question is even worth discussing. For the record, KRS-One does not represent what much of the hip-hop community feels towards one of our nation's bleakest of moments.

I'm sorry, but using some sort of ongoing "beef" with record label and radio executives as a means for excusing the fact that thousands of lives were lost senselessly isn't even logical and in my opinion, a poor excuse for "consciousness". I like Cobb's commentary,

"Intemoleckshual rapper KRS-One recently confirmed his solidarity with the imaginary class of the permanently oppressed American - the All-Purpose Nigger. The APN cannot overcome, cannot rise, cannot succeed and is permanently under the thumb of 'history' and is incapable of any emotions other than alienation, paranoia and fantasies of revenge.

The atrocity of 9-11 "doesn't affect us the hip-hop community," he said. "9-11 happened to them, not us," he added, explaining that by "them" he meant "the rich ... those who are oppressing us. RCA or BMG, Universal, the radio stations."

Parker also sneered at efforts by other rappers to get young people to vote.

"Voting in a corrupt society adds more corruption," he added. "America has to commit suicide if the world is to be a better place."

But I see what the problem is here. We're taking entertainers a little bit too seriously, and so they take themselves a little bit too seriously. This is to be expected in a nation of millions. If there are 365 million Americans, there has got to be at least one with a million who watch who is wrong, stupid and popular.

It's not so important that KRS isn't thinking outside of his box. I understand him to be a good-hearted fellow. And I'm really not concerned that young kids may be listening and get the wrong perspective, because attitudes such as that are self-destructive. Nobody with any real stake in America is going to give him props, so America is not at risk. There is a certain level of power you simply can't get thinking like that.

A man who is oppressed by a radio station needs several books, quick.

My brain bows to Cobb's words. He is smart indeed.

More Conservative Brotherhood members have weighed in on this event. Baldilocks says, "Few expect rappers in general to be rocket scientists or practitioners of politically-correct rhetoric of any stripe. However, this, of course is well over any imaginable line." While Molotov of Booker Rising harshly informs KRS One, "Luckily our ancestors weren't nihilistic, or else you wouldn't be where you are today. Name another country where black folks are better off. "

Needless to say, folks aren't too happy, nor am I. But I must say, there is a bit of submerged truth couched in one of KRS One's comments, "America has to commit suicide if the world is to be a better place." Although, I am certain he didn't intend for it to come across the way I took it, I do think that America needs to die to herself to some degree. That of course, is no justification for KRS One's shifty commentary.

This election has given me some good fodder for a future "Celebrities gone wild" DVD series.

 

These days, it seems "Tacky" is entirely relative. Different strokes for different folks I guess. Have you ever seen people put empty milk cartons around their yard to ward off dogs? Tres tacky. What about people who show up at wedding receptions they weren't invited to? Equally tacky. Excessive amounts of bumper stickers? Tacky. No offense to you Bush/Cheney thumpers. Bad-mouthing authority around children? Tacky.

Since it seems the tacky-factor is entirely relative, what behavior or items to you deem eternally tacky?

 

I have for some time now, realized that I act like my mother and look like my father. I am a product of my parents. There is no way around it. Resistance is futile.

Some days are worse than others. Like when I catch myself scolding a disobedient dog, furiously shaking my index finger, with the other hand on my hip, and that overwhelming sense of horror hits me as I realize that I just regurgitated familiar words and I look like a pint-sized version of the woman who helped raise me. Then there are times when I'm sitting at my desk and I start to rub the back of my neck and make obnoxious yawning noises as an indicator of my sleepiness and soon recognize that in one swift moment, I just replicated my father's nightly ritual.

We reject much of our upbringing, but for better or for worse, we often inherit many traits from those who had an early impact on our lives. So it's no shocker that our upbringing should affect our views on politics.

The average person can recount in some way or another, the fact that they were raised in a certain type of political household. Whether your parents (or parent) were communists, hippies, politically apathetic, or greedy-money-loving Republicans, chances are, your political worldview has somehow been shaped (or provoked) by their opinion or lack thereof.

I have often heard people preaching on the fact that they don't think kids should be brought into politics. The company "Lower Case Tee" recently raised more than a few eyebrows with their creation of the "Mommy Wants a New President" t-shirt for toddlers. Admittedly, the sentiment that desires to "oust" Bush has taken flesh in all sorts of twisted ways, however, I am not convinced this t-shirt was one of them.

For reasons I'm sure stem from the fact that children are not of legal voting age, there is some sort of philosophy floating around that says we're indoctrinating children when we bring them into politics at a young age. By default, this philosophy suggests that indoctrination of children is wrong.

In this age of "schools gone wild" with rampant philosophies and ideologies, I would dare to propose that now more than ever, kids need to be indoctrinated by their parents so they can ward off the lies they are taught in the classroom and beyond.

The idea of indoctrination itself isn't such a bad thing. According to some guy named Webster, it simply means "to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments" or "to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle". If someone can instruct me as to what part of early parenting doesn't include those two definitions I'll be very shocked.

The family is the place where we form many of our early opinions both consciously a sub-consciously.

