Entries Posted in "December 2004"
« Page 2 of 4 »
May You Live in Interesting Times
December 15, 2004
Oh the lovely world we live in. I'm extremely tired, which means I'm grumpy, which means I'm overly opinionated. Just a few takes on some happenings of the moment:
Accidental Cocaine Killing
The autopsy reports for rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard (a befitting name, really) have returned to show that he died of *gasp* a drug overdose. Now there's a shocker. To capture the media's correct wording, "The death of rapper O.D.B. was deemed an accident by the medical examiner, who said Wednesday that he died from the combined effects of cocaine and a prescription painkiller."
So my question is, at what point is death from cocaine ever an accident? Life is precious. Steward it accordingly.
The Case of the Murdered Fetus
Although most major media has referred to Scott Peterson's second victim as "Connor", their unborn child, the mental midgets at MSNBC have reported that Scott Peterson got the death penalty for murdering his wife Laci Peterson and her "fetus". An excerpted sentence from their most recent report reads, "Peterson was convicted Nov. 12 of one count of first-degree murder in the death of Laci, and one count of second-degree murder for the killing of her eight-month old fetus." Another sentence reads, "Three jurors said at a press conference afterward that they couldn’t let go of the fact that the bodies of Laci Peterson and her fetus had washed ashore a few miles from where Scott Peterson claimed he went fishing the day she disappeared."
Perhaps someone can explain to me how one can "murder" a fetus. According to Webster, the first entry for the verb "to murder" is "to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice". Parenthetical clarity not mine but in fact, Webster's.
Crafty MSNBC. Very crafty. But unfortunately, not crafty enough. I smell bias.
Paternal Failure Goes Primetime
Just when you thought the reality TV craze was going away quietly, some clearly spastic individuals calling the shots at Fox Television thought up another whammy. Slated to air on primetime January 3rd is the new reality show "Who's Your Daddy?" wherein adoptees have to sift through a group of men to find out the identity of their real father in hopes of winning a prize worth $100,000. Because who doesn't want to see that disaster take place on national television! Paternity tests, prize money, and "reality TV"? I believe it's already been done. It's called "The Jerry Spring Show". JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY. Adoption advocates are not happy.
I wonder if Fox realizes that any ground gained in the battle for common sense in good judgement via their arrogant pundits on cable television, is completely lost by their alternative programming.
Pedophilia is Art
The recent release of the film biography of "sex-researcher" (a rather generous title if you ask me) Dr. Alfred Kinsey has barely been in theaters but is on the American Film Institute's list of top 10 movies of 2004. Yep, right up there with Pixar's "The Incredibles". Quite the juxtaposition. And right there cheering the film on is Planned Parenthood President and Chief Executive Liar, Gloria Feldt:
"Kinsey is a powerful reminder of the importance of healthy sexuality and the many impediments to attaining it. The film illustrates the revolutionary nature of applying scientific research to human sexuality, including the study of sexual norms. Though Kinsey himself was as complex and imperfect as any of the rest of us, his groundbreaking research has helped generations to experience pleasure without shame and moved our society toward a place where sexuality can be understood and embraced as a fundamental aspect of our humanity."Kinsey has helped generations experience pleasure without shame? I'm sure Jocelyn Elders would be proud. For that, Kinsey deserves a crusty medal and a spot right next to Sigmund Freud on the list of "Sick and twisted individuals".
Somewhat unrelated: I've never quite understood the whole "sex research industry". It seems to me that people have been having sex for thousands of years with zero problems (so I've heard). Leave it to human beings to come into the fray and jack it up (maybe a poor choice of words) and make things more complicated than they need to be. Then again, on this topic, I'm all theory.
Continue running the great race!
Just In: Americans Stink at Math
It is decidedly so. And it is with a great deal of pride that I admit that I can't even remember the quadratic equation but I've had Robert Frost and Edgar Allen Poe memorized for years. On this topic, I will quote extensively. The New York Times reports (reg req.:
Last week, the United States proved, yet again, that its mathematical literacy is abysmal. In a survey by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, it ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematics, far below Finland and South Korea, and about on a par with Portugal.
The survey tested simple, "everyday" skills like estimating the size of Antarctica or footsteps in the sand. Nonetheless, as in past comparisons, American 15-year-olds did rather better than students in Mexico, Indonesia and South Africa, and substantially worse than those in rich countries, especially Asian ones.
But we mustn't forget that in spite of these facts, we are still better. Let's just continue to recite that to ourselves. We're better we're better we're better we're better.
In his post "If A Train Leaves," fellow blogger Avery Tooley noted some reasons why we lack mathematical aptitude:
Here's my take on the reasons behind our lag: we accept mathematical illiteracy. It's not uncommon to hear people say, "I just don't do math" or "I never was any good at that." And I'm not talking about kids here, I'm talking about adults; not them jokers standin' on the corner, either. I'm talmbout college-edumacated; experts in their fields...will tell you that they aren't good at math and don't fool with it on those grounds. And most of us, even if we don't like it, we'll at least accept it. Now if somebody tried to say that about reading, they'd get blasted out of the water. Mathematics is just as fundamental as reading.
Or is it? It's a safe bet to assume that the Egyptian Africans that built the pyramids weren't exactly dummies. They certainly were smarter than I. Then again, nowadays we have Auto-CAD to do architectural renderings on our behalf. The New York Times continues:
These annual humiliations produce two consistent reactions.
One set of experts grouses that the surveys are unfair: average American students are compared to distant elites; Americans play sports and hold jobs; foreign countries impose national standards while America believes in local school boards.
Another set gloomily predicts that math malaise will ultimately gut the economy, frequently citing an estimate that American businesses waste $30 billion a year on remedial training. (In 1990, the elder President Bush announced an expensive plan to have American students lead the world in math by the year 2000.)
But there is also the Peggy Sue school of thought, which asks: So what?
In all but the most arcane specialties (like teaching math), the need for math has atrophied. Electronic scales can price 4.15 pounds of chicken at $3.79 a pound faster than any butcher. Artillerymen in Iraq don't use slide rules as their counterparts on Iwo Jima did. Cars announce how many miles each gallon gets. Some restaurant bills calculate suggested tips of 15, 18 or 20 percent. Architects and accountants now have spreadsheets for everything from wind stress to foreign tax shelters. The new math is plug-and-play.
True, those calculators and spreadsheets and credit card machines need to be programmed. But, in between bouts of visa restrictions, American universities successfully import thousands of math whizzes each year because jobs await them, and the tiny percentage of American-born students who do Ph.D. work equal the world's best.
In math, as in chess, countries that produce the most grandmasters per capita - like Hungary and Iceland - not only don't rule the world, they don't even rule chess.
This conversation seems a bit chicken and eggish. Although I always found theological error in that "which came first?" scenario. Still, it appears that we Americans need to get our collective beehinds in shape. However, I fear that there is absolutely no motivation to do so. I know I
never had any. After all, we're the best.
In My World
I've been a bit incapacitated these last few weeks because I'm in the process of moving and the utter disaster that is my apartment has rendered my mental faculties useless. I'm one of those people who can't function when there are unfolded clothes on the floor. I am reminded of how much I despise moving and perplexed that my small little personage of all of five-foot-two (and a half) and 23-years of age, managed to amass such an insane amount of stuff in such a short period of time.
Then there's that whole "First Annual Reader Appreciation Card" bit that sounded like a really great and brilliant idea at the time, but 'round about say, oh I dunno, midnight at Kinko's, and one shot of espresso, I think I entered the land of regret. But by golly, I'm a woman of my word, and thanks to my trusty sidekick who shall be revealed at a later time, cards should be shipped tomorrow for those who requested them (AKA, the cool kids on the block). If you didn't and still want one, too bad. I'm not making anymore. Ever. I will give birth to a child before it happens again. (I jest) Don't ever say I don't love you people. Two paper cuts, 5 gluesticks, and a couple hundred bucks later, I have a finished product that is actually quite nifty if I do say so myself.
A bit of Linkology:
- By way of Joanne Jacobs, a recent federal report says that fewer teenagers are having sex. Somewhere in that data there is a discussion on the usefulness of abstinence education.
- The nonpartisan ACLU recently filed suit against the Dover Area School District in Harrisburg, PA for their recent decision to require that "intelligent design" (the belief that the creation of the Universe is so complex, it had to be orchestrated by a higher power) be taught alongside all other theories in science. The ACLU's premise? Good ole separation of church and state. I don't want to be around when the ACLU gets what they deserve.
- Jeff the Baptist took my bait and discusses the overuse of the term "homophobia" by Liberals.
- Angela Winters at "Politopics" discusses the need for leadership and accountability in her post "Hip Hop Politics".
- Reader Janae takes the veil off the confused hype that is Destiny's Child
More in a minute...
A Question I Need Answered
What is the inference behind the phrase, "Give it the old college try"?
Say it Loud: I'm [insert something] and I'm Proud!
December 13, 2004
Perhaps this is the month of disclaimers. I probably should have done this 11 months ago, but oh well. Better late than never. I need to address a few points on racial dialogue on this web space. Warning: this is incredibly screedy.
For starters, I despise the way we discuss issues pertaining to race in this country. To engage in a conversation about physical differences is like partaking in mentally retarded gymnastics. And I'll bet my reference to mental retardation just offended somebody. See what I mean? We are a bunch of politically correct fruitbats.
The thing that really agitates me is that we've created such a hypersensitivity to race in America, that nobody can talk anymore. We're all walking on egg shells and tripping over ourselves to use the right terms. And MY GOODNESS the terms we have created. Mandatory "diversity sensitivity" training isn't training at all. It's just a class on memorizing terms. Race aside, you can spend 30 minutes on sex/gender terms alone. I mean male, female, woman, man, transsexual, transgender, for love's sake how many different ways can you say "confused"?
Next thing you know we'll be creating special compound words for one-eyed 2nd generation immigrants from Finland. We now have to stop ourselves and ask if one should say Latino or Hispanic or Mexican-American or Chicano? So instead, we just say "they" which is likely to cause even more outrage because under no circumstances should one ever say "they" when referencing a racial group of people. Or so "they" say. Another cultural no-no is to refer to a group of individuals as "you people". This will get you beheaded, especially if you have a Southern accent.
This isn't to discount the value in not lumping the vast array of ethnicities into one like when we ignorantly say "Asian" which includes an abundance of different cultures. I say we'd be much better off if we all just went back to Biblical terminology and were known by tribes. Then at least people could simply ask "what tribe are you?" without people being offended.
This isn't to let people off the hook entirely for off-color (no pun intended) racial remarks. While yes, there have been many Southern idiots slurring 19th century rhetoric out of their mouths over the years, that reality just reinforces the fact that America has yet to fully deal with the wounds of the questionable building of this nation. And no, I'm not suggesting "respirations" as Cederic the Entertainer once said in the movie "Barber Shop". I am however, suggesting that we pull the politically correct rug from under this dog-and-pony show we call "racial reconciliation" and start being real.
You'll notice that in much of my discourse, I often deal in black/white relations. I don't do this to exclude others, but I do this because I think one of the biggest rifts present in America is between black people and white people. That isn't to say that there aren't a myriad of other racial issues on the table, but I think a lot of the strife even between the Republicans and Black Democrats is rooted in some pretty serious stuff that usually gets swept under the rug or blown out of proportion, both of which have been detrimental to politics in this country.
I know talking about racial differences makes some conservatives "uncomfortable". Good. God didn't promise us "comfort" in this life. Heh. Now that'll preach.
From the time that I started this welog, I've always talked openly and candidly about race, blackness, black people, and beyond. I do so because well, if you hadn't noticed, in spite of what the inept arbiters of racial authenticity may have childishly suggested, I am a black woman. While some people have tried to exclude their cultural background from their work, I find it virtually impossible to go about being a writer and not communicating my ideas from a place of 100% candidness about who I am, what I'm about, and where I'm coming from. Everyone's opinions on the world come from a location and an experience (or lack thereof).
Perhaps some aren't accustomed to doing so, but I talk about race very flippantly from time to time and it is a centerpiece of humor in my world. A coping mechanism? Perhaps. But I tend to think that I'm just one of those "say what I think" type of people and I find that we all take ourselves just a tad bit too seriously. Growing up attending predominately white private schools gave me a somewhat sarcastic and comical approach to dealing with misconceptions between races. I can't stand when people walk on egg shells about the subject. Just say what you have to say.
If I suggest that black people have a distinct sound to their voice regardless of region or that Samoans are by nature, large individuals, or that white people are the only ones on the planet who wear shorts and sandals in the wintertime, people get uncomfortable because there I go again, associating certain attributes with race. It's taboo. It's wrong. It's a sin! Right? Admittedly, doing this in the past hasn't led to good things for America, but that's mostly because pride came into the picture. But for the record, there is nothing wrong with certain traits or characteristics being specific to a race of people. In many respects, I think God designed it that way. It's man that corrupted it.
I'd rather have people be outright about their bias or misconceptions then try to pander and sugar-coat stuff. At least then I know where they stand. I've never been a very good sugar-coater so I think it better to get stuff out on the table and worry about offending people later. What's "offense" anyway but the result of a society that has told us what is and isn't acceptable. Being "offended" is highly overrated. The only individual worthy of being offended in this lifetime is Jesus Christ because God knows humanity has made an absolute mess and mockery of His sacrifice.
Moving along, although it's not on my short list of allegiances, black skin is what I have and dealing out of any other frame of reference is nearly impossible for me. Just as the fact that I am a woman shapes my worldview, so does the color of my skin whether I want it to or not. None of these things however obscure my view of things as a child of God.
That said, I love being black. I don't boast in it, but I sure will celebrate it as something that short of bleach and some really whack skin grafting, I simply can't get away from. And I'll add that people should love being whatever God created them to be too. Go ahead. Don't be scared. If you're maroon, you better rock that maroon like it's the best thing since sliced bread. That's right folks; I just unleashed permission for the full exercising of white pride. Ain't no shame in loving the skin you're in so long as it's not an idol or the aspect of ourselves that we worship or think superior to others. We've seen where that has landed this country.
I think that opening up the door to speak more frankly with one another will happen when we realize that we all have the bodies we do for a reason. I'm not a fan of superfluous plastic surgery on 22-year-old women who simply don't like their nose. I don't believe God makes mistakes. So in my case, whatever He's purposed me to do on this Earth, He's intended it to be done with brown skin and big eyes (or as they used to teasingly refer to as "Fraggle Rock Eyes"), so I might as well get a matching hat and wear my blackness and big-eyedness in style. You should too. Not your blackness, but whatever inalienable skin color and physical trait you were endowed with.
That's right; say it loud. Throw your fist in the air. As Eminem said, "Mosh". Okay, that's twice in two months that I've positively invoked Eminem's name to prove a point. I think that'll be the last one ever in life.
I've done all this rambling to say that when you come here, please, I beseech you brethern: let your guards down. I'm fairly relaxed when talking about race and I'm not prone to jumping on white peoples' backs because they said something "racial" that rubbed me the wrong way. From white people, I've heard it all. It's the black people that shock me as of late. We all need to cut each other some slack and recognize the place of honesty many are coming from instead of assuming the worst. That said, I'd like to state a couple of general rules:
- Using the terms "Black" and "White" are fine by me. Cut all the "African-American" stuff. It takes too long to type anyway. And who the heck are "Caucasians"?
- Short of epithets, offensive slang and antiquated language, you generally have free reign with me. I'd rather you just say what you're thinking so we can dialogue. If other commenters get offended, that's fine, but I'm not easily offended so if you haven't been banned or scolded by me yet, you're fine.
- Don't attack people; address their ideas. Ad hominems just don't fly around here.
- Don't write-off peoples' personal experiences simply because you can't relate.
Okay. I think that covers it for it now. It's all love here. Even somewhere deep in the cut there is love for Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson too. I'm a uniter not a divider.
Caught in a Fashion Faux-Pas VIII
Growing up around trust fund babies, I learned very quickly that money does not buy taste. Michael Moore is proof of this. Here we have a lovely and well-intentioned woman at some high society function in New York City. No, I wasn't there, but if I were, I may have said something to her to likes of "What on Earth were you thinking!" This picture was snagged from some snooty social diary I forget the name of. As always, the identity of the victim is kept a secret, although it was tempting to leave her face so the world could see that even normal, fairly reasonable looking individuals can fall victim to fashion mis-haps.
If you hadn't noticed, there is really only one issue at hand here: SEVERE OVERUSE OF PATTERNS! It's like attack of Geometry! Is it an outfit or is it an error in Microsoft Word? It's not just the bad 70's blouse with vertical stripes. It's not even the fact that this ensemble looks like it should be on the body of someone who wears thick suntan-colored stockings, orthopedic shoes, smells like Chanel No. 5, and was around before black and white television existed. It's the SKIRT! The geometric skirt that quite simply ruins the outfit for all of eternity.
And somehow, call me crazy, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the tag on this outfit may read: 100% Polyester. Then again, maybe that's just my own prejudice talking.
People people people, if you're going to wear prints, you should usually do so on one half of your body. There are some exceptions to this with well designed outfits, but under no circumstances should different prints be mixed. Do you see what happens when stripes go bad?
We have got to better folks. People are counting on us.
- George and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat
- The Grizzly Bear
- The Blue-Haired, Gun Tights Wonder
- Stripey Girl
- Me Being Stripey Girl
- The Pimp
- The Cowboy Boots
Yeah. So I haven't linked my last two columns because I developed them from some of my posts and well, although they are re-worked, there are similarities that would just be repetetive to regular readers.
But here they are for the heck of it and those that are new:
The Protected Class of Bigots
College Curriculum Gone Bad
WWKD: What Would King Do?
Throughout the decades, a number of liberal individuals have found it wise to link themselves with the work of Dr. Martin Luther King (or as he was referred to affectionately in our household, "The Great Afro-American Negro", a joke only those who endured the awful X/King/Tubman black history month curriculum will get). Of course, given the fact that King was indeed an important leader and activist for justice, associating oneself with him is generally a safe bet. Even the likes of Planned Parenthood have beat the life out of any remaining shred of a tie they may have had with the man that is so highly regarded in America and beyond. It wasn't until my lesbian college American History professor pointed out in class how "conservative" King was that I came to realize that the social activists of the left may have fraudulently appropriated his legacy.
There is a debate raging in the atmosphere about whether or not Dr. King would have been in favor of a ban on same-sex marriages. Even within King's own family, there is division on the issue. King's widow, Coretta Scott King has spoken publicly on more than one occasion about the need for justice for homosexuals, claiming that her husband would have been in favor for the rights of homosexuals to marry. Meanwhile, in opposition to her own mother, King's youngest daughter Bernice said the following at a conference in Auckland, New Zealand:
"I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions."
A few of those who "knew" King, including a friend from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Rev. Joseph Lowery, said if King were alive today, he would view marriage as a "private affair".
The reality is, King never spoke publicly about the issue of homosexuality and today, the frame of reference is quite different.
In the ongoing quest to equate the plight of homosexuals with the civil rights movement, the rainbow brigade is once again up in arms due to a recent Atlanta march in favor of a ban on same-sex marriages. This particular march called "Reigniting the Legacy" from King memorial, also happened to include the late Dr. King's daughter Bernice King, a minister. The Atlanta Constitution-Journal reported:
There they were — thousands of them, wearing long-sleeve black T-shirts with the words "STOP THE VIOLENCE" across the front.
About 50 counter-demonstrators lined the street, singing, "In the name of Jesus, hate has got to go."
And so it went Saturday morning, as Bishop Eddie Long, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Church, a predominantly black megachurch, led a march from the King Memorial to Turner Field calling for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
As the 45-minute march from the King Center to Turner Field concluded, Long told his supporters, some shivering from temperatures in the 40s, that it was time for the black community to be heard.
"We can't be silenced," Long said to cheers in a parking lot outside of Turner Field.
"We are not marching against folks," he said. "We are marching for folks."
Earlier, as the group made its way to Turner Field, Bernice King, youngest daughter of the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and an elder of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, one of the largest in Atlanta, walked arm in arm with Long, the church's senior pastor, and his wife, Vanessa.
The backlash from this march has been predictable. In typical childish fashion, Bernice King's stance on this issue has earned her the title of "House Nigga" in some circles. This black on black hate thing? It's getting old.
Liberals and gay-rights activists (often the same individuals) are outraged at the fact that their beloved Dr. King was associated with anything opposing homosexual marriage. Among the many protesters from gay-advocacy groups were signs that read "I STAND IN OPPOSITION OF NEW BIRTH'S HOMOPHOBIC MARCH". Right. I love how the Left uses "homophobia" as a scare tactic; as if being called "homophobic" is something new or offensive. The following are a few quotes regarding the recent event:
"If Dr. King were here today, he wouldn't participate in this march," said U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a veteran of the civil rights movement who marched alongside King. "During the civil rights movement, we were trying to take discrimination out of the Constitution."
"I think it's very sad. I think he's abusing the good name of Dr. King and the work he did creating equality for all Americans," said Chuck Bowen, a spokesman for Georgia Equality.
A great success of liberal groups has been to disconnect the work of Dr. King with the fact that he was a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. People love to call King "Doctor" but rarely do they refer to him as "Reverend". We don't hear a great deal mentioned about King's ministry and his sermonizing from the Bible. There was once a day when "social justice" and politics were closely tied with the "black church". Based on the fact the King was a Bible-believing Baptist (and assuming he didn't subscribe to the private interpretation methodical, choose-your-own-adventure brand of Christianity), we can deduce that he probably did not condone homosexuality as a lifestyle. Although, Liberals will point to the fact that one of King's top advisers and organizers for the March on Washington, Bayard Rustin, was an openly homosexual man as proof positive that King was in favor of homosexual marriage. The reality is, this example merely shows us that King was in favor of showing an attitude of love towards all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. This is simply the cause of Christ. However, the philosophy of King is currently being distorted to support the homosexual agenda.
Fundamentally, the debate gets murky. Earlier this year, Thomas Sowell wrote an article called 'Gay Marriage' confusions, in which he points out the holes in the arguments being made by gay rights activists. Sowell wisely notes:
Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as the "gay marriage" issue.
There is, for example, the argument that the government has no business getting involved with marriage in the first place. That is a personal relation, the argument goes.
Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a legal relation. To say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say that government has no business governing.
Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what happens between "consenting adults" in private is none of the government's business. But now gay activists are taking the opposite view, that it is government's business -- and that government has an obligation to give its approval.
The last refuge of the gay marriage advocates is that this is an issue of equal rights. But marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three or four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes and species?
Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that.
Even at the individual level, men and women have different circumstances, if only from the fact that women have babies and men do not. These and other asymmetries in the positions of women and men justify long-term legal arrangements to enable society to keep this asymmetrical relationship viable -- for society's sake.
Neither of these considerations applies to unions where the people are of the same sex.
The whole debate of "justice" and the government's role in defining marriage is already an argument with many sides. That said, in the context of the Civil Rights movement, the "rights" to King's legacy cannot be bought without taking into account the fact that he was a Christian man. And of all the reading I've done of King's work, speeches and books, the running throughline seems to be his commitment and devotion to God first. I doubt we would ever see King, a man of faith, a Reverend, raised in a fundamentalist home, publically rallying in favor of a woman's right to murder her unborn child.
A little perspective here please.
Based on a 2004 Black Entertainment Television and CBS poll, more than half of black Americans oppose same-sex marriages. In fact, this has been the very issue that has gained President Bush more support from the black communitiy. This "majority" is not new, but speaks to a culture that is deeply rich with a history of Christianity. As a whole, the black community has always been more socially conservative. That majority is telling. King represents a generation whose activism was rooted in an understanding of God's intention for humanity.
I find it highly interesting that the homosexual community--number one hijackers of the King legacy--are crying heresy at the fact that Christian leaders are invoking his name when King was in fact a Christian. In spite of what his own wife may be saying, there is no finality of the argument on where King would have stood on this 21st century issue. Post-Civil Rights Coretta Scott King has been sketchy on more than just this issue.
There have already been many developments over time that have shown us that Dr. King wasn't the flawless leader everyone believed him to be. I certainly don't discount him from taking a stance I don't agree with. I would however, like to see a proper examination of this issue in light of King's moral convictions.
Doubt it will happen anytime soon. After all, King is the "Great Liberal Mascot".
The Images We Buy
December 10, 2004
Carrying over from some of the comments addressing my assertion that black women are oversexualized in media, I frame a statement Actor Will Smith made in the form of a question:
Is Hollywood "black", "white", or is it green?
Seattle Judge Says Parental "Snooping" is Illegal
These people are out of their minds.
Washington State Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a mother's eavesdropping on a telephone conversation between her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend violated "children's privacy".
The Seattle Times reports:
The high court unanimously reversed a 2000 robbery conviction against Oliver Christensen, 22, of Friday Harbor, in a case based in part on the testimony of the mother and what she heard in that telephone conversation.
"The court said it is against the law to intercept or snoop on anybody's private conversation and that even a child has privacy rights," said Christensen's attorney, Michael Tario. "And further, the law says it is a crime for someone to do that, and that whatever is heard cannot be mentioned in court."
The mother, Carmen Dixon, was incredulous.
"I just believe you have the right to know what your kids are doing and who they're doing it with," said Dixon, 47, of Friday Harbor. "We were having a hard time with her as a teenager. She was sort of out of control."
When I was growing up (I arguably still am), my mother would threaten to knock the sense out of me if I even suggested that she had
to knock before entering my room. My favorite line of hers, "I'll be required to knock when you participate in paying the mortgage."
Now I'm all for respect between parents and children, but if a parent wants to eavesdrop on their child's conversation, I say more power to them. Maybe we can intercept some more bedroom bomb-building that way. What is all this talk of "rights" anyway?