« November 2004 | Main | August 2007 »

I know I said I'd never speak of it again, but I must've goofed up the wishlist link. Now I must rectify this situation and give the correct link to my wishlist immediately, lest people think that I actually listen to Green Day. Heavens No!

Thanks Alex, for finding the right link.

Alrighty peeps. I'm off to the East Coast for some much needed (that's an understatement) rest and relaxation although with the cooky family members around, that relaxation part seems a bit sketchy.

Because my grandparents have refused to move into the 21st century and have email accounts which they don't use and still have dial-up and....I can barely bring myself to type it....A-O-L, a company which I believe to be from Satan, posting will be sporadic if not non-existent from the Friday the 24th- through the weekend most likely. Yay for free time! Oh the wonderous and glorious things I shall do with free time!

On another note, I cannot be held accountable for what I'm about to say. It has been suggested to me by one reader who goes by the name of Alex, and makes funny comments like "My lip-size-to-melanin ratio often gets me stopped at airport security", that I post my wish list or a paypal link so people can buy me stuff and bless me. Hey I'm all for blessings! This site is free and will always be free, but since he emailed me to point this out, I will comply. Ain't no shame in my game.

If you've ever wanted to donate to this site, you can do so by one of the following ways:

• My Amazon Wishlist is Here (link now fixed people!! No Ambra doesn't listen to Green Day!!)
  
• My paypal account is ambra@nykola.com
  
• And last but not least, it would be a direct blessing to me if you would donate to my sister Amelia's cause. I need to update her site for her, but she's still fundraising nonetheless. Thanks to those who donated already.

There Alex. I did it. Now I shall never speak of it again. Except maybe my sister's website. See you all on the flip side.

Rebel: Adam Hunter

Age: 21

Representing: Somerset, New Jersey

Status Senior Double Major in Political Science and Economics at Howard University in Washington D.C.

Why you should fear him: A son of Democrat parents, and a student at a historically black (and by default staunchly Democrat) university, Hunter is familiar with going against the grain of political thought. He is the founder of the Howard University College Republicans. He has helped grow the membership to over 70 students in its first year. This is the largest College Republican chapter at any historically black college in the country. He is currently working with the College Republican National Committee as the Director of African American Outreach and is the Vice Chair of the DC Federation of College Republicans.

Adam is also involved with student government at Howard. He is the Student Advocacy Coordinator and was last year's Director of Internal Affairs for the Howard University Student Association.

Hunter gained national recognition this year when he was a finalist in MTV's Choose or Lose essay Competition. He's even appeared on Fox News. Plus he's a Howard University Bison. That makes him cool.

Noteable Quote: "Within the Republican community, they don't understand hip-hop. Republicans are trying to marginalize the hip-hop experience. They think it's just music and don't understand it's a full-fledged culture. It's the way people communicate. And it's not specifically an African-American culture. Most people who buy hip-hop are white."

Essays: Choose or Lose Essay

Press: Interview with District of Columbia Republican Committee, Home News Tribune

The spiritual history of the black community is deep and wide. In black music especially, there has always been a connection with the church. Today, your average multi-platinum black vocalist (booty shakers included), grew up singing in their local church. Nearly every single one. These people will generally be the first admit this and give all the credit to God for their talent. And while very few individuals have chosen to honor God with their lives, there is yet a certain degree of respect for Jesus Christ that is fairly common among those in the black community.

For this reason, it was no surprise to me that rapper Kanye West's song "Jesus Walks" has gained much hype over the last couple of months. The song was recently nominated for "Best Rap Song" and "Song of the Year". If you're not familiar with the song, lyrics can be found here.

The two Grammy nominations were heaped on top of the pile of acclaim and praise the song received from half of the Western Hemisphere. As though Kanye West is the first person on the entire planet to invoke the name of Jesus in a song. Although I can share in the sentiments of his album title "The College Drop Out", I'm not at all fond of West's song.

The Sun-Herald reports:

Moral values are turning up in the strangest places these days. Among the songs most honored in this year's Grammy nominations is a rap tribute to Jesus Christ -

a catchy, beat-driven rhyme that has garnered unexpected critical and commercial success in a genre best known for its profane promotion of sex, money, drugs and lawlessness.

