« Page 5 of 7 »

Okay, you know what? This is getting completely ridiculous. People are simply not playing fair. The ad nauseum pandering by politicians in United States churches is ostensibly patronizing. It is virtually impossible to remain silent when politicians so blatantly go "off sides". John Kerry is at the pulpit again, but not without resident irreverent reverends, Al Sharpton, and latest addition to the Kerry campaign as "Senior Advisor" Jesse Jackson, waiting in the proverbial wings.

With a "mere" 73% of the black vote as compared to the 90% of Al Gore in 2000, polls are showing Kerry's support from black voters is slipping (as if it had anywhere else to go but down).

This week's text was taken from the book of Jeremiah chapter 5 verse 21, as Kerry described his opposition, "Maybe these are the folks from Jeremiah, who are reminded they have eyes but do not see; they have ears, but do not hear."

The Washington Times reports,

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and civil rights activist the Rev. Jesse Jackson told black voters at a church here yesterday that President Bush's support for a constitutional amendment against homosexual "marriage" shouldn't be enough to earn their vote.

Mr. Kerry attended Mass at a Catholic church in North Miami, and then spoke during services at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Miami , as he and several black Democratic leaders tried to rally black voters.

"How many of you — someone from your family — married somebody of the same sex?" Mr. Jackson asked of the congregation of about 500. After nobody raised a hand, he asked, "Then how did that get in the middle of the agenda?"

"If your issues are cancer and Medicare and education and jobs and Social Security and decent housing, then how did someone else put their agenda in the front of the line?" he asked.

Following him a few minutes later, Mr. Kerry urged his audience to try to ignore diversions from the issues Mr. Jackson had mentioned.

"All they're going to do is attack and attack and try and divert, and push some hot button that has nothing to do with the quality of your life on a daily basis," the senator from Massachusetts said.

That's right. Because the redefinition of marriage will in fact have no direct impact on anyone's "quality of life" right? The article notes the "wildcard" issue of banning same-sex marriages and the outstanding fact that polls show black voters overwhelmingly would support such a ban. But Mr. Kerry cautioned the predominately black audience at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church,

"Don't let them fool you with these diversionary tactics."

No no no. Let us not be fooled by diversionary tactics that might urge us to oh, I don't know, vote our collective moral consciences. This entire scenario just reeks of some pre-abolitionist movement speech, attempting to convince the semi-literate and politically inept "darkies" that slavery really is a good thing.

Kerry, Jackson, and Sharpton were also joined by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas and Rep. Kendrick B. Meek of Florida among others. And as if that weren't enough, the Baptist church's pastor, Gaston E. Smith heralded Kerry as a savior,

"For every Goliath, God has a David. For every Calvary's cross, God has a Christ Jesus. To bring our country out of despair, discouragement, despondency and disgust, God has a John Kerry."

I have nothing else to say about that.

Last Monday, Kerry was noted in the New York Times as saying, "The President and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position. But they're out there misleading people and exploiting it."

So why is it that the very next week, Kerry is in a Florida church, attempting to convince his "supporters" of the lack of importance of the redefinition of marriage? Kerry neglected to point out the fact that while he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, Bush supports it.

The "Christianity Today" blog notes that "a Time magazine poll found only 7 percent of voters thought Kerry was a 'man of strong religious faith'." Granted, this "no religious confidence" vote is hardly accurate, as polls often fall short of truth. Yet, even if it were true, it wouldn't mean much, save the fact that every chance he gets, Kerry's been playing up his "black church" appeal and quoting scripture from the pulpit.

Now who's mis-leading and exploiting the people?

As in all "sermons", I think it best to return to "the text". Since Mr. Kerry used Jeremiah, why not go there? Scripture is never much good when taken out of context, so perhaps after verse 21, Kerry should've continued quoting verses 22-23

21- Hear this, you foolish and senseless people,
who have eyes but do not see,
who have ears but do not hear:
22 - "Should you not fear me?" declares the LORD.
"Should you not tremble in my presence?
I made the sand a boundary for the sea,
an everlasting barrier it cannot cross.
The waves may roll, but they cannot prevail;
they may roar, but they cannot cross it.
23 - But these people have stubborn and rebellious hearts;
they have turned aside and gone away.

