« August 2004 | Main | August 2007 »

[ File these under "Life" ]
Life presents us certain moments that tell us a bit about ourselves. On Thursday night, while driving down a non-busy street, minding my own business, acting like a good American citizen, a huge Yukon Denali makes an erratic turn, runs a red light and comes barreling towards my driver's side door. I had the right of away. Apparently, he didn't care.

Thankfully, being a dancer gave me great reflexes and I was able to veer off, screetching my breaks and honking my horn simultaneously. He did the same and we missed eachother by an inch. Just to be sure I wasn't going to have to deal with insurance agents, I hopped out to assess potential damage. Nothing.

The assailant, clearly not willing to admit he could've wiped out my life by his failure to abide by the law, jumps out to declare, "I didn't even see you," how responsible of him. I then caught a glimpse of the sticker on his car window. It read, "Kerry/Edwards 2004."

"Figures," I thought. And what does it say about me that I even thought that? Time for a self-check. Not cool.

In other news...there's nothing like getting a birthday card from your mom that reads,

"When I think of you and the beautiful, intelligent, self-assertive, and directed young woman you have become, I am so proud that God chose me to be your mother."

Turns out I'm not a screw-up after all.

Over the past couple of days, Democrat vampires have been giving themselves hernias over the recent suspicions that Alan Keyes' 19-year-old daughter, Maya Keyes is a lesbian. Nate Livingston of "Black Cincinnati Blog" seems to think that conservatives, especially black, Christian ones are hiding out on this issue,

For all their holier-than-thou lecturing to us common folks, our friendly neighborhood Christian conservatives seem mighty silent on the Maya Keyes situation. It's not just the white Christian bloggers who remain silent, everyday I read a number of blogs run by people who call themselves Black Christian conservatives but I have yet to read where one of them has called for Alan Keyes' to publicly comment on the scandal, encourage his daughter to fess up and sin no more, and take personal responsibility for his prior statements.

I assume the "prior statements" to which Livingston is referring would be those where Keyes called homosexuality an "abomination". Since the gauntlet is thrown, don't think I won't have something to say.

First of all, will the entirety of all the blogosphere please get a grip. For goodness' sake, Rathergate has sent the entire Left of the blogosphere running, trying to crack the next big story. The walls are not going to come crashing down on this one folks and I'll tell you why after I confirm the facts. Because I desire to be a "good journalist" (she says half-heartedly), it's worth nothing that everything up until this point is alleged.

Thus far, the abundance of speculation and reporting with regards to this story has taken place on the internet. The last few weeks of CBS scandal have confirmed that if ever there were a place for a story to be cracked, it'd be the internet.

The Democrat-worshipping Daily Kos, (which is by the way, now a "certified" Google news source, God help us all) reported today that a TV host on a local public television show "Chicago Tonight" covered the story on-air Wednesday evening. Other than that, mass media coverage has mostly been nilch. Perhaps most papers and news stations are smart enough to know you have to be careful when you're reporting on speculated information. Then again, that logic doesn't exactly hold up, not even for me. The NY Daily News picked up on it, as well as the ever-wholesome Wonkette, who managed to call Keyes a "rampant homophobe", one of the many words Anna Marie Cox uses incorrectly.

So here's the media's (and mostly Liberals') beef: they want Keyes to come out (for lack of a better phrase) with a statement on this whole situation. No doubt, there is ultimately hope that Keyes will be forced to back off from his harsh stance against the homosexual lifestyle. This is of course, the goal of those who support the "non-existent agenda"--to discredit those who are against them.

The Illinois Leader, a Conservative news source, also noted Keyes' silence in a recent Southside Chicago Town Hall meeting,

"the press was anticipating that Ambassador Keyes would break news Monday night in response to web-related questions which began to appear over the weekend on gay blogs and gradually found their way onto Rich Miller's CapitolFax Monday morning.

Miller's daily newsletter alluded Monday to an expected revelation as to whether Alan Keyes' 19 year old daughter Maya and Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary could have similar sexual proclivities.

All day Monday web bloggers fanned the rumor flame and discussion loops added to the speculation that Keyes, who has been outspoken in the U.S. Senate campaign against the homosexual lifestyle, may parent a teenager who has experimented with homosexuality and has posted photos of herself and her girlfriend on the internet.

But as Keyes left the Southside township meeting exiting directly behind the podium, he was uncharacteristically resistant to media questions as he quickly slid into the passenger front seat of his white Lincoln Continental with his daughter Maya in the back seat. Neither of the two chose to respond to questions being raised "all over the internet" one reporter said, about Keyes' daughter.

The fact that Maya Keyes is only 19-years-old will be a concern to many. I need to compile my research and I'll opine definitively on this tomorrow. I've already drawn my conclusions, but it's always nice to back it up with facts. And what pray tell does the peanut gallery have to say to this?

Twenty-year-old Ben Shapiro, columnist, law student, speechwriter, and "Young Republican" (by the way, I dated one of those once...never again), writes on why people in our age bracket are voting for Bush:

"People my age don't vote much. This election should break from that pattern. While a lower percent of 18-year-olds to 30-year-olds will vote than those in other age ranges, the percent will rise from 2000. And there's no guarantee that the youth vote will be a boon for Sen. John Kerry. In fact, the latest Washington Post/ABC poll shows George W. Bush holding a 53-41 percent lead among those aged 18 to 30, the highest level of support for Bush among any age group.

Young people are turning more and more away from the solutions of the Democratic Party. The old adage that as people age they tend to become more Republican is being turned on its head in this election: The Washington Post/ABC poll shows that Kerry's support comes from those among the 61 or older population. A September 2002 University of California at Berkeley study showed that on certain social issues, young people were more likely than their elders to slant conservative. Those between ages 15 and 22 showed markedly more support for school prayer, faith-based initiatives and government restrictions on abortion than adults over 26. Virginity rates are rising, and teenage pregnancy rates are dropping."

Shapiro goes on to note the discrepancies within the 18 to 20 crowd:

"The evidence isn't unanimous, however. The 18 to 30 crowd has the lowest approval ratings for President Bush of any voting group. My peers largely support the gay activist agenda and higher education costs, and feel that depictions of violence and sex in mass media do little harm. Those virginity statistics may be misleading: There is a rising contingent of young people who have oral sex but still count themselves virgins. Only 41 percent of 18 to 30s say President Bush shares their values, while 45 percent say John Kerry does -- it's the only age group to sympathize with Kerry's values over Bush's."

Shapiro's further analysis is worth reading. Within my social circle, my peers are most definitely divided, even though many of us share in the same moral worldview. A good take away from this article, and also worth noting by the older generation is that the younger generation is not as monolithic as our culture would paint us to be. Even within our age bracket, you will find people at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Believe it or not, there is a matter of strategy that goes into what I post on this website. I do not buckshot, nor do I generally shoot from the hip (I stress generally). This is not CNN, CSPAN, or any other affiliate and therefore I am not obligated to cover every angle and matter of media. That would be boring. That would be ordinary. That would be Barbara Walters. And guess what? I don't have advertisers, nor am I running for public office or being paid by my viewers or some immoral publisher and thus I have no loyalties to what I can and cannot discuss 'round these parts. It is a position I quite like as of now. How I discuss issues is always up for debate, but in all things, I believe I am at least civil.

The driver's seat from this weblog is interesting in that I can pretty much predict who will comment on what I write and how. The rare times that the predictability is gone amazes me. Still, I always enjoy the feedback and tangents people go on. I learn a lot from my commenters.

That said, I do find it highly amusing that certain people have suggested that I "harp" on a few issues a little too often. My understanding of "too often" implies that there is some sort of norm for how many times any particular subject can be discussed on one's personal website that they in fact pay for out of their own pocket. This ladies and gentlemen, is just silly.

I also understand that for whatever reason of personal offense and/or sacredness, tunnel vision often sets in as well as the illusions of grandeur and the "discerning reader" now becomes the dramaturg/editor/conspiracy theorist, searching out my weblog for key words to further prove their suspicions that I have purposed my entire identity as a writer on the discussion of one single, solitary issue.

A few people on more than one occasion, have suggested that I discuss "gay issues" too often. More often than say, Andrew Sullivan? And since I'm certain no one is complaining about me talking about being "happy" and "merry" too ofen, by "gay issues", I suppose they mean the same issues that are first being reported in increasing measure by our very credible, very un-biased newspapers and MSM, discussed in our very non-partisan Capitol, and taught in our very even-sided public schools.

I would prefer not to embarrass those making such accusations by reverting to my inner math nerd and pulling out the hard statistics which can prove that not only do I talk about "gay issues" less than I make of fun of the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Michael Moore, but in all my 333 some odd posts thus far, I've probably discussed the "non existent agenda" in less than 2% of them.

I regret to inform said individuals that if they are offended by less than 2%, then perhaps I should be offended by the more than 75% I have to see every time I attempt to watch television or go to a movie.

It is rather telling however, that no one seems to voice a problem with me discussing abortion, John Kerry, black politicians, or any other matter of politics in increasing frequency. Yes, rather telling indeed. It seems we've hit the taboo subject of the century. The subject everyone else can discuss openly so long as its praised and accepted. I find that highly amusing.

This is the direction in which America shall head if we're not careful. Tuesday, it was announced that France is launching its first ever gay television channel, "PinkTV". The AP reports:

The transgender sportscaster wears a miniskirt, the porn is gay, lesbian and bisexual, and Wonder Woman will be on every night at seven. France's first gay television channel, PinkTV, is an eye-opener. And that's the point. Pink's founders believe there's a ready audience for the channel, and not just among France's estimated 3.5 million gays.