Music critics are hailing the author of "Jesus Walks," songwriter and producer Kanye West, as the hottest new voice in rap and suggesting that his in-your-face embrace of religion signifies a break with tradition and the maturation of a musical form that has been narrowly defined by its outlaw culture.

The "Personal Jesus" trend is not new, it's just repackaged every couple of years for comfortable consumption. On the most fundamental level, West's song speaks to the universal need for Jesus. The chorus is a simple lament (not exactly Davidic, but a lament nonetheless), asking for God's strength, protection, and guidance. All of those statements are true. Things get murky around West's definiting of walking with Jesus. The medium has changed, but the "live like you want and Jesus will still endorse you" message will always be accepted as long as it's easy to swallow.

The flowery message goes as such:

To the hustlas, killers, murderers, drug dealers even the strippers
To the victims of Welfare for we living in hell here hell yeah
Now hear ye hear ye want to see Thee more clearly
I know he hear me when my feet get weary
Cuz we're the almost nearly extinct
We rappers are role models we rap we don't think
I ain't here to argue about his facial features
Or here to convert atheists into believers
I'm just trying to say the way school need teachers
The way Kathie Lee needed Regis that's the way yall need Jesus
So here go my single dog radio needs this
They say you can rap about anything except for Jesus
That means guns, sex, lies, video tapes
But if I talk about God my record won't get played Huh?
Well let this take away from my spins
Which will probably take away from my ends
Then I hope this take away from my sins
And bring the day that I'm dreaming about
Next time I'm in the club everybody screaming out

There has been much respect given to West for pinpointing the ills of the music industry which considers the word "Jesus" to be profane and offensive while all other lewd and inappropriate language is permissible. This is the spot on truth and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Proving himself the "trailblazer" West's song has done tremendously well in spite of its content. I even read recently that "people" have compared Kanye West to Mel Gibson in that West fronted $1 million of his own money to produce three music videos for the song in order to generate more popularity. I suppose that infers that West is spreading the message of Christ through his song. My next question is, what message would that be?

When the small start-up company "Teenage Millionaire" came out with the infamous "Jesus is My Homeboy" t-shirts, they were all the rage. While these t-shirts were less popular among young hip hoppers than they were among urban hipsters, it is certain that few if any donners took great personal and spiritual connection with the suggestion Jesus was anything more than a regular man in the Bible. The agnostic young adult population in particular took such a liking to them that the shirts became one of the hottest items of the year. Even celebrities were spotted wearing the shirts right along with their hip Kabbalah bracelets (to further add to the confusion).

Whereas I too once defended the concept behind the t-shirts and the etymology of the word "homeboy", on a grander scale of things, my tune may be slightly changing in light of the fact that we must examine such things against the backdrop of a culture that is hostile and arrogant towards God and what it means to serve him. The "agnostic young adult population", are those, many of whom are my peers, whose actions clearly dictate that they exist in some state of limbo as to whether or not their life is their own. There is a certain degree of action that comes along with the belief that God is who He says He is. That "belief" is severely hindered by a watering-down of the identity of God (and subsequently, our own identities). One of the manifestations of this takes place in the music industry.

There is the general belief among many artists that it's okay to live one way and drop in the name of Jesus al a carte. We've all heard the award acceptance speeches over the years:

"Yes I know I just took most of my clothes off and shook my butt on the stage while singing and simulating dry sex on the dance floor, but thank you God, the head of my life for allowing me to make this album and blessing me with my talents."

Then there's my personal favorite which goes a little something like this:

"First I want to give honor to God for helping me to make this album which diametrically opposes everything moral or righteous and allowing me to continue to make money in spite of my filthy lifestyle, DUIs, arrests, and complete and utter disregard for human life. I love you Jesus."

Meanwhile, we sit on the sidelines and applaud these people like they're doing big things for the name of Jesus. The Stellar Awards nomination committee didn't think so. They pulled "Jesus Walks" off the list of songs nominated for a gospel music award when they found the rest of West's album objectionable in content.

There is a fundamental problem with "Jesus Walks" and "Jesus is My Homeboy" and every other pop culture fad that attempts to water down the person of Jesus Christ. The message is faulty in that the Jesus presented requires nothing of the individual. It takes little effort on our part to acknowledge that Jesus is our friend, our homeboy, and walking with us every day. That is a given. If it weren't so, we'd all be dead by now. But Jesus never told us to wait for him to come walk with us. Instead, He asked us to walk with Him. Big difference.

Tastes more like cough syrup next to the sugar-coated message that's so popular in a song like "Jesus Walks".

Walking with Jesus requires something of the individual. No one in the Bible ever encountered Jesus Christ and remained the same. Their countenance and their lifestyle changed drastically. I know mine did. We continue to spread a misleading message to a dying culture when we make it seem as though Jesus is just another concept at the "Pick 'n Grab Store". Jesusfreak one day, bedroom freak the next. Jesus at the club? Jesus on the side? Jesus on the half shell? Baked, fried or broiled? This choose your own Jesus recipe stuff is killing people off.

I'm sorry, but this fluffy stuff is not going to be what gets this generation from where we are to where God needs us to be. Does Jesus love the world? Absolutely. He loves pimps, hos, prostitutes, corporate extortionists, murders, liars, thieves, adulterers, and even I. But God's intention was that we would recognize His love, repent (change our way of thinking), and live our lives in a way that pleases Him. We crucify Jesus every day when we fail to properly acknowledge His sacrifice. This isn't a game. People are dying and it's going to take more than some shallow messages of Jesus that stroke us and make us feel better about our sin and lack of obedience.

Yeah Jesus walks, but will we walk with him?

The Changing of the Guard

Thanks readers and commenters for supplying me with material for this article.

Ambra: Daddy trust me, we're gonna need a really big truck.

Parental Unit Male: But Ambra, you only lived here for two and half years, and it's a studio apartment. You can't possibly have amassed that much stuff.

Ambra: Silly mortal, you underestimate my powers.

There is an amazing phenomena in America called "excess". 'Round about box number 15 full of crap for which I don't forsee an immediate use, I had to stop and say to myself, "Self, you have too much stuff."

And then I went shopping. "Consciousness" is blissfully temporary. Now that you've been enlightened, go forth and throw something a way.

I found the following from the blog "Acme Mindlabs" to be particularly amusing:

Hollywood Pundit - A Recipe
Take one celebrity full of righteous indignation,
with a bit of socialism and a hint of professional frustration,
For detachement from reality, 2 pints of Ollie Stone,
A sprinkle of Martin Sheen for whine and [complain] and moan,
For hypocrisy and ignorance, one 1/3 cup of minced Sean Penn,
A dollop of Bellefonte to set the cause back a year, or ten,
To obscure the facts and twist the truth, a pound of Michael Moore,
Then a touch of Barbra Streisand for arrogance and stupid quotes galore,
For pretentious condescension, a liberal dash of Robbins and Sarandon,
Although if none's available, Robert Altman's an OK stand-in,
A dash of Alec Baldwin for general stupidity,
And perhaps some Woody Harrelson for lack of credibility,
Carefully mix half-truths and a pinch of outright lies,
Put it on TV and let it bake to rise,
Remove it from the spotlight, to vent carefully prick the surface,
When prepared as indicated will serve: no particular purpose.

In other news, "L-Breezy", aka La Shawn Barber discusses Hollywood's hatred for Christ.

One of the books at the top of my reading list is the new release from 20-year-old conservative wunderkind, Ben Shapiro. Love him or hate him, when I heard of his first book, "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth" I was salivating from day-one. This is the first book of its kind to address these issues from the perspective of a young person. Move over crusty curmudgeons, there are new critics on the block.

The fact that American universities generally tend be liberal breeding grounds isn't a new revelation, but you'd be surprised just how-off-the-hook colleges have become. The collective stories told by the younger generation about what really takes place on campus is nauseating.

Call it personal ambition, but this is a topic I've delved into quite a bit. My bookshelf is littered with books on this very topic, most of them written by people who haven't been in college since Ted Koppel had hair. One of my favorite books on this topic is "Imposters in the Temple: The Decline of the American University" a dry read by Senior Hoover Institute fellow Martin Anderson. In his book, Anderson, a Conservative, takes issue with the big-business colleges have become and the corporate-like salaries and perks awarded to tenured professors whose classes are mostly taught by graduate students. What I love is that Anderson is disliked by both Liberals and Conservatives alike. In his book, he doesn't take sides, but he holds both ends of polical philosophy accountable for a morally corrupt college sub-culture.

What may come as fairly shocking news to many is that most of America's top universities (as in the places where we get the so-called "top leaders" of society) are overwhelmingly liberal, including the entire Ivy League. Within his book, Shapiro examines some of the following realities:

• Exit polling data that shows students become more liberal as they progress through their college career.

• 9% of Ivy League professors surveyed voted for Bush.

• After eliminating moral absolutes, professors are free to advocate anything - even murder.

• Student groups, from the Muslim Student Association to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, from the African Student Union to MEChA, receive funding to push perversion and hate.

• Some actual Quotes on campus from Professors regarding September 11: "Anyone who bombs the Pentagon has my vote," "the people who caused 9-11 might fit into Locke's definition of justified resistance".

• Campus sex columns in the student newspaper encouraging casual sex and same-sex experimentation, forays to strip clubs for university credit, pornographic acts for art finals, and the "America as terrorist" theory.

• Actual Classes: Black Marxism, Same Sex Desire in Modern Literature, The Poetics of Palestinian Resistance, The Sexuality of Terrorism, and How to Be Gay: male Homosexuality and Initiation. One university actually offers a Marxist Studies minor.

At my lovely institution, "we" (or rather, "they") had the notorious "C*** Club", a university-funded and supported student group that got together to celebrate female masturbation. There was also a dormitory on campus called "Heathen House" where the witches lived. I have stories upon stories. Far and wide, this is a taste of the nonsense going on in the halls of higher learning. It's not a game. We're talking a rapid decline here folks.

When I left Wesleyan University nearly four years ago, I was agitated and afflicted. I didn't leave because I couldn't hold up under the weight of the big bad liberals. Quite the contrary. I actually have reason to believe that if I had continued playing my cards as it was, I'd have been kicked out of my most of my classes for arguing with professors. I left because the school was a waste of my time and money. My affliction came in knowing that nothing on that campus was going to change without people there to change it. I wanted one of those people to be me, but purpose had a higher calling.

Compared to many, Wesleyan is aggressively liberal as are most New England schools. They are breeding grounds for philosophies and thoughts that leave students in utter confusion about their identity. To this day I am almost certain that my brief time spent in college was intended to show me the reality of what my generation is facing. For me, this is an intricate part of why I'm alive.

I think often the "Conservative" response to the university problem is to encourage people to flock to conservative schools. Last month, "Young America's Foundation" released their list of Top 10 Conservative Colleges. Among those listed were Hillsdale College (home to boyscout Hans Zeiger), Liberty University (Heart of the Falwell Reign), and the other "Wesleyan", Indiana Wesleyan University. Michelle Malkin, an Oberlin College graduate, noted that she wished she'd known about them sooner.

Well I don't.

Among the funny emails I get from those who've read my exaggerated bio was one that suggested (and quite seriously I might add) that I should've considered Bob Jones University. And yes we all know the racial history of BJU and they've had their share of issues, and yeah they're "Christian" and yadda yadda, but I can say with safe amount of certainty that Bob Jones University would be a "no" for Ambra.

Conservative and Christian universities are great and serve a tremendous purpose and we need them desperately. I myself nearly considered attending a Christian school post-Wesleyan, but I've studied them well and like all schools, they too have flaws. That's an entirely different discussion. There is no such thing as a perfect school and quite frankly, if there was, I'm not sure I'd want to go there.

The reality is that just as we need think tanks of truth, we need places for the modern-day Elijahs to enter and combat the ills of university culture. I appreciate people like Shapiro who are willing to buck up against the system and say what needs to be said. One thing I've always envisioned myself doing is speaking to university students on the realities of what a college experience should and should not be.

The brainwashing must stop.

'Tis the season for me to catch up on my reading. With time off from work and a couple of long and weary plane rides over the next two months, this is usually the time of year when I read and finish all those books I've been putting off. Television has killed this society's love for reading. I'm not sure if my "love" was ever alive to be killed, but I can get fairly excited at the thought of an insightful book.

That said, I usually have to buy the books I want to read because I have this nagging need to highlight, annotate, and underline.

So I ask, what are you currently reading?

The site's been on the fritz today thanks to some incompetence on the part of people in Scottsdale, Arizona that I pay to in fact not be incompetent. If you're reading this, consider yourself one of the few. My post for the day was lost in the hubbub and I don't care to find it. It probably wasn't all that insightful anyway so on to less important topics.

I frequently get asked about this little black chick mini-me mascot, so here's the short of it. The black chick's been through about three phases. Phase one I won't even show, but the second phase can be viewed here and was drawn by yours truly when I had much shorter hair. My drawing skills lack so the third version was done by a professional graphic designer by the name of Heather of Lisette Design. She is an excellent illustrator that captures the playfulness that I adore. Hopefully she will also be re-designing black chick version 4.0 to be released with the next site re-vamp in '05.

Personally, I would've canned the fashionista broad a long time ago, except that people emailed me to tell me otherwise so I guess she's here to stay; kinda like a "Where's Waldo?" character.

I'll reflect on this officially in the new year, but January 1st is my "official" one-year anniversary of "blogging" or my "blogiversary" or whatever cheesy name they call it. I'm not about to get all sappy and say the time went by so fast and time flies when you're having fun and all that other fluff. Nope. While it has been fun, it's also been a very long and arduous process of settling in to my writing voice, becoming comfortable with it, being misunderstood, getting over the need to be understood, and trying to pry myself away from my computer.

Before I started my own blog, I was a reader of a few others and I must say, I have a higher respect for the people that have been doing this for 4+ years. Pushing out 700+ coherent, independent words every day is one of the most challenging mental exercises I've encountered as a writer. But I must say, I love it. I was once told that the late Chicago Tribune writer Mike Royko published 800 quality words, five days a week, for nearly four decades. This blogging stuff pales in comparison to that so I have few complaints. What doesn't kill me makes me stronger, and smarter (and more of a stress case) too.

Oh the lovely world we live in. I'm extremely tired, which means I'm grumpy, which means I'm overly opinionated. Just a few takes on some happenings of the moment:

Accidental Cocaine Killing
The autopsy reports for rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard (a befitting name, really) have returned to show that he died of *gasp* a drug overdose. Now there's a shocker. To capture the media's correct wording, "The death of rapper O.D.B. was deemed an accident by the medical examiner, who said Wednesday that he died from the combined effects of cocaine and a prescription painkiller."

So my question is, at what point is death from cocaine ever an accident? Life is precious. Steward it accordingly.

The Case of the Murdered Fetus
Although most major media has referred to Scott Peterson's second victim as "Connor", their unborn child, the mental midgets at MSNBC have reported that Scott Peterson got the death penalty for murdering his wife Laci Peterson and her "fetus". An excerpted sentence from their most recent report reads, "Peterson was convicted Nov. 12 of one count of first-degree murder in the death of Laci, and one count of second-degree murder for the killing of her eight-month old fetus." Another sentence reads, "Three jurors said at a press conference afterward that they couldn’t let go of the fact that the bodies of Laci Peterson and her fetus had washed ashore a few miles from where Scott Peterson claimed he went fishing the day she disappeared."

Perhaps someone can explain to me how one can "murder" a fetus. According to Webster, the first entry for the verb "to murder" is "to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice". Parenthetical clarity not mine but in fact, Webster's.

Crafty MSNBC. Very crafty. But unfortunately, not crafty enough. I smell bias.

Paternal Failure Goes Primetime
Just when you thought the reality TV craze was going away quietly, some clearly spastic individuals calling the shots at Fox Television thought up another whammy. Slated to air on primetime January 3rd is the new reality show "Who's Your Daddy?" wherein adoptees have to sift through a group of men to find out the identity of their real father in hopes of winning a prize worth $100,000. Because who doesn't want to see that disaster take place on national television! Paternity tests, prize money, and "reality TV"? I believe it's already been done. It's called "The Jerry Spring Show". JERRY JERRY JERRY JERRY. Adoption advocates are not happy.

I wonder if Fox realizes that any ground gained in the battle for common sense in good judgement via their arrogant pundits on cable television, is completely lost by their alternative programming.

Pedophilia is Art
The recent release of the film biography of "sex-researcher" (a rather generous title if you ask me) Dr. Alfred Kinsey has barely been in theaters but is on the American Film Institute's list of top 10 movies of 2004. Yep, right up there with Pixar's "The Incredibles". Quite the juxtaposition. And right there cheering the film on is Planned Parenthood President and Chief Executive Liar, Gloria Feldt:

"Kinsey is a powerful reminder of the importance of healthy sexuality and the many impediments to attaining it. The film illustrates the revolutionary nature of applying scientific research to human sexuality, including the study of sexual norms. Though Kinsey himself was as complex and imperfect as any of the rest of us, his groundbreaking research has helped generations to experience pleasure without shame and moved our society toward a place where sexuality can be understood and embraced as a fundamental aspect of our humanity."

Kinsey has helped generations experience pleasure without shame? I'm sure Jocelyn Elders would be proud. For that, Kinsey deserves a crusty medal and a spot right next to Sigmund Freud on the list of "Sick and twisted individuals".

Somewhat unrelated: I've never quite understood the whole "sex research industry". It seems to me that people have been having sex for thousands of years with zero problems (so I've heard). Leave it to human beings to come into the fray and jack it up (maybe a poor choice of words) and make things more complicated than they need to be. Then again, on this topic, I'm all theory.

Continue running the great race!

It is decidedly so. And it is with a great deal of pride that I admit that I can't even remember the quadratic equation but I've had Robert Frost and Edgar Allen Poe memorized for years. On this topic, I will quote extensively. The New York Times reports (reg req.:

Last week, the United States proved, yet again, that its mathematical literacy is abysmal. In a survey by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, it ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematics, far below Finland and South Korea, and about on a par with Portugal.

The survey tested simple, "everyday" skills like estimating the size of Antarctica or footsteps in the sand. Nonetheless, as in past comparisons, American 15-year-olds did rather better than students in Mexico, Indonesia and South Africa, and substantially worse than those in rich countries, especially Asian ones.

But we mustn't forget that in spite of these facts, we are still better. Let's just continue to recite that to ourselves. We're better we're better we're better we're better.

In his post "If A Train Leaves," fellow blogger Avery Tooley noted some reasons why we lack mathematical aptitude:

Here's my take on the reasons behind our lag: we accept mathematical illiteracy. It's not uncommon to hear people say, "I just don't do math" or "I never was any good at that." And I'm not talking about kids here, I'm talking about adults; not them jokers standin' on the corner, either. I'm talmbout college-edumacated; experts in their fields...will tell you that they aren't good at math and don't fool with it on those grounds. And most of us, even if we don't like it, we'll at least accept it. Now if somebody tried to say that about reading, they'd get blasted out of the water. Mathematics is just as fundamental as reading.

Or is it? It's a safe bet to assume that the Egyptian Africans that built the pyramids weren't exactly dummies. They certainly were smarter than I. Then again, nowadays we have Auto-CAD to do architectural renderings on our behalf. The New York Times continues:

These annual humiliations produce two consistent reactions.
One set of experts grouses that the surveys are unfair: average American students are compared to distant elites; Americans play sports and hold jobs; foreign countries impose national standards while America believes in local school boards.

Another set gloomily predicts that math malaise will ultimately gut the economy, frequently citing an estimate that American businesses waste $30 billion a year on remedial training. (In 1990, the elder President