The verses prior to Kerry's quote deal with a nation fully of idols. Funny, those scriptures rarely get quoted in political campaigns. Gee, I wonder why.

 

Vote or Die or Vote Confused

 

As November 2nd nears, it is becoming clearer to me that this is a very important election. It's not that I hadn't realized this before now, it's that I'd allowed myself to get lost in the swirl of "them" versus "us" politics.

I can't watch these debates any longer, nor can I listen to the continuous and monotonous alphabet news affiliates and anchor "expert people", wearing the same clothes, discussing the same issues, using the same words, coming to the same conclusions about the same two candidates.

At this point, if you don't know, you simply haven't been paying attention.

Independents and other parties aside, I would be lying if I said I didn't have problems with both main candidates. Bush is far from perfect, but Kerry is even farther. I could go into my multitude of reasons for believing this, but that's not really important right now.

In less than one month, we will elect the president that will lead us into the next phase of things to come in America. There will be no section on the ballot that reads "please state your issues with both Democratic and Republican candidates". None of the volunteers working at the voting locations will care to sit down and discuss my hang-ups and reservations nor will my griping and acting like a windbag elect the right person. No; there is a task at hand, and we are all called to make an educated, conscious, and moral decision based on what we have to work with.

The hour of philosophizing has come and gone. Discussions on who looks and acts more "presidential", how candidates "worked the crowd" and the Nixonian nature of raising one's voice are worthless to me.

This is not a question of who is the most perfect candidate. Last I checked, Jesus already fulfilled His duties on the Earth.

This is about choosing the right candidate. Somewhere down the line, "right" and "perfect" got confused.

In my eyes, the right candidate is not one who will pander to my pet issues or be the mouthpiece of a political party. I am not interested in someone who can stand on a popular political platform or make tons of promises, even if they can keep them. Nor am I manipulated by the fear perpetuated by the many in this country who continue to threaten "what may happen if...". I'm not afraid of death and I won't cast my vote by manipulation tactics.

In my eyes, the right candidate is the one on whose moral foundation, God can most easily work. The right candidate is the one whose heart is the softest and most pliable to do what is "right" and "just" and "honorable" and "wise".

Call me näive, but I am not convinced national security is the biggest problem America faces. As far as I am concerned, the cultural battle for morality that has ensued within our own borders is going to have a far greater impact on our future long-term quality of life.

Islamofascism and all its wicked relatives are very real and very much a threat. This doesn't change the fact that our ability to confront those things head on will be greatly diminished as we continue to allow the moral fabric of this country to be weakened.

Our greatest strength will not be in our strong military front, our fancy policies, wealthy constituents or advanced technology. Our greatest and most undervalued strength must be our uprightness as a nation before God.

The sum of most of our problems as a nation can be chalked up to one major point of dysfunctionality: the family. Every major societal issue of concern and tax-payer's dollars takes root in an out-of-whack values system and breakdown in the family.

For this reason alone, the family unit must be protected at all costs. All efforts to re-define the family should be met with vigilant opposition. All efforts to abort its members should be exposed for the evil that they are. All efforts to strategically and unjustly tax those who wish to store up an inheritance and build a financial legacy for their children's children must not be entertained. This is not a game. The opposition is very strategic.

A government that supports, encourages, and allows the family to thrive and be aided as necessary is needed now more than ever. In that issue alone is an abundance of overflowing issues from crime to healthcare and education.

Another issue facing this country is a decline in the value of human life. It is something that can no longer be rationalized. Throughout history, there have been people, motivated by whatever measure of ill-intent and confusion, who have worked tirelessly many years before I was even alive to ensure that a "healthy" foundation for abortion rights was properly laid.

The uphill battle we are facing with those who refuse to use common sense on the issue of "reproductive rights" is far bigger than any one Supreme Court decision. There is a mental stronghold in the minds of many Americans who cannot or will not allow themselves to be deprogrammed philosophically.