Pink's "a giant leap for television, a small step in high heels," said presenter Eric Gueho in a promotional clip shown at the channel's unveiling Tuesday, which was feted with pink champagne.

Oh but it gets worse (emphasis mine):

France has in recent years made big strides, legally recognizing gay couples and electing a gay mayor for Paris. Homophobic remarks will be punishable with prison and fines under a draft law expected to be debated in parliament before the year's end.
.....................
But Pink is the first nationally broadcast gay channel of its kind, said its founder and president, Pascal Houzelot. Pink is aiming for at least 180,000 subscribers. Houzelot said he expects half the audience will be in the Paris region.

"Pink is coming at the right moment," he said. "There's an evident change in mentalities. We've seen society changed. We've seen the law change ... In France, we can clearly say that gays have gone from the era of tolerance to the era of legality, which simply means equality."
.....................
There'll be debates Mondays on homophobia, gay unions, gay parenthood and other topics, a chat show Thursdays and X-rated films four nights a week after midnight. The actors will wear condoms.

Oh great, Condoms too! How "safe" of them. The article also noted some strides in Britain to produce similar programming, citing two recent efforts, "GayTV" (because apparently, HGTV isn't already gay enough), and "GayDate", a teleshopping channel (because we all know there are just obvious differences between "gay" shopping and "hetero" shopping right?). No comment.

While we're on the topic of HGTV (Home Garden Television Network) and the non-existent agenda I'm pretending to discuss, I feel the need to point out the fact that a few weeks ago, when I saw Bill Cosby live here in Seattle, he too spoke about how sick he was of hearing (and I quote) "lisp-ing men" talking about drapes at three o'clock in the morning. Further proof that "the Cos" just plain rocks. You will never have him Liberals, you will never have him!

But back to the non-existent agenda. Honestly, this "television venture" is no suprise coming from a country like France. In general, Europe is a bit more "advanced" than we in their definitions of "liberty". Here in America, we think these things are far from us, but I caution us, the decisions we make politically with regards to the "non-existent agenda" over the next decade will have a profound impact on the morality of our country. Until then, PinkTV's president Houzelot notes (emphasis mine),

"Perhaps we'll set ourselves apart in the way we tackle subjects and the subjects that we tackle. Clearly, it will address itself in the first instance to gays but is much larger than that and will, I hope, seduce a diversified public."

Hello public.

So riddle me this: why is it not okay to ask an older woman her age, but younger women must supply their age to the masses on a consistent basis? In light of a recent event in my life, I feel it necessary to address a most troubling double-standard.

I have never quite been able to wrap my mind around the whole "I'm too embarrassed, uncomfortable or insecure to tell you my age" mentality. I mean, sure, I'm young so perhaps that will change in the future, but I have always grown up in a family full of black women who had no problem telling you how old they were, what year they were born in, and would even go as far as to name off the current events that took place in that year as proof of the fact that they were they age they claimed to be. Furthermore, age was not only comfortable voiced in my family, it was flaunted and used as a weapon to the likes of, "Well I'm "X" years-old and I've lived a little longer than you so shut your smart, 'know-it-all' mouth, you little precocious girl you!" Perhaps that was just my family.

It is increasingly evident that human beings--Americans more particularly--don't like the aging process. Maybe it's the idea of impending death and most peoples' ambiguous non-reality of an afterlife, or fear of the unknown, but with the more widespread use of Botox, collagen shots, plastic surgery, tummy tucks, and face lifts, women especially, have sought out a means of remaining "forever young".

Today, the search for the fountain of youth presses onward with the new trends in health consciousness, wellness, "spirituality" and lifestyle changes. I am certain this is a good direction, but it won't be without a few capitalistic ventures. If CNN told the country that eating pigs feet would automatically reduce wrinkles, we would immediately have a pig-slaughtering epidemic on our hands.

In attempts to keep up with "Hollywood" and the so-called images of how a certain age should look, women will go to great lengths to either hide, defy, or ignore their age. Quite simply, I don't get it. Well, I do, but I reject it.

I probably get asked my age at least five times a week. I would like to think there are a couple of reasons for this. One being, I probably sound older than I look, and the cognitive dissonance of clearly articulated thoughts and words coming from the mouth of someone who when donning blue jeans can easily pass for "sixteen", is a bit much for many to handle. Two being, I both look and actually am too young to have the job I do and thus people in the workplace feel they have the moral responsibility to point this out in front of everyone at business meetings. Three being, quite simply, young people don't have feelings and thus we are exempt from being treated like everyone else.

My first inclination of this reality is to get irritated and persnickety because for every person who simply asks out of burning curiosity, there is someone else who asks so they can treat me accordingly. Unfortunately for me, my general "I don't care what you think" attitude can't really co-exist with the socially-driven responsibility to be irritated I feel I must have. I mean, can you ever imagine sitting in a presentation and asking the middle-aged woman presenter, "Oh by the way, how old are you?" I think not. And what exactly is "middle-aged" anyway? Different things to different people.

Our society doesn't usually view seniority as a good thing. Well, except in academia and broadcast journalism, in which case, the more decrepit and crusty-looking you are, the better. A few years ago, an associate of mine turned the big 50 and when her birthday rolled around, she requested that we not announce her age to others. That was of course, her choice, but what's not to be proud of about making it half a century? Everyone doesn't have to gloat like Oprah, but at least represent for your decade! Instead, many would that no one know their age and do their best to conceal it.

Tangentially, there is a lot more that can be said cause/effect wise on our increased treatment of seniors like second-class citizens. We are the throw away generation. Once we don't feel we have a use for something, we dispose of it (or put it in a convalescent home). Other countries and cultures I've encountered seem to do a much better job of revering and respecting those who are senior in age. In doing so, they encourage others to embrace all that comes with wisdom and aging. Not so in America, and television doesn't help this, but that's another topic.

Honestly, I don't mind being asked my age because I am proud and will continue to be proud of the years I've been blessed with thus far. There are times when it works against me, but if anything, supplying my age gives me an opportunity to re-define stereotypes for those who'd like to put me on their monolithic timeline. Still, I can't help but wonder A) Why Americans are so hung-up on age? and B) Why there is an age double standard for young people.

Addendum (9/29): This site design will be changing soon.

I am happy to officially report that indeed there is a balm in Gilead. Yes; I have confirmed that there is emotional healing available after a nightmarish web fiasco. I feel like I just went through a nasty custody battle. The computer was trying to take my child weblog. Thankfully, in the wee hours of the morning, I won.

The last few days tested the repetoire of my Christian profanity. The number of "hecks, darns, craps and dangits" I've uttered over this past week are too numerous to count. But since my mother might be reading this, I'm going to say only "10 times" okay, geez.

If it wasn't already bad enough that my re-design sent me into literal configuration Hades, Blogger, my now old and defunct publishing platform went all illegitimate child on me and stopped working. To them I officially say good riddance! Don't let the door knob hitcha where the good lord splitcha!

Special thanks to Erica, a reader, Movable Type installer, and receiver of my late night complaining via yahoo instant messager. Erica, There is a special place in blog heaven for you.

About the re-configuration: If it's not abundantly clear, I try not to take myself too seriously and this is the design at which I arrived to convey that point. It'll make do until I "officially" have to grow up, mature and start using geriatric colors like grey, brown, and chartreuse.

I kept the black cartoon chick by popular demand. Now she's not only fashionable, but also "peering" over the edge of political correctness.

Comments are now imbedded. I'm actually a bigger fan of "pop-up" comments, but at 2 o'clock in the morning, you stop being picky. We'll see how much I like it. Comments from my old site are slowly being imported over. There's too much good stuff on there for me to just let it go. I've not abandoned links either. They are getting an overhaul and will be up shortly.

Lastly, as always, please let me know if you experience any difficulties with the site (e.g. slow-loading, strange layout, missing info, etc.).

Fret not. I'm back with a vengeance. New posts in a bit...there is much to talk about. I'm bursting.

Co-worker #1: Does anyone know if Halloween is a holiday exclusive to the United States?
*The Smart Chick: I think it is.
Co-worker #2: Yeah, because my sister lives in Copenhagen and she said that in Denmark, they think it's really weird that we celebrate...
Co-worker #1: spirits!?
*The Smart Chick: Yeah tell me about it. And evil ones at that.
Co-worker #3: HA. America...it's full of pagans.

My sentiments exactly. It turns out Halloween is not exclusive to the U.S. in origin, although, the motivation behind something like "All Hollow's Eve" has varying manifestations around the world such as "All Saints Day" or "Day of the Dead". It's amazing what temporary consciousness people have in the workplace. More on this later.

*The "Smart Chick" is me.

Thanks everyone for the birthday wishes, comments, e-cards, and emails. I had some trouble reading them because my vision has been deteriorating since I hit the big 23.

I also thank those who gave compliments on my hat, but still managed to poke fun at my horizontally striped shirt. Your names were filed under, "People I Should Party With".

Sincerely,
the nykola.com proprietress

Tomorrow, I go to the dark side of 23. I don't have a problem with aging, I'm just not a big fan of prime numbers. In any case, I think this age will suffice. Still, I am mourning the loss of 22. Twenty-two was so nice, so round, so evenly divided by two.

This past year, I grew leaps and bounds. I didn't graduate from college, but instead graduated from regret (and boy does it feel good). With every year comes new realizations and thus I give you my analysis of the knowledge I should have amassed by now:

1. Failure to "Repondez S'il Vous Plait" aka "RSVP" is tacky.
   
2. No matter how nice, likeable, mean, or detestable you are, people will always find a reason to hate you. People are fickle, get over it. Plus, who cares.
   