Like most middle-class black kids, I was raised in a Democrat home. From a young age, my parents brought us in on political conversations. We always knew who they were voting for and sometimes we knew why. When my parents were rooting for a candidate, by golly, we were rooting for that candidate. It was a family affair. In fact, as I reflect, I now wish they had started political conversations with us even sooner in our lives.

Regardless of what political ideas we were being indoctrinated with, the point is, we were not left out of the process. Even in a staunch Democrat household, the exercise of rehearsing political dialogue in the family prepared me for an adulthood of thinking more independently about issues. Today, both my sister and I have veered away from our political upbringing. Ironically, it was our parents' foundation of critical thinking that led us away from the politics they'd raised us up to believe.

One of the major differences between American culture and that of many other countries is that we greatly compartmentalize children. Unlike some countries where children are brought into the "work" and fiber of decisions of the family, we keep them out of many aspects of our lives, assuming they are not "ready" to comprehend certain things, relegating them to the "kiddie table" at Thanksgiving if you will.

In America we have created this concept called "adolescence" or the "teenage years". It is during this time that we excuse all matters of rebellious behavior. In fact, our society (along with some very sketchy child psychologists) has actually projected the expectation of rebellious behavior onto the teenage population. It has now become a self-fulfilling prophecy. They act the way we tell them they should be acting.

Our society doesn't expect young people to buck up and be responsible until around age eighteen when they are legally declared an "adult". Meanwhile, 14-year-olds in some countries have more responsibility than the average young adult.

Our higher education system has to allow the average student a few years in their collegiate career to "figure out what they believe" because they often haven't come out of a household that raised them up with some sort of firm foundation in anything. I'd take a devout, radical, hemp-worshipping Democrat over an open minded, politically confused, neutral, pansy-type any day.

It's much easier for a person to shift loyalties than to learn how to be loyal in the first place. Once children are raised with the framework of what it means to be "committed to a cause" it will be much easier for them to do so later in life, even if that cause contradicts what they were raised to believe in the first place.

I'm all for indoctrination. Yes, parents can take it too far, but as it stands I'd prefer to see people err on the side of too much indoctrination versus none at all. These new parenting methods of letting children think freely are dangerous. I often hear people say things like, "We let our kids choose their religion" or "We let our kids decide if they thought said issue was right or wrong".

I don't agree with that. Without first establishing a philosophical foundation (i.e. a clear definition of right and wrong), young people are ill-equipped to make proper choices. The "free thinking" doesn't come early, it comes later.

The purpose of the family is to mold values and guide children into the choices they should be making according to the standard established by the household. There comes a stage before choice and that is force. Most parents don't turn to their 5-year-olds and say "What would you like for dinner tonight?" The child's answer isn't likely to be "vegetables and fiber", but perhaps ice cream or candy or something they think they want. The parent is there to give the child what he needs until he knows how to make decisions for himself. There is a time and place for force.

Understand, I am not suggesting that parents should sit their 5-year-olds down and talk foreign policy. But I do think that we need to re-evaluate how we train children up to be responsible voters. I say, the sooner the better and the country will be the better because of it.

 

Lack of updates due to my insanely crazy life. Thursday is my favorite day of the week. It's the day that leads up to Friday which makes it that much better. I am one of those strange people who likes anticipation of the weekend better than the weekend itself.

Being that I use the state of my apartment as a gage for how my life is going, I'd say things are most definitely chaotic right now. Am I the only one who gets mentally stressed when the laundry isn't folded?

In any case, I have a couple writing deadlines to make so nykola.com gets neglected today. Oh and get this, tomorrow myself and a couple of other Seattle bloggers have a photo shoot for an uncoming magazine article. Here's to hoping that my cheek doesn't swell up again. Should I wear my Bush T?

I'll be back tomorrow. I will however, be responding to comments and email for the sake of anyone who feels like telling me how stupid I am ;-)

 

Get out the Spam, the Cheese Whiz and the Yoo-hoo, the presidential debates are finally over! Now let's have a party.

As usual, the nerdodic nerds from nerdville came out in full frontal pajamial force, "live-blogging" up a storm. Me? I was at Bible study and only got a chance to read the transcripts and watch the footage. Trust me, it's better that way.

And as if there were any surprise, all the pundits say, "Our guy won!" *Yawn*

I'm still left trying to figure out what in tarnation John Kerry's allusion to Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter had anything to do with the moderator's question about homosexuality being a choice.

But hey, what do I know?

I don't generally read author and blogger Hugh Hewitt because there aren't enough hours in the day, plus he is usally predictable in that he'll say "Bush won", but I read some of his analysis and I must say I agree:

"Bush wins because of the faith question, the gay marriage question and the emphasis on education and Kerry's Global test. Kerry strong on jobs and health care, but weak on connecting with people."

Word. Hewitt has even whipped up a snazzy presidential debate scorecard for every round of questioning. Good grief! If only I had within me the capacity to be so meticulous about such things. In any case, I also like the Evangelical Outpost's commentary. But quite frankly, this is all getting very monotonous and dull.

A few weeks ago, I caught myself acting like a nerd and watching old CSPAN reruns of presidential debates past. I realized three things. First, had been of voting age, I could have very well cast my vote for Ross Perot. Scary. Didn't know that about myself.