I simply cannot in good conscience support anyone who would push or support legislation that furthers this cause. I will not allow myself to vote for a president who will only nominate individuals to the federal bench that support this "constitutional right".

We have begun to toy with the womb; the most sacred of places. No matter of science, experimentation and medical advancements is worth our violation of earthly boundaries.

We have thrown out our consciences for "feeling" and "emotion".

We have devalued the role of fatherhood.

We do not value our elders nor do we value those that do not value themselves.

We have strategically built an educational system that isn't producing as it should.

The issues go on. It is easy to get lost in the political jargon of it all. I am certain that many Americans will not go through the trouble of educating themselves on the issues that matter most. Then again, perhaps I stand in disagreement on principle of what the "issues that matter most" truly are.

Still, I must vote as I see fit and I will hold myself accountable to that decision. There is much more at stake here than many (myself included) have often admitted. It is my most sincere hope that we would not allow ourselves to get involved with the politics of "sides" as it has bred lack of good judgment in the minds of many Americans.

There is no doubt that many of us, candidates included, want something "better" for America. The true debate at this point, is on the definition of "better" and who (or what) will bring us closer to that framework.

 

I so appreciate the conversation on "standards in entertainment" as it relates to children. It all started with a few minor jabs at the movie Shark Tale, a subject I'd like to get off soon (the movie, not the discussion). In anycase, here is my response to Avery's assertions:

My response (in my speaking voice)

And the conversation marches on.

 

Crap. Due to unfinished business I have on a few topics, it looks like I'll be blogging and writing over the weekend, which I hate. Weekends should not be reserved for something so completely anti-social and nerdy.

In any case, while I pull myself together, I ask, what ranks highest on your list of peevish among peevish pet peeves?

I'll start with a few of my own:
- When people on the internet ask you to list your pet peeves
- When people cut you in the line to get off the airplane (where's the fire???)
- Bikeriders that think they're cars
- Idiotic fashion trends
- Audible chewing
- When people pronounce letters in words that shouldn't be announced like the 'p" in "Psalms"
- People who lack conversational self-restraint while riding public transportation...holyzerrubebel! I so do not need to hear about your grandmother's hemorrhoids, really.

Updates later...

 

There is reason why a person shouldn't watch television after one o'clock in the morning. At the top of my list is the train wreck of a show called "Last Call With Carson Daly", a reject late night talk show with C-list guests who clearly know they've hit rock bottom by their very presence on such mediocre tripe. The show's host, Carson Daly, is one of those "never quite recovered after that MTV veejay gig" folks. His guests are quite the same. In any case, last night was a doozie. Daly's guest was none other than Bill "I can say anything I want on national television because I'm a short, insecure white man with no friends" Maher.

For the record, Bill Maher irks me to no end. I think it's his Napoleon complex that just seeps through every last one of his words. People who feel their only job is to blurt out illogical things for the sake of "making people think" are becoming more useless as the days go by.

Maher's ABC show "Politically Incorrect" was de-sponsored due to his lack of post-9/11 requisite patriotism. Immediately following the attacks, he said something to the effect of "what the terrorists did would be considered brave in some countries". The plug was pulled on his show soon thereafter.

Maher had a uniquely contrived way of always setting up his talk show so that he and three "Amen Corner" Liberals were pitted against a lone staunch (and often ill-researched) Conservative. There is something to be said about someone who intentionally sets up situations just so that he can berate others to make himself feel (and look) big. He now has his own gig on HBO. I won't be watching.

But here's what really gets me. Granted, yes as much as it pains me to admit it, Bill Maher has made some (1.5) good points. Although he's been known to poke fun at his own "side" so to speak, I still think we excuse this man far too frequently for inappropriate remarks.

Last night on Daly's show, Maher made the following (paraphrased) remarks concerning hip-hop:

"Rap music is perpetuating the stories and the values of the ghetto. As a result, suburban white girls are prostituting themselves in the mall.

Little "Ashley" is selling her cootchie for Gucci.

Paris Hilton is not a whore, she's just rich.

Rap music is written in ebonics so that parents have no clue what they're saying.

If a Conservative said this, it'd be game over. Heck, if a Conservative said the word "cootchie" alone on national television, no matter what time of day, it'd be on MSNBC.

And for the record, there are other reasons why suburban white girls are prostituting themselves at the mall few of which I assume have much to do with rap.

 

I'm still trying to decide if I should be happy or worried that people sometimes google my name. I mean, afterall, I google friends' names all the time just to make sure they're living. I guess until I see "Ambra Nykol sucks" or "Ambra Nykol's SSN and phone records" as a search term on my referrer log, then I'll think the best and not the worst. Call me a nerd, but my daily (and I mean DAILY) comic relief is reading the list of Google, Yahoo, and other search engrine referrals to this site. But one in particular today totally had me laughing, and I just had to share it with the people:

"How to slipper my bad child"

For the civilized, let me *learn you: "to slipper" means "to spank". Among some of the more frequent searches that lead people to nykola.com:

- "shoe buying addiction"
- "Kerry is my homeboy tshirt"
- "Removing dreadlocks from cats"
- "men wearing womens jeans"
- "men in tight jeans"

I sincerely hope they found what they were looking for.

*It's time for me to finish the Nyktionary. You know it's bad when you start using slang to define slang. In anycase, the vernacular translation makes different verbial use of "To learn", which means to school, to educate, to enlighten.

 

Yeah I know, I don't do this nearly enough so here's the requisite dosage of linkage linky loo:

- Los Angeles Conserva-blonde Moxie is usually a loose-cannon, but she has a funny bit posted this week on coming out of the political closet.

- You must check out this article on babies being born alive after abortion, and the doctors' sick attitudes towards this fact. Good golly we have a merciful God ( Via Avery at SDS )

- Joanne Jacobs brings attention to the latest release of the Hello Kitty Debit MasterCard for girls. Talk about mark of the beast eh? For the record, if I had this when I was 12, I would have WRECKED the bank.

- Sparked by Tiger's consistent tipping of his hat, La Shawn's asking ladies what they miss and appreciate about other old-school, gentlemanly behavior (read: chivalry). Oh where to begin.....

- My column editor mentioned this to me in passing, but Joe at the Evangelical Outpost has some thoughts on Justice Anton Scalia's recent remarks suggesting that sexual orgies should be encouraged because they eliminate social tensions. Okay, Jocelyn.

- Seriously, I've got to quit it with the Oprah talk, but yesterday's show focused on what it's like to be a 30-year-old woman in 30 different countries. Yeah yeah yeah, we all know Oprah's slant, but whereas some people would like to highlight the fact that one of the Iraqi women said "For me, as an Iraqi woman, I don't feel safe," as a means of further berating Bush and the war (note: read Bill Whittle's take on it if you hadn't yet). I haven't heard anyone make mention of the Cuban woman who said by age 30, the average Cuban woman has had four count'em 4 abortions. No complaints about a place where abortions are free and getting a divorce takes 5 minutes and costs $3.50 (American dollars)? I see.

- And lastly, the often foul and way-left proprietor of Dooce.com offers us this photo op of her daughter Leta, sporting a "Mommy Wants a New President" tee. Surprisingly enough, unlike some folks, this doesn't bother me. I'll write later on why I don't have a problem with parents bringing their kids into politics, but not before I finish off this Alan Keyes topical rubbish.

 

I want to re-visit this idea of voting being a right and not a privilege. Coretta Scott King can say whatever she wants. We can make this about semantics or discrimination or "the conspiracy to stop black people from voting Democrat", but I think we need to admit that the word "right" in and of itself has certain faulty connotations. Since the beginning of time, every "right" has had an accompanying responsibility. Voting is no different.

The Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 was created in response to states' failure to do away with voter disenfranchisement on the basis of race and gender most specifically. It was also created to end discriminatory practices in voting among other things.

Since voter disenfranchisement currently exists for certain convicted felons. I suppose you can debate that the penal system has discriminatory practices and thus the Voting Rights Act isn't doing its job. And you'd probably win that debate. But if you ask me, the corrupt nature of our prison system is so far beyond who can and can't vote.

Ex-felons in certain states are the main people in this country being denied the ability to vote. This only reinforces my initial assertion that voting is a privilege.

In a piece called "The Clueless Youth Vote", Hans Zeiger, a 19-year-old textbook Conservative from Washington state and member of our "rebellious generation" (who by the way, on his website is shown in a photo wearing his Eagle Scout uniform, which I find *utterly hilarious...and patriotic) writes the following:

"I reassert that voting is not a right; voting is a privilege. A right is a guarantee that all people have, but in the United States there are conditions attached to voting. Two of those conditions, rightly institutionalized in our system of law, are age and the absence of felony records. A third condition that tends to regulate itself effectively within a free society is education."

Save the bit about education, I happen to agree with Zeiger. That last bit however, is quite a large bit. Zeiger's inference is that our educational system lends itself to preparing voters. More importantly, he vaguely hints at the fact that the "non-educated" shouldn't be voting. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt based on the context of his argument. Still, he better ease back if he's attempting to discredit a specific group of young adult constituents.

In fact, he is. Zeiger's article was in response to his past harsh criticism of Russell Simmons' Hip Hop Action Action Summit, a supposed non-partisan effort, (whose Political Director was once my Liberal name-dropping political professor) out wrangling the culture kids to vote and be proactive in politics. Quite frankly, I think these groups say they're nonpartisan just to get out of donating to a political party. But if you look at the Summit's list of social and political "wants", you'll see they're not exacting pulling for the Right. My favorites on the list are #3 (Total elimination of poverty) and #5 (total elimination of racism and racial profiling, violence, hatred and bigotry). Lofty? Yes. Still, Zeiger referring to them as non-educated? That's an entirely different fish to fry.

Both Zeiger and I share concern about registering masses of young people to vote ill-informed, or ill-indoctrinated. Hip-hop is postured for great influence. I just pray celebrities use it wisely. My next column's on this very topic. But really, I digress.

On the issue of rights, responsibilities and privileges, I think people are getting caught up on the word "right" itself like its some sort of hoo-hah, "freedom march", burn your bra term. Although many of our political cannons often use said word, the basis of what generally enables a person to claim anything as a "right" completely opposes our modern-day concept of what a "right" really means. We think it means entitlement when it actually means responsibility. We have very few true rights, except to breathe, but even that's a privilege.

* I have much respect for the scouts. My brother was one for awhile, until he realized how pansy it was to race wooden cars and milk cartons when he could be playing Sony Play Station and blowing stuff up. Still, the scouts rule.

 

In response to the discussion on entertainer standards, reader Tony writes:

Where do we hold entertainers accountable? Where do we draw the line? How about, I don't know, reaching some kind of consensus that there should be a line? I haven't seen one in a long, long time.

I have raised two daughters, now age 18 & 14, in a society filled with people making a profit peddling soft porn to my kids.

I have no problem with language, nudity, "adult situations", etc. in an adult venue. But oh my God have you seen what passes for PG-13, let alone videos, songs, etc. Or commercials for adult programs broadcast during sporting events, "family" shows, etc.?

The old answer "turn it off" is a cop-out by people making money off titillating 11-year-olds. You can't "turn it off." It is all-consuming.

So I understand why people want to seek retribution against the foulest of these purveyors, even if the current project isn't quite as foul-- see your post re: Christina Aguilera.

She's a perfect example-- do I have a problem watching gyrating, three-quarters naked women. Ahem,...nooo.

Do I have a problem watching an 8-year-old watching the videos, listening to the songs, etc. Oh, yes. Yes, I do.

Just try and stop it, though.

In the words of Ambra Nykol, "Now that'll preach". This discussion will be continued today. Oh yeah, and Avery rebuts. Don't get me started on this one...

Update (10/7): Oops. Sorry Avery. wrong link.