3. Obedience is a quadrip-tillion-gaggle times better than Sacrifice.
   
4. Every problem, big or small, has a solution that originates in prayer.
   
5. No amount of counseling, therapy, and chanting will heal the world. Some people (in fact all people) just need Jesus.
   
6. Michael Jackson is one of those people.
   
7. Life is not fair, and then you die.*
   
8. RuPaul is most definitely gay.

9. There is no glory in evading the police and making it one more day driving with
   expired car tabs. It is shameful (and illegal).
   
10. Driving on gasoline fumes because you want to wait until you can fill up at the
    "cheaper" gas station is stupid, dumb and idiotic.
    
11. Watching television is generally counter-productive.*
    
12. Jeopardy, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and Family Feud will NEVER send me the $98 million check they owe me for all my "correct" answers
    
13. I am lactose intolerant.*
    
14. $1.50 charges at the cash machine are evil and to be avoided.
    
15. Renting is like throwing money down the toilet.
    
16. People who talk too much are usually hiding something.
    
17. Credit cards are generally bad.
    
18. A good mattress is worth the extra bucks.
    
19. Naps are a novelty.
    
20. O.J. did it.
    
21. Having two living parents who love you is a VERY good thing.
    
22. Wealth and Riches are not synonymous terms.
    
23. 20 pairs of black shoes is probably enough.
    
24. Memorizing appointments doesn't work.
    
25. There are consequences to staying up late.
    
26. Hats make me look silly.

* Realities that when faced with, I usually ignore.

Words I MUST use more often, especially when referring to my nemesis in politcs:

Persnickety
Sidity
Trifling
Dinghy
Masticate
Puckfist
Nincompoop

From the time I was first exposed to the feather-ruffler that is Michelle Malkin, I knew the girl had something to be admired. For starters, she wasn't a hag. Maybe a sense of style and the ability to put one's self together doesn't rank high in your books, but the Madeline Albright era left much work to be done by way of female presentation. Unfortunately, unlike men, women don't get the luxury of looking like decrepit death twice over on national television. But more than that, I was intrigued by a woman, who although clearly stood on a few soapboxes that philosophically rubbed me the wrong way, was dignified enough to say what she felt needed to be said, and did so with more grace than the average person. I say this to preface my dissatisfaction with her latest gutsy book release, In Defense of Internment. I say this with an ounce of humility in light of discussing someone who had the decency enough to link to my writing. I'm not into trashing folks for the sake of trashing. I think it better to look at this issue from a broader perspective.

Malkin clearly has her pet issues, as do all pundits, thinkers, and commentators. Some of her thoughts on education, immigrants, and racial profiling perturb me to no end, but then again, so does my mother, and I am still thankful to have her in my life. My initial response upon hearing that Malkin had written up some 400+ pages defending an event most people had generally decided was a very bad thing, was probably the same as many, "What in tarnation is she thinking?" Exactly. She's thinking. I will never be intelligent enough (or interested enough) to delve into the deep history and specifics of the events surrounding Japanese internment, or excuse me "relocation". But I'm going to go out on a limb and say, the bad probably outweighed the good. While I can personally see no justified reason why anyone would focus that much energy on defending such a matter of treachery, I respect her right to do so and appreciate the challenge she brings.

Since the book's release, the liberal forces have sought Malkin's demise and have done so in all manner of uncouth and un-hometrained behavior. From attacking her looks, to calling her out of her name, the swastika signs, and various disrespectful demonstrations of displeasure don't bode well with me, regardless of how I may feel about the book. There is something bigger here. This type of outrage is Rather a bit telling. How can people start displaying the very same hatred they profess to be against? I think I get it, Americans don't like to be challenged to change their thinking.

Doctors and scientists have released studies that confirm that the part of the brain that must react to any type of change is the one of the most resistant. Be it quitting a bad habit, or changing the way you think about yourself, studies have shown that human nature is not as open to change as we might think.

Getting back to my initial comments about Malkin, I have come to realize that she fills an important role in our society and that is to challenge the status quo. In America, we train people in such a way that discourages them from challenging certain topics. The concept is similar to what I discussed in the "Untouchables". There are certain realms of questionability that remain off limits if you wish to be liked by the masses. Next to slavery and the Holocaust, Malkin couldn't have picked a hotter topic. Regardless of my stance, I appreciate anyone who is willing to do this with tact.

There is validity in jumping to an extreme to prove a point if it shifts a few dusty tectonic plates. Even someone like Al Sharpton, (I am cringing at the fact that I'm bringing myself to say this), serves a purpose in the development of right-wing policy. Sharpton is a thorn in the side of many a Republican. He is illogical, irreverent, and he probably wears a weave. Nevertheless, I would be remiss if I didn't concede that he has made some very valid points "the right" has yet to address.

Once in an interview with Jerry Falwell, Sharpton asked a pointed question, "But Jerry, what are you all doing to take care of the widow and the orphan?" Falwell had nothing to say. Those are the times you just turn off the television.

To be clear, by no means do I compare Michelle Malkin to Al Sharpton as I don't believe anyone deserves that type of degradation. What I do believe is that the presence of a voice willing to say seemingly irrational things (or in Sharpton's case, lies) in spite of what others may think is valuable to this country's growth>. Even if they are proven wrong, it strengthens the apologetic front necessary for every philosophy, ideology, and movement.

Thomas Sowell said it best in his review of Malkin's book,

"Agree or disagree with her book, it makes us think -- and political correctness is no substitute for thought."

[ Read Parts One, Two, and Three ]

It has become increasingly clear to me that this world is into "labels". Our desire for "titles" and "affiliations" is evident everywhere we look. From religious denominations to school pride, Greek societies, organizations and cults, it is quite obvious that people, all people, whether they admit it or not, wish to be affiliated with something. My reasons for not being a Republican are no different than my reasons for not being a Democrat. Quite frankly, I'm not interested in pledging sold-out allegiance to an entity with which I don't always agree. And I'm even less interested in doing so to something that can't save my soul.

I'm sure there is some deep analysis about the "pack mentality" or "the nature of gang activity" that could explain our human need to coexist amongst others who are accepting, affirming and predisposed to think like us. Deep analysis and statistics aside, I'm not entirely convinced political parties are doing the best job at fostering the critical thinking and independence of thought needed to carry us into the next millennium.

By independence of thought, I mean one's ability to distinguish and defend one's own disagreement with a particular platform of the same party to which one belongs. The ability is greatly diminished by a society that doesn't encourage proper critical thinking, and a political party system that often blurs the concept of independent judgement. One should never sacrifice their own convictions for the sake of furthering and strengthening any such entity. We should not be voting according to party, we should be voting according to issues.

Often, true identities get lost in the sea of false allegiance. I affectionately call it "the title wave". That is, the overwhelming need for others to initially distinguish themselves by some fabricated title; in this case more specifically, it's their political affiliation.

I realize that different scenarios in life bring out the "title wave" more than others. When you asked "who I am", convenience requires that I give a few buzz words, and throw out a couple of affiliations so I can immediately be pigeon-holed, categorized, cross-referenced, and indexed for future opinion. Or in other words, pegged. The pegging takes place and I am then required to think according to the norm of how society has determined my "category" thinks. It is a crisis more than anyone cares to admit. The presence of this reality offers little motivation for checking the big "R" for life.

As a prime example of this identity crisis phenomenon, I often refer to one of my revelatory (also known as a "Heavy-Revy") moments. A situation that took place in a college "African American Politics" class I once pretended to take, showed me something I hadn't previously noticed about human nature. College, as an example, is a place that brings out the "title wave" (by the way, the web is too). The professor at the time, a black woman, 24-year-old Ph.D political scholar know-it-all, clearly completely and utterly infatuated with her own "greatness" and "wonder", casually opened up the floor on the first day of class for students to "say a little about themselves". She began by subtly seeking out our adoration, telling us she'd just gotten off the phone with Condoleeza Rice.

So went the typical going around the room, introducing ourselves by affiliation and political stance: "I'm a Liberal, White, Vegan," and "I'm a Russian, left of center Roman Catholic," and so on. Granted, yes it was a class in "politics", but the professor never said "tell us where you stand on illegal aliens and your opinion of the Republican Party". No, she said "tell us a little about yourself" and left it open-ended. Apparently, to some, identity is found in political stance.

These days, we talk about political positions as though they are some sort of special dosey-do or director giving stage directions. Left, right, center, middle, center-left, right-front, up, down, left-right, middle-up! What's next? Tricks and roller skates? All the directions are making me dizzy.

So I'm Ambra, the millenial "conservative" black girl. Loddy frickin' da. I am beginning to despise the term "conservative" more every time I have to write it because quite frankly, I don't care what you call me, as long as you understand my position, and call me a child of God.

As allegiances to political parties grow, so does the mess and hatred that entangles the ecosystem of ideas. In the Genesis of political parties, one would think eternal enmity was placed between the donkey and the elephant. We're talking flaming hot, Grand Canyon type enmity with a nail bed, flashing lights and a big red sign that says "BEWARE OF IDIOTS ACROSS THE ENMITY".

Sure, Democrats and Republicans share opposing philosophies, but by nature of how our political system works, both parties have been indoctrinated to always assume the other is the anti-Christ. And while I generally maintain that the political parties influenced by "Liberal" philosophy don't rightly align themselves with my worldview, I certainly know that there are Republicans in the Senate, who would split hell wide open if today were the day of final determinations.

Behind every law, philosophy, and platform, there are live breathing humans, many of whom aren't even fully convinced of what they believe. We have lost touch with the human side and become far too acquainted with the impersonal, monolithic side of political thought. In attempts to automatically combat what the other "side" is communicating, both parties often forego thinking and reasoning for the sake of being "right".

I say this next wave of politics in America is going to be very uninteresting unless we as citizens and more specifically "conservative" citizens start doing some real thinking, strategizing and bridge-building beyond "the Republican party says".

Ultimately, I am not in search of another title or affiliation. As for those, I only need one, and that need was filled when I was 16-years-old. I will however, continue to come alongside of and support those in politics whose foundational beliefs align with my own, but most importantly, those that will legislate beyond their "opinions" , personal benefit, and the latest "pet platform".

Quite simply, I am not a Republican because I refuse to substitute my own identity for a another temporal title.

Allows people to do this. I happened to flip through this book when I was in Borders a few weeks ago. What's even more funny is the back cover which reads, "Dude, where's your integrity?"

Classic. Updates coming...

I am suprised no one noticed this before, but Ambra, the fashionista herself is guilty of looking like Popeye. (See , and then see this pic).

Shameful.

Oh, and that other guy in the pic is my dad.

In light of my last column on "The Era of the Human Superstar", I stumbled across an article by Seattle columnist Misha Berson (a person with whom I once exchanged choice words when she erroneously wrote a Seattle Times review) on the current low-standards for celebrity status. And of all people, she mentions none other than Paris Hilton:

So, you want to be a Broadway leading man. Or a beauty queen. Or a top athlete.

Good news: It may not take years of study, great genes or even talent to reach these pinnacles. If you believe the mounting hype of our shortcut society, you could just zoom to the top.

The not-so-subliminal message Americans are getting now is: Slow and steady does not win the race. Neither does skill acquisition, necessarily, or mastery of craft. But speed rules.

"Success and celebrity have become de-linked from virtue and ability," says David Callahan, a fellow at Demos (a New York think tank) and author of the 2004 book "The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead."

"You have total nobodies who have accomplished nothing and are suddenly rich and famous, so people think getting to the top is not about hard work and making sacrifices," Callahan notes. "It's just about playing the game and being in the right place in the right time."

Society-gals-turned-stars such as Paris Hilton. Plain Janes transformed into Living Dolls. Warp-speed literary lions. Such whiz-kids have it so much better than the rest of us. Or do they?

Along with the hyper-flash of this new world order comes cutting corners, missing nuances and risking a crash-and-burn landing after a speedy ascent. Whether it's having a breakneck makeover, or waging a quickie war, there are social consequences for all of us.

Berson goes on to list potential consequences of a society that exalts short-cuts. Additionally, she names the artist formerly known as "Puff Daddy" AKA Sean Combs as a top perpetrator when he was awarded the role Sidney Poitier originated in the recent Broadway re-mount of "A Raisin in the Sun".

I'm not entirely against the short-cut syndrome because I hope to take advantage myself, however in the cases Berson mentions, I'd have to concur. If anything, I think promoting too many people who haven't paid their proper dues can fill an entire industry with immaturity and lack of wisdom and humility.

I need to find the documentation, but some time ago, an investigation was launched into potentially harsh and extreme practices at the United States Military Academy at West Point. It was said that the cadets were subjected to extreme and unnecessary brute force. The academy denied nothing, but rather reinforced their procedures by explaining their rationale: graduates from West Point were young 20-somethings who often had more rank than 10-year officers. In order for them to appreciate the sacrifice others would have to go through to gain the position they'd earned so young, they employed practices of "humbling".

I'd say they're on to something.

Quite frankly, Americanized Christianity brings me to borderline nausea. The fickleness, the inaccuracy of scripture, the denominationalism, and the all around lukewarm nature of the "Church" is disheartening and concerning. These days, it seems you have to qualify your "Christianity" because saying "I'm a Christian" is really indicitive of nothing. In reality, "Christian" isn't really a term you see in the Bible, however "Follower of Christ" or "Believer in Christ" are. Now more than ever, I can certainly see the logic behind that.

Calling oneself a "Christian" is simply a title (and boy do we all love titles). A good 50% of Americans can call themselves "Christian" without any visible fruit. Moreover, these days, there are people who even believe they were "born" into Christianity, as though it were some gene or bloodline trait. Contrarily, calling oneself a "Follower of Christ" certainly raises the stakes and the standards. This is not merely a title, but a lifestyle that requires action, proof, accountability, and moral standards for living. To put it simply, being a true "Follower of Christ" is neither easy nor popular.

The notion of "mamby-pamby" Christianity suggests a group of people who are calling themselves "Christians" yet selectively choosing their own definitions of what "dying to self" really means. The pansy stuff that accompanies the weak-minded "believers" is troublesome. I find this reality most at work by way of the state of our nation. With key issues on the table like abortion rights and same-sex marriages (to name a few), Christians cannot afford to be fickle on anything. The agnostic and atheist Left is more militant than we are. In this era of "everybody please like me" I fear many people have succumbed to the propaganda of lies that oppose what the Bible says. In attempts to be socially accepted, we have philosophized our way out of just about everything. Discussions like "Is it really a fetus" and "People can't change the fact that they're gay" and "abstinence is unrealistic" are surfacing from the mouths of people who declare that they "Know God". It is becoming vastly clear that we are truly living in the culture of disbelief.

In his excellent post, "The Mystery of Shadowboxing", Avery Tooley uses the words of one of my favorite authors, Stephen L. Carter, as a springboard for good discussion on Christianity in America (shameless self promotion: About two years ago, I had Stephen L. Carter personally give me kudos after he heard me speak, and he also encouraged me in my writing and lecturing, can you imagine?). In Carter's best-seller, The Culture of Disbelief, he writes about America as being a place completely unaccepting and antagonistic towards all things pertaining to Christ. In his post, Avery weighs in on that very subect,

"Not long ago, David Limbaugh wrote a book, Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christians that pretty much expressed the same sentiment, although I think that book was written with alarmist intentions and seems too much like victimology for my tastes, but the point is valid. All you really have to do is look at portrayal of President Bush's references to the way in which his faith impacts his decisions. The way mainstream media treats it, you'd think he was trying to enact some Christian version of sharia. But even that can devolve into a partisan argument. How bout the fact that they regularly try to strip the civil rights movement of any references to its Christian philosophical underpinnings? They'll talk all about how Rev. King was influenced by Ghandi, but Jesus? Couple harrumphs and some coughing, and then it's on to the dream.

So goes the typical reality in our secularized society. Nowadays, however, we fight to maintain truth in an era of "progressive Christianity". Now understand, by "progressive" I am not referring to the church evolving with the culture (e.g. hip-hop, mass media, women in leadership and singing songs other than dried up hymns), the "progressive" brand to which I am referring are those who are seeking to redefine scripture. You know, the heretics, the ninnies, the wolves in sheep's clothing who try to distort the word of God to fulfill their own fleshly desires. I appreciate that Avery takes it one further to discuss how "the culture of disbelief" has also influenced Christian culture as it moves to be more "progressive".

In a piece I wrote called, "The Cheap Gospel", I discuss this same issue that perturbs me so much. Our wishy-washiness and "tolerant" nature towards the Gospel has opened this country up to all measures of foolishness. There are lives on the line here. To me, it is that serious. People will get offended, but the "followers of Christ" need to come out from their complacent slumber and start telling the truth. Truth is not an ambiguous concept or idea. It is not specific to individuals like New Jersey Governor McGreevey who recently professed his own "truth". Truth is not some trivialized "ideal" or something that just shows up when we light incense, hum songs and act deep. No; Truth is Jesus Christ. Truth is not walking around in flowing robes, always stroking the common opinion either. No. Truth is divisive, and sometimes offensive because it calls for us to make a decision as to how we will live our lives.

I think it is the fear of the confrontational aspect of being a Christian that has given birth to the "mamby-pamby" movement. What is this I'm a Christian with a "little c" ideology? This is not a political party folks, this is a way of life.

[ we interrupt regularly scheduled programming for a brief commercial message ]

A riddle for the masses: If three skinny guys walk down the streets of Seattle, blatantly wearing women's jeans and no one sees it, does that make it okay?

Answer: No.

The blurriness in this photo is due to my attempt to be discreet. I conceal the face of the victims for most obvious reasons. While walking to my car after work last Friday, I spotted these three fellows walking through downtown Seattle. Let's just call them "Todd, Jared, and Timmy". Imagine my chagrin when I noticed the middle character (Jared) was wearing one of my most favorite pair of Seven Jeans. "Hey those jeans look like mine," I thought to myself, "Silly Ambra, you're a girl and he's a boy, now why would a boy have on women's jeans?" But that's where I sold my crime doggery and conventional wisdom too short. In fact, not only was Jared wearing my pants, but Todd and Timmy had on women's jeans too.

Now in the past I have made quite clear, my stance on men sporting women's clothing, trying to pass for women. However, in this case, we have men wearing women's clothing, trying to pass for men. Sorry, ain't workin'.

Under. No. Circumstances. Should men wear women's jeans. They are too tight, and they are designed for people with hips and crotches. One would think this to be common sense, but apparently it is not. My camera shall continue to be on the prowl.

Again I say people....We've got to do better.

Past Fashion Faux-Pas:
- Stripey Girl
- The Cowboy Boots
- The Pimp

A few weeks ago, while in Manhattan doing what I do best (shopping and spending hard earned dollars), some friends and I stopped off at an uptown Barnes & Noble (the surest way for me to quickly waste three and a half hours). Upon our entrance to the bookstore, we were accosted outside by two strapping young gentlemen in their late-teens/early-20's, one black and one white, both toting clipboards and wearing corny t-shirts with the "Kerry/Edwards" logo on them. "Oh brother," I thought, "I don't feel embarrassing anyone today". I've always preferred not to mix politics and shopping. It was just one day after the close of the Republican National Convention, and even minus the cheezy "Kerry/Edwards" slogan on their chest, it was clear who they were working for. Call it a sixth sense, but those who espouse vastly Liberal views have this certain hapless aura about them. Not sure why, but I think it just exudes from their bodily orifices. I of course, just wanted to go peruse books, but my friend, who is black, and also happens to be a self-proclaimed Bush lover (to unnerving and questionable obsession), was on the prowl for hot discussion. The gentlemen identified themselves as representatives of the DNC out getting support for the Kerry Campaign. When we informed said lackeys that we would be voting for Bush (at the time, I would've preferred to just tell them to shove it), they seemed both amused and appalled and immediately began the typical berating of the entire Bush administration. The first thing one gentleman said was,

"But we don't have any jobs!"

A likely story. In fact, it is always amusing to hear complaints about the workforce uttered from the lips of someone getting paid
to do so.

There is an entire gang of Kerry supporters who continue to stand on their shaky soapboxes, yelling collectively in hoarse high-pitched voices about how Bush has left this country without any viable jobs. To put it bluntly, they make me sick. What's worse are the pathetic and sappy Kerry "A stronger America" commercials with the poor, sad, blonde-haired woman whining about how the only jobs available are paying $8 an hour and "who can live and raise a family off of $8 an hour?". More nauseating are those with the "horror music" playing in the background, damning Bush for his lies about creating jobs in this country. Meanwhile, John Kerry plays the emotional strings of those displaced by outsourcing and the other unemployed like a harp, promising to cut health care costs to benefit small business, and convincing others that his leadership will increase entrepreneurship in America. But most importantly, reminding us all that the evil rich-boy Bush lied.

*Whatever. I could very easily throw around statistics about how evensome sensible Democrats have argued that Kerry simply does not have Bush beat in the area of the economy and jobs. In actuality, America's rebound economically from the events of 9/11 have tremendously exceeded everyone's expectations. Meanwhile, manufacturing is up and unemployment is down. I could discuss how both sides (Democrat and Republican) manipulate statistics to their own benefit, or how the unemployment rate under the Bush administration is 5.4% (point two percent lower than Clinton) and further surmise that that statistic really means nothing since Americans are lazy, and the perceived "lack of jobs" should be examined in light of the fact that the average American lives beyond their means, refuses to take the work that is available, and the middle-class only thinks it needs to make more money because of the burden of consumer debt. I could argue a lot of things, but instead, I'd rather just say, "Tough cookies".

I do not believe it is the government's job to ensure that every American citizen has a means of earning income. In fact, I don't believe that the government is responsible for ensuring that anyone has a job. Earning our keep and being productive on the Earth is our responsibility, and the earth is aplenty with ways to do it.

The biggest problem with the mentality of Americans is they have bought into the "job" mentality. Why do most people get an education? So that they can eventually get a job. We center our profitability as workers around the availability of viable employment. We define "viable employment" as reporting in to a company who will pay us according to our labor or area of expertise. As it goes in America, when there is nothing available that fits the aforementioned description, we determine there to be no work available, file for unemployment and hit the classifieds with an attitude. How incredibly lame and sad.

This is America, the "land of opportunity". Foreigners risk their lives and the lives of their children, running across the highway stretch of 10-lanes of 70 miles per hour traffic with the hopes of gaining entrance into a country that promises them economic success. Others are drowning in large bodies of water because they were convinced that "making it to America" would be a better life for them. Thousands are dying enroute to come and become prosperous in a country who has citizens that haughtily declare "there simply are no jobs". The sad thing is, many of the immigrants here have more work ethic than the average ninny, city-bred American. It always amazes me how people who came here with "nothing" can establish more wealth in 20 years than many Americans can in their whole lifetime.

Here, we live in a completely free market society where people will pay for anything. The market for ideas, ingenuity and prosperity is unmatched. Do you have a unique product idea? Someone is bound to buy it. Do you have a special talent or skill? Someone is bound to pay for it. In fact, you can even stand out on the street singing very badly and put a hat out and people will quite simply give you money. You could write a book in jibberish, and there is a market of individuals who will buy it. In America, we package and sell dirt, water, and rocks. Tell me that's not genius! Someone made millions of dollars because they patented the concept of a doll whose head wiggles back and forth. The success of "bobble-head dolls" is astounding. The growth of the internet leaves endless possibilities for cashflow. Every day, regular nobodies who are dissatisfied with their financial situation are taking advantage of a country that will essentially allow you to do anything for the sake of a dollar. Yet, people continue to contend that there are "no jobs".

As a vivid example of the reality of creating your own market, in theUnited States alone, the Vietnamese community has the entire nail industry on lock--fingernails that is. I don't care what city you go to and what part of town you're in, chances are, you will find a nail salon, and therein will be an entire Vietnamese family, giving pedicures and manicures, and probably making more money than you. I'm not sure when the women of America decided that getting their nails done was more important than paying the light bill, but many Vietnamese families have tapped into a never-fading market: vanity.

Illegal aliens aside, the reality is the immigrant population of America realizes a principle for survival that natives are either too dense, too lazy, too arrogant, too spoiled, or too forgetful to understand: if you don't work, you don't eat. Work can be defined a number of ways. Work does not equal "a job". Anyone can create their own work if they are hungry enough (literally and figuratively). Which often leads me to believe many Americans aren't really hungry. Of course not, we're overweight.

The reality is, most Americans would rather have society hand them the perfect job on a silver platter. That is an unrealistic expectation. The cry of "unemployment" is whiny to me. Considering the country we live in and the opportunities available, there should be no excuses as to why we cannot become independently profitable one way or another, jobs or not. If people can get paid to walk the streets of Manhattan, telling me why I should vote for John Kerry, surely (MOST surely), there is opportunity for all.

*People who believe this are dense and silly.

The Era of the Human Superstar

And not without one minor quibble of a typo that should've been fixed by now-- hopefully this morning sometime. But ya'll are forgving so I trust you won't rake me over the coals. We're still working the kinks out okay, geez. Things like that however, drive a girl who corrects the spelling of others in the "comments section" totally crazy. I know, it's the OCD in me. We're workin' on her....

Per the article, my "Nyktionary" isn't ready yet so for cultural literacy's sake, I offer these vernacular translations:

The "Po-Po": Police officers
"To Rock": To wear, to use, to make do with; usually to great effect. (with umph) (third person conjugation "Rocking", lazy slang "Rockin'")
"To Bump": (multiple meanings), however in the article's case--To play music ridiculously loud.

So it's Monday, and today I'm feeling Rather a bit philosophical. The internet's a wacky place where at any moment, you have the ability to quickly find out who's talking about you. Friday, my ears were ringing and sure enough I came upon the words of Brenton Mumford, and admitted "nice guy" who also happens to be white, and who delivered me perhaps one of the best compliments I've received since coppin' a spot on the net by calling me "the black woman missing in his life". However, more importantly, he candidly shared on a topic few people open up about: cultural tendencies. In his post "Where the Black Women at?", he notes:

"alright, so here it is: i don't have any black women friends anymore
..........

take my experiences at the small state university i attended...there were a handful of black women i was friends with, but only because they also attended the same campus organizations i did...

...a couple of these black women were among my closest friends; attractive, intelligent, thoughtful, kind, outspoken, opinionated, talented, driven, successful, fun, funny, they were everything any guy could want from a friend.

but here's why i miss them (and by extension, why i miss being around black women in general): they would tell you what was what. now, i'm not, by any means, saying that white women are incapable of doing this. and i'm not saying that all black women are outspoken. in fact, i am making a terribly over generalized generalization, and i'm sorry for that, if anyone was offended. but the spirit of my interactions with my friends was different than my interactions with just about anyone else, and there is no way that i can logically say that our cultural and ethnic differences didn't play a role in that.

Read the whole thing if you get a chance. The immediate reaction of having this type of dialogue is for us to tense up at the thought of "gross racial generalizations". Indeed, we do get into murky waters when we start typifying people based on race. If anyone is living proof against the ramifications of that, it's me. However, interestingly enough, one would be surprised as to how some of those "generalizations" actually measure up in real life. Oftentimes, they're spot on. And yes, perhaps I am biased in this whole discussion because after all, I am a black woman, but I am still inclined to say that Brenton is doing more thinking on this subject than the majority of Americans. This is of course the aftermath of a politically correct era.

So although it wasn't intended, Brenton brings up some very broad topics of discussion: the need for the presence of people from varying backgrounds in our lives and the added perspective and value of varying cultures, generalized behavior as it relates to cultural upbringing, the taboo of a society that doesn't allow you to say things like "I miss black women" purely based on their cultural tendencies. The counterpart to this is the negative racial depictions and stereotypes that we give just as much leeway. Discuss if you will. Don't be scared.

Update (9/20): Only one taker? I see. Good to know...

Those were the words uttered from the mother of Andrew Osantowski when she found out her 17-year-old son had elaborate plans to blow up his Clinton, Michigan high school. File this under "Parents who need to get a flippin' clue".

Osantowski's malicious plans to take his classmates lives were unveiled when a Washington state police officer was tipped off via his daughter to threats made in an internet chatroom. So it turns out America Online is good for something. In this case, authorities were able to trace the threats to Osantowski who appears to be in bed with the doctrine of Hitler and the Aryan nation. The Associated Press reports,

"An investigation into the series of Internet threats led to the discovery of weapons, ammunition and bomb-making paraphernalia at Osantowski's Macomb County home about 25 miles northeast of Detroit, police said.

At a press conference, police displayed evidence from the home including weapons and ammunition, tools police say were stolen from a construction site, Nazi flags and books about white supremacy and Adolf Hitler. "

To the fact that her son had indeed been engaging in hate worship, Janice Osantowski said the findings were "horrifying" and that she was glad all the weaponry was found before something bad happened. She remarked,

"My son Andrew is a good kid with a good heart...I think he's just been brainwashed by this Nazi stuff that he had."

Ya think? Generally, our actions follow whatever is in our heart. Like that time when you called yourself a clean talker and the reckless idiot cut you off on the road and something bad accidentally slipped out. Yeah, that was probably in your heart. But I digress. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this Andrew Osantowski feller was not in possession of the "good heart" his mother professed.

Again I say, I don't understand this modern-day "we didn't know anything was wrong with Billy" approach to parenting. In addition to stolen firearms and bomb-building paraphernalia, there were instruction sheets on how to build a bomb and video tapes showing the teen in possession of assault weapons. Add to that, two apparently clueless parents and you get a potential revisitation of the calculated events at Columbine High School. Parents don't know their son wants to be a Nazi. These are the times we are living in.

Again I ask, "Oh Parent Where Art Thou?"

So when you think you're all cool and savvy, and almost done with a big weblog redesign, and you've even transferred all your old posts over to an entirely new platform and coded the whole darn thing (and it's really snazzy), and you're about ready to celebrate like a quarterback who just made a touch down, yeah, when that happens and then the system happens to ask you, "Do you want to delete author?", indicating the ending of yourself as an authorized contributer to your own weblog, for the love of all things pure, don't click, "yes". I did, and I learned my lesson expeditiously.

New website derailed for a week. I'm just going to shut up about it now. Not another word. One day eventually you come here and the new site will be up. Know that when that happens, somewhere in the city of Seattle, there's a little black girl partying like a rockstar.

Nykola.com's owner turns 23 in eight days. She expects blog presents. In the meantime, for those of you who subscribe to this site via syndication (which seems to be quite a few) please take note that come Monday Friday, the re-design kicks in, the platform will be Movable Type, and the syndication code will change. If I were on top of my stuff, I'd know the new syndication pages, but I'm not so I don't. Stand by.

Lastly, links are getting an overhaul. I'd love to know of some really good and insightful weblogs out there that other people read on a regular basis. I'm desperately in need of more good reading.

Have a great weekend.

[ Real world stream of consciousness... ]
Despite my fond affection for all types of meat and militant stance on my right to eat hamburgers and ribs, I eat tofu on occasion and I actually like it. Blame it on the vegetarians; I do. I own more than 70 pairs of shoes, 50% of which are black, and yet I still want more. Tell me that's not excess. I hate cats and pigeons, but I'll tolerate kittens. This is because I have a guilty conscience about a bad incident I once had with a kitten, God rest her soul..er, body. I will forever contend that all dogs go to heaven, despite sufficient Biblical defense, and any smattering of evidence that it might be true because well, I wanna see "Sadie" again. Plus I'm just stubborn. On occasion, I want to get up in the face of the career Seattle panhandlers and yell, "GET A JOB!" Despite my lack of vocal talent, when I'm driving I pretend that I am a very good singer. A virtue and a vice is that I have no shame. I talk myself through the process of killing spiders because when it comes to bugs, the girl in me comes out. The onset of this occurs when I search the house for my "cheap shoes" because I don't want spider guts on the soles of my Kenneth Cole boots. I've slobbered on more than one occasion in the middle of very profound discourse and professional business presentations. My skill level allows me to do this and still completely recover. I have an unopened can tuna in the glove compartment of my car for reasons beyond me. I don't remove it because I've yet to figure out why it's there. Again, stubborn. I think very bad thoughts about "Christians" with Jesus fish and WWJD bumper stickers who cut me off in traffic. Way to drive like a Christian, "jerk"; then I repent, sort of. I think pop-ups are evil. Breathmints should be a pre-requisite for those who wish to enter the teaching profession. I spend entirely too much time watching television. On most days, I'll defend my nonexistent right to do so. Generally, I don't like formalized reading but I do it because I, "have to". School forever ruined books, but knowledge is better than ignorance. I'm good at making lists, but bad at checking them off. I get distracted by insight and profundity. This can be bad. I can do a very good impression of a white girl. If allowed, I'd put that on my resume. I am predisposed to think that all dentists are evil--except my grandfather, who's just old. I think white people wearing dreadlocks is a singularly BAD idea. I am a tall short person. Call me idealistic, but I think women should shave under their arms. Period. I can argue points that are utterly ridiculous. I hate doing the dishes. I wish the makers of Aleve would pay me to endorse their product. I think Danielle Steele is a man. I think Kevin Spacey is a woman. Politics generally bore me, but my take on politics cracks me up. I am my own best audience. I read "Us magazine" in the grocery store check-out line because it frees me up from "thinking". I think I'm way cooler than I am. I would shop at Wal-Mart but the presence of too many ignorant people shouting at once is more than I can bear. The fact that I think this probably means I'm an elitist, but I'm not. My name is still cooler than yours, feminism sucks, vote Bush and please use deodorant.

Past Monthly Rants:
- My Issues With Air Travel
- The Point at Which I Worship the Wonders of Vicodin
- The State of the Nation
- Politics

[ allow me to indulge myself with some shameless media opining ]

Just when you thought reality television had its last fix of strung-out celebrities, Bravo announced that they will release a new reality show, "Being Bobby Brown" chronicling a day in the life of fallen singers Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston. In other news, San Francisco was just re-named Sodom. Who are these people making these decisions?? If it is not abundantly clear, with their history of launching shows such as "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" among others, Bravo is about a buncha garbage. According to Bravo President, Lauren Zalaznick:

"'Being Bobby Brown' will allow the public to see Brown outside the context of a pop icon and bad boy...they'll witness an artist striving to clean up his life for his future and the future of his family."

Yeah, right. You mean to tell me that Bravo, being the good samaritans that they are and all, really wants Bobby Brown to clean up his life on national television? HIGHLY doubtful. Based on past humiliations, more specifically a certain Diane Sawyer interview which won't be discussed 'round these parts, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Bravo's taking a fairly safe bet that Bobby and Whitney will make complete fools of themselves on national television. And the voyeuristic heathens (myself included sometimes) may just be there to watch. God help them (and us).

In other news, last time it was contestent Omarosa making a splash, but the show that captivated me last season (however I won't be watching this season), The Apprentice is back in full swing and not without the visible presence of yet another *crackhead. "Stacie" as they call her, a restauranteur and potentially a very smart person, is quite simply what I would call, a "hot mess". And riddle me this: why, oh why, does she have to be black? Are allllllllll the *crackheads black? I beseech you brethren, by the mercies of God, if you're going to throw in the token educated black woman on your silly reality show, can you please find one who is not under the influence? Clearly, there is some strategy going on here because there really is no shortage of opinionated, intelligent and highly capable black women, and more specifically those who could pass a urine test with flying colors.

There is some deeper stuff here that could be discussed--like how television corrupts our view of certain people groups, and how wicked television executives knowingly continue to perpetuate stereotypes, and we the "intelligent" viewers buy-in to them and stop watching when they're not fulfilled. But it's Friday, and no one wants to think about that right now, so maybe later.

Redemption for the *crackheads!

* Use of the term "crackhead" has multiple meanings:
1. it is literal as in one who partakes in the use of crack
2. the lowest form of a drug-user
3. A person who although may not be under the influence, acts like the lowest form of a drug user.
4. (as excerpted from UrbanDictionary.com): a. A person who would steal steaks from their mommas freezer to sell on the street corner in 90 degree weather. Only a crackhead would buy that meat, unfortunatly crackheads spend their money on drugs. It's a vicious cycle... b. A person who will do, and or say anything to get their fix, Their plea usually starts out with "I need to barrow $20 I'll pay you back Friday I swear to God". Members of the Crackhead Species sometimes have Extra Large Heads, One Of these Particular types Lives in Tyro, NC. If you're ever in that area beware of the "Jughead".

Not sure which one this or this falls into. (from the kcomposite store)

Nelson Mandela is a socialist, Ozzy Osbourne is a Satanist, John Calvin mis-interpreted scripture, Martin Luther King did some bad things, Oprah is a new ageist, and Sigmund Freud was not intelligent and insightful, he was just high and "off". Do these statements rub the wrong way? Of course they do, because of the sacred subjects they describe.

Not long ago, I took a few minor jabs at the iconic-god-superhuman known as Lance Armstrong and his cancer foundation. There was one point, the point at which I come to every time I write, where I stop, question myself and think, "is this okay to say?". That self-disciplined check is often a good thing. Self-censoring is generally a highly useful tool in life. It stops us from putting our feet in our mouths, being rude, insensitive, or jumping to inaccurate conclusions. However, when it comes to certain topics of discussion, there is a huge aspect of this "self-check" that is socially induced and somewhat mentally crippling. Plainly stated, we avoid sacred cows like the plague.

For whatever reason, certain people--celebrities, philosophers, and other highly revered folk (or concepts)--are exempt from scrutinization, doubt, and scandal. Perhaps not the best way to go about discussing the issue, but a few years ago, when the movie Barbershop opened in theaters, a few talking heads Jesse Jackson was in uproar when the honor of notable civil rights saints Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, (but namely himself) was questioned on-screen. National Review Online contributor Rod Dreher reported in the piece, "Who Needs Jesse Jackson?",

Claiming to speak for the King and Parks families, and unnamed civil-rights leaders, Jackson wasted no time in condemning Barbershop for "the insensitivity of using Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as the butt of jokes and trying to turn tragedy into comedy. We hope the actors and producers would care enough about these grievances to apologize."

Fair enough, though it's a hoot to see Jackson pretending that he's really mad at the insults to King and Parks, and not the film's profane anti-Jackson lese majeste'. Far uglier offenses against Christianity, of which Jackson is rumored to be a clergyman, crop up in movies all the time, yet one is hard-pressed to recall the last instance in which Jesse Jackson stuck up for the good name of Jesus Christ"

Now that'll preach. People rarely jump to defend the honor of the daily degraded Jesus Christ as often as they do Michael Jackson, John Wesley, or Karl Barth. Point being, Jesse's baked-in narcissism brings to light a common thread in the fabric of American culture: it's simply not okay to talk against certain American icons.

Understand, I'm not suggesting our goal should be to trivialize, underplay, or disrespect the significant contributions many "icons" have made to society. I was raised to respect my elders and those whose shoulders I stand upon. I was also raised to stand for truth, and truth often creeps at the door of the fake Vangoughs we paint in order to continue to esteem that which should not be esteemed. I say, eat the meat and spit out the bones. It is fair to question the philosophy (and sometimes integrity) of someone like Nelson Mandela and simultaneously consider him to be a man of fortitude wisdom and influence, maintaining respect for all that he endured. There are admirable qualities in the achievements of many greats, but often we are unable to separate the achievement from the character of the person and we begin to do as humans do best--we worship.

Our inability to wrap our minds around the wrongdoings or faultiness of some of those we highly esteem is treacherous territory because we begin to automatically qualify people as exempt, and cancel out our ability to critically think and analyze issues as they come. Take for example, the cancer-fundraising phenomenon. I occasionally raise suspicions about an industry that thrives on the fact that people are sick. No one really questions cancer fundraising foundations or celebrities because it's too taboo to think that there could be some evil in the midst of cancer supporters. Yes, they too are humans and susceptible to bad news. If someone questions a demi-god like Lance Armstrong, the knee-jerk reaction cries "heresy". I'm guilty of this all the time. I have my own pet-idols I'm slowly bringing down from the current mountaintops of all-knowingness and perfection at which I've placed them.

We're missing out on some honest learning and dialogue when we continue to suppress and ignore the truth of the matter about our beloved "greats" who, by my best estimation, still put their pants on one leg at a time.

One thing is certain, Siegfried Fischbacher and Roy Horn belong on another planet. One of Las Vegas's most prominent eccentric, elusive, and flagrantly effeminate duos, "Siegfried & Roy" are often casually dismissed as just plain weird. In great American fashion, we accept (and condone) certain things for reasons that baffle even sensible me. Michael Jackson too has benefited from America's temporary consciousness. I'm sure Jackson and this odd couple are good friends in the plight (AKA soap opera) of the "Weird and the Shameless". I'm not exactly sure at what point Roy Horn became this poster child for great triumph and courage (Maria Shriver take note), but God help me to have compassion when I say, "Reality Check!".

The man played with TIGERS and LIONS--big ones--tigers that have animal instinct, weigh hundreds of pounds, and have big teeth and sharp claws. In case anyone didn't notice, we're not living in the days of Noah and his ark. We are not "one" with the animals. This is not some deep, "cosmic", and "spiritual" experience where people clad in sequins can just go frolicking through the meadows, riding grizzly bears without unexpected consequences . This is real life, and unfortunately in real life Roy got his giddy, German, MAC-makeup-wearing behind mauled. Thank God he is alive, but for love's sake this is not some 21st-century Christopher Reeve story.

In his "act" at the Mirage, Horn called himself an "illusionist". Now there's something he did right. "Illusions of grandeur" is more like it, because if Horn thought he was going to play with tigers for 20 years without one of them ever "acting like a tiger" then he was in a dream world. We cannot justifiably commiserate around idocracy. With a second chance at life, God bless him to get right.

And lastly, does anyone else find the fact that NBC just launched a new primetime cartoon series "Father of the Pride", based on around the characters of Siegfried & Roy, just a tad bid odd? Maybe it's just me.

Thursday's miscellany. Yeah, clearly I'm tired, and if you're on the east coast reading this morning, I'm probably still in bed acting like a mole. I was interviewed yesterday for an upcoming article on bloggers. The discussion during the interview got me thinking about some really interesting stuff as it relates to the safety net of words on the world wide web. For many people, writing is safe because chances are, most people will never really have to own up to their words. In some unfortunate bloggers' cases, some of those same "words" have actually gotten them fired; some rightly so.

Beyond giving birth to the CBS news scandal that is now affectionately known as "Rathergate" (that's a corny joke if you ask me), I appreciate the honesty mediums like weblogs can bring. I mean, where else could a nobody 22-year-old girl lay the smack down on Harvard? The discussion (and emails) coming out of the education posts is music to my, uhh..eyes. This is not the stuff people talk about around the water cooler if you know what I mean.

The internet empowers people to think all types of bad, un-cool, and politically incorrect thoughts that may not otherwise be voiced. This is good and bad. The bad gives birth to mental midgets trolling around like ADHD kindergarteners on crack, saying idiotic things on the internet. Read: people who are rude and hide behind big words, bad theology and sloppy arguments because no one ever loved them or hugged them when they were little.

A long while back (in my dreaded archives where grammatical errors abound), I wrote a piece called, "Putting a Little Flesh to Thought" where I tossed around some ideas about the dualistic lives people have between their "internet persona" and their real-life persona. Can't really say that's the case here since this blog is more "me" than I often would like--hence the fashion critiques.

Still, there are thoughts and ideas tossed around in cyberspace that real-life makes us feel guilty about. I assume some of the better discussion around topics of race perferences, gay rights, and anti-semitism have taken place in writing and not in person. For me, being raised in a rather vocal family, discussing hot topics has always been a way of life, so online was no different. It amazes me how many people weren't raised to thoughtfully debate issues. So today I delve into the more shallow end guilty pleasures:

My name is Ambra, I'm a fairly competent individual, and I'm addicted to MTV's Punk'd. Oh, and somewhere in the deep deep depths of my old closet, I might have a Milli Vanilli CD.

C'mon try confession, you'll be glad you did.

(Updates later today)

Martha Stewart, domestic Queen of all things trivial and unimportant--like how to wallpaper the drawers of the scrap booking desk in your craft room--today asked Manhattan Federal Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum to begin serving her 5-month term as a federal prison inmate (and I use that term loosely). In other news, I have lint in my pocket.

What happens when you're an upper-class white woman multi-millionaire with lots of clout, influence, and media pull? You get to request where and when you serve your prison sentence. Citing the need, "to put this nightmare behind me," 63-year-old tycoon though it best to kick this thing off as soon as possible. How lovely of her.

Update (9/15): As requested, I've tracked down the better future prison cell depictions. Look out Danbury!

[ Click to enlarge ]

I know a little something about the educational elite. Hate to say it, but despite my best attempts to resist indoctrination and uppity-ness, "I are one". I spent my entire educational career (preschool through college) in predominately white, private institutions that my parents could not afford. The cost of full-tuition (ha! the notion of that is fairly removed) at my high school was somewhere around $16,000 when I graduated back in 2000. In many instances, $16,000 could cover the entire cost of four years of in-state tuition at a public university. Nevertheless, the perceived value to those who choose to fork over the equivalent of a down payment on a home for the cause of elementary and secondary education is the hope of admittance into the nation's top institutions of higher learning. That is the great educational hope.

When I say we started studying for the SAT in elementary school, I am not being extreme. The elite carefully and strategically calculate the path of their children from birth. For the most part, the academic rigueur of college-prep school served me well. In the end, it paid off big time for my graduating class. Out of a class of approximately 120 students, I wager to say that at least 50% were admitted into Ivy League schools. The rest, opted for equally prestigious and competitive institutions of higher learning such as MIT, Stanford, Duke, and Georgetown. Private schools love this. Their alumni become little pet, money-giving tokens to which they can point at as products of their esteemed intellectual offerings. They pride themselves on high matriculation statistics to show prospective (and anal) parents, as if to say, "See, see, if you send your child here, they too will get into Harvard!" Usually, they are correct. There are undisclosed reasons for this. The upper echelon of higher education has ugly parts. In fact, they are horribly reciprocating, selfish, money-loving, and nepotism-riddled, inner-circle, boy-club parts. The goal is power and influence.

The ultimate hope of an elite education is the promise of a secure future. I don't care how much fluff and PC garbage we add to statistics, in general, people go to elite colleges because eventually, they want to make money. Lots of money. Steaming hot piles of "look at me I'm successful" money-money that will allow them to have power, influence and lots of superfluous "stuff". This is not to say that the desire for these things is bad. It is the motivation that causes the damage. For many years, an elite education was the perceived promise of success and opportunity. So what happens when success doesn't come?

An interesting article published in The Atlantic by Gregg Easterbrook, asked the age-old question, "Who Needs Harvard?" (Subscribers Only),

"Today almost everyone seems to assume that the critical moment in young people's lives is finding out which colleges have accepted them. Winning admission to an elite school is imagined to be a golden passport to success; for bright students, failing to do so is seen as a major life setback. As a result, the fixation on getting into a super-selective college or university has never been greater. Parents' expectations that their children will attend top schools have "risen substantially" in the past decade, says Jim Conroy, the head of college counseling at New Trier High School, in Winnetka, Illinois. He adds, "Parents regularly tell me, 'I want whatever is highest-ranked.'" Shirley Levin, of Rockville, Maryland, who has worked as a college-admissions consultant for twenty-three years, concurs: "Never have stress levels for high school students been so high about where they get in, or about the idea that if you don't get into a glamour college, your life is somehow ruined."

In a follow-up interview, Easterbrook asserts that the college admissions process, "need not be a shattering ordeal".

In response to the article, education writer (and blogger) Joanne Jacobs candidly noted this morning,

"My daughter, a Stanford graduate, can't get a callback for a part-time job at a book store."

Interesting stuff. As a college drop-out, I can attest that most folks in my sphere are hoping to cash-in on their newly earned bachelors degrees. Many are striking out and settling for whatever opportunities they can. The job market can be a lot for many 22-year-olds to handle. Enter the concept of the "perpetual student". Oftentimes, to avoid the reality of being faced with life, many people quickly run and take cover in the comfort of graduate school and made up dreams. "Being a student" is sometimes a better deal than facing the relentless reality that a degree, which should be paying for itself, is not reaping dividends as quickly (or abundantly) as expected.

When I left my "elite institution" I did so for personal reasons I am still figuring out to this day. My strong academic foundation serves me well and thus, I have been able to be successful in spite of my fallen intellectualism. I realize not everyone can say this. While I realize that formalized education is often a means and necessity for many, I do not adhere to the philosophy that it is always necessary (or practical) for success in this country. The idea of "success" in and of itself painfully begs for redefinition.

I have no doubts that many people seek out higher learning for all the right reasons: to expand and broaden their horizons, become more knowledgeable in areas, fulfill their lifelong dreams, and ultimately make an impact in this world. However, in increasing measure, I am disturbed to find so many young people seeking success in elite institutions for the entirely wrong reasons. The profession (and pathway to that profession) that will garner the most success is not always favorable or intended for every individual. Frantic to fit the mold of what's in demand and in the midst of seeking out the fields that have the highest pay, young people are missing out on what they are truly called, gifted and equipped to do. The end result down the line is a middle-aged adult, dissatisfied with their "career", regretfully wishing different decisions were made when it counted the most.

A few months ago, Michael Bowen Cobb contended, "College didn't prepare me for life,"

I wonder how many graduates are willing to say so. I think it's something they all know to be true, but are loathe to admit outside of their own little circles. If this little secret got out, I think a significant part of American society would collapse.

That statement is pontificatable (I made that word up) to the ends of the Earth. Colleges (elite, private and public) are big business. When big businesses start failing, all Gehenna breaks loose. My most humble prediction: With the increasing dissatisfaction with fulfillment in life and the "college experience", the next decade or so will see more non-college educated success stories than ever before. Better believe the Ivy League will scuffle around over the next fifty years to secure their spot (or the perception of the spot) as producers of America's most brightest (and highest paid) citizens.

Update: For the sake of context, I thought it might be worthwhile to link some of my past thoughts on the topic of higher education.

- Human Capital: The ROI of a Kid
- Graduating Slaves
- The Pervasive Deification of Education in Black Communities
- Immigrant Blacks More Successful than African Americans

For whatever sick and twisted reason, I continue to be a semi-regular watcher of the Today Show. Maybe I just tune in to see Matt Lauer's buzz cut, or Ann whatever her name is (think spicy Indian sauce) fumble her words, or to see Al Roker get paid to do absolutely nothing, or to watch Katie act like an idiot. Whatever the reason, I am regularly insensed (and entertained) by the mostly liberal slant they take on just about everything. Today Today was not entertaining. Today, one of the topics was abortion.

In a piece titled "Termination for Love", correspondents discussed the option many expectant mothers have taken to terminate their pregnancies when they find that their child may have birth defects. Spina bifida and Cerebral Palsy of course, being a few of the more major diseases commonly diagnosed, the story also included many instances of women choosing to terminate their pregnancy kill their baby because of minor things such as a cleft palette, a missing finger, a club foot, and even the wrong sex. Abortion Murder a child because he's the wrong sex? This is not China, this is America. And even in China, sex-driven genocide was completely unacceptable.

The lovely song of many women who have terminated their pregnancies for defectal reasons is of course, "I did it for love". This type of "love" believes that certain types of children will be better off dead in the womb than suffer in life. I suppose I can understand the logic. When the doctors are telling you that a child may not live beyond three months when born, why not end a life now to avoid more pain and suffering than necessary in the future. Why not? Because we are not God and we don't get the luxury of making such decisions. I realize this defies human logic, but that is the essence of faith.

One interviewee in particular, when faced with the news of her baby's short life expectancy, decided along with her husband, that she would rather not be forced to eventually look at a baby's casket. I am just going to say it: I think that logic is incredibly selfish. For the sake of foregoing your own pain, you choose to end a life which has been predicted by fallible (although knowledgeable) doctors to be short. When bringing a life into this world, it isn't about "us". Of course, many minds would reason that sparing a baby's life from potential pain is incredibly selfless because we have a mis-conception of what selfishness truly is. Selfishness takes place when we think that we always have the ability to control every situation. We are living in the era of the idolization of self. Man has now become his own god.

I have tried very hard to wrap my own theory and human rationale around a situation I know nothing about. I have never been pregnant. If I were, that would indeed be an immaculate conception. It is very easy for someone like me to sit up in the luxury skybox of inexperience and tell other people what decisions they should and should not be making. If forced to make the same decision, I do not doubt I may struggle. However, principle is principle and you don't have to go down every road to determine its destination as wrong.

The womb is one of the most pure and sacred places we have left on the Earth. My most firm conviction will forever be that the womb should not be touched. Human beings are not the true givers life and we are not authorized to take it away. I realize this leaves a lot of room for "what-ifs". The situation of deformity is one of them. However, I believe these "what-ifs" have caused a distraction from the key issue at hand. I am not willing to entertain those "what-ifs" because they are the very "conditionals" that would push legislation that continues to allow (and sometimes encourage) this modern-day holocaust. What-if's will come, but my worldview overrides the "conditionals".

My brother Aaron died of SIDS "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome" at the tender age of 6-months-old. To this day, I cannot comprehend how my parents made it through that situation. If given the chance to go back in time, knowing in advance that they'd lose their son, they would have surely gone through with the pregnancy because the plan was not theirs to determine.

I question this notion of "love". I understand it, but I do not agree with it.

Update: When searching for a fetus photo, I made the grave mistake of typing in "abortion" on google image search. This is what I got. Click at your own risk. Absolutely horrific.

Drinking Conservative Kool-Aid

Yesterday, I went to Barnes & Noble and did something I never thought I'd do. I purchased a grammar book with my own money. In high school and college I always had "The Elements of Style" (affectiontely known as "Strunk & White") and the Chicago Style Manual nearby. I think my copies are still in storage with the rest of my college things, but trust me when I say I didn't think I'd ever need them again. No, I detested writing. My English professors detested it too.

Familiarizing myself with Associated Press style and all the other official crap that comes along with really writing is a pain (especially for someone who likes to make up words), but the prospect of brighter things ahead is very motivating. Some really awesome opportunities have been coming my way and I've been forced to get prepared. I will however, resist turning into a monotonous journalistic voice. You'd have to kill me first. I now love writing because it's an opportunity to solidify one's own voice on any given issue. I'm now fighting not to despise that place that made me hate writing in the first place....sentence structure.

My weekly "political" column--and I use the word "political" very loosely--starts today. For those of you that don't know, I'm writing for a local online and printed hip-hop magazine called Seaspot. You may see some double-posting.

Oh, and the column was re-named the "CrossOver". Not mine but the editor's choice, purely for conceptual reasons (and yes they did like Politickin' along with some of the other things readers suggested). After insisting that it not sound like something close to psychic John Edwards, I went with it.

Three years ago today, our nation was humbled in a multiplicity of ways. Lives were lost senselessly, the idea of national security came into question, our economy took a hit, air travel changed forever, patriotism was re-defined, and for a young person like myself, the concept of "war" was more palpable than any other experience to which I could personally bear witness. Our nation has never been, and will never be the same.

We all have our "where were you when?" stories. Most of us will always remember our exact geographical point in that hour. Three days prior to what we've called one of the greatest tragedies in American history, I had just dropped out of college for good and was heading back home on a plane to Seattle. My original flight was scheduled to leave the east coast on September 11th. I still have my itinerary. But, a few days before my trip, I felt impressed to change my departure date. I will always be glad I made that decision.

Where was I? Where many of us unemployed citizens on the west coast were that early in the morning, sound asleep and regretfully oblivious--until my phone rang with the news. I flipped through every major news channel I knew of. In that instant, I realized that I'd watched too many multi-million dollar action movies. My mind was numb and desensitized to what I was viewing. Unable to separate the real from what I saw on the movies, I watched the footage over and over again, trying to make it tangible for myself. In that moment, so much became irrelevant. In that brief moment, we were nonpartisan.

In the weeks following the devastation of so many families, I knew one thing was certain: I was sick of hearing "God Bless America". Churches were packed out with mourners, and normally absent do-gooders, searching for significance, answers, and meaning. The helpless lined the streets outside local blood banks, seeking to appease their moral consciences, wanting to "help" in some way. There was a time when I suspected that the logic of America would finally realize the hate-filled lies, slaughter, and sorcery long perpetuated by those who fear the name of Allah.

Three years later, America forgot. Michelle Malkin cautions us not to mis-remember. As with all things "American", I say slap it on a t-shirt:

Front: "Consciousness is Temporary" Back: America Bless God.

I said I wasn't going to say anything else, but in light of Mr. Rather's recent resistance, I couldn't resist posting this picture taken last weekend with my friend Christina (left) at Madame Tussauds. Notice Ronald Reagan in the upper right hand corner. Yeah, he doesn't believe Mr. Rather either.

Provoked by an interesting article, The Educational System Was Designed to Keep Us Uneducated and Docile:

Of all the things that get me rattled politically and socially, education is my hot issue. The stance I take on where I feel America needs to head educationally is probably my most "controversial". I will probably live my life out as one of those crazy people who screamed "we suck!" in the corner, but oh well, one of these days, my kids will be some smart cookies if I can help it. In a nut shell, I think our entire educational structure from preschool through gr