Second, Bill Clinton was slick even back "then".

Third, our presidential debates bite the dust compared to the discourse and piping hot policy talk that used to take place on the debate stages. I am thankful the last of it is over.

In other pertinent news, it seems that over the final stretch of this election, the "black vote" has been re-christened as "important". I noted earlier this week that Kerry brought Jesse Jackson on staff to operate as a "strategist". The effects were dreadfully apparent as this past weekend, John Kerry began what seems to be a black church circuit tour.

I've been tipped by a few readers that there's been an email circulating on behalf of black Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of a 2000-member predominately black Washington, D.C. church, declaring that he supports George Bush, and the black vote will determine the outcome of this election. An excerpt from his statement (which by the way was not made before a congregation, but rather in written format via a mailing-list) reads:

"American Blacks have always been a moral lightning rod for us in America. This election will be no exception. Have you noticed Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson traveling with Kerry into Black churches during the last two weeks? This is not by accident. I am asking everyone who reads the "Elijah List" to pray that God will use African-Americans to impact our nation for righteousness in this critical season.

I support George Bush and I believe that the Black vote will push him over the top. I also believe that this year's October surprise will be the Black community standing up for righteousness and justice."

Well isn't that a breath of fresh air to read.

My fellow Conservative Brotherhood member Michael King also notes an Open Letter to the Black Community written by Pastor Clarence Page of Greensboro, North Carolina. In it, he poses some very practical questions as well as gives his reasoning for why he believes Bush is a better pick over Kerry, including a statement to "Racist" Republicans.

I think it is very telling that blacks are the only "ethnic minority" whose vote is so heavily tilted to one side. This election should be one for the books folks.

 

Anyone who knows me is well is aware of the fact that I am not a big fan of political paraphernalia. I don't do bumper stickers and I'm not too fond of having some person's face plastered across my chest.

So you can imagine my change of heart when yesterday, I got a package in the mail and enclosed was this lovely t-shirt. It must've been the pink, because as far as I'm concerned it's one hot item of clothing.

One day, should I become famous (or the president of my local chapter of the NAACP), I am certain this photo may come back to haunt me.

Seattle, Washington has become Kerryland and every time this city starts acting all one-sided and monolithic, that rebellious side of me just rises up.

For that reason alone, I am willing to look like a bottle of Pepto Bismol if only to shock a few onlookers on Seattle streets.

Since this is probably the first and last time I will don this t-shirt, I figured I may as well make the best of it.

George and I had a little photo shoot. This is a perfect illustration of the negative effects of espresso.

Updates later today.

 

I realize that there are ugly sides to both sides of this political game. However, I find that the continual return to the small percentage of psychotic abortion clinic bombers as the rule and not the exception gets old. However, the "lovely-ness" of Liberals is rarely displayed or re-hashed in such a repetitive and vast fashion.

I received the following email and photo from a reader (and now an official nykola.com correspondent *smile*). Click the image to enlarge.

Ambra,

I thought you like to see what a nasty Kerry fan did to the windshield and side window of my car this weekend. Attacking the encouraging hate sign that way is particularly revealing. I think his scheme backfired though. Now people walking down my busy street are even more likely to stop and stare.

-Mike P. (Seattle, Washington)

They managed to take out his front window as well. Who knew the doctrine of "tolerance" has loopholes. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

 

How do we reconcile nonprofit political campaigning prohibition and the re-occurring events of this presidental election? Particularly, this past Sunday.

Is there some state legal loophole I'm missing?

And why are stranger politicians allowed to "play the church circuit" every four years, but shepherding and long-term pastors are not permitted to publically endorse a candidate before their congregation?

Just wondering.

 

I Heart the Internet

It is the only place you can find a legit site called: "Black Man With A Gun". These are some of life's most simple pleasures.

As someone who less than 5 years ago did a complete "180" on the issue gun control, I can attest that there are systematic ways of thinking about guns that are deeply rooted in the minds of many Americans. The more I learn about the motivation behind gun control, the angrier I get.

Back in 1993, Clayton Cramer published an excellent article titled, "The Racist Roots of Gun Control". Perhaps the time we have spent as a country suing gun manufacturers and attempting to corner Kmart executives with our cameras, could be better served getting to the truth of the matter.

The "Black Man With a Gun" site is very much a paradox in this age where the issues of black on black violence are rampant. That issue however, is a form of self-hatred that has less to do with weaponry and more with identity. It's really an entirely different issue.

On the more anecdotal end, this past summer, while house-sitting for my parents, I came home one early evening to find my 16-year-old brother gallivanting around the neighborhood with his trusty BB gun in tote. He is one of those guys that would shoot a hole through a pair of $400 Jimmy Choo pumps if it meant good target practice.

Irate, I demanded that he leave the gun in the house. It was one of those moments where I was irritated by our culture. The sensible part of me knew that what he was doing was harmless. It was only a BB gun, and it wasn't even loaded.

But the wise part of me knew the image of a young black male toting any type of weaponry spelled capital "T" trouble. Such is the world we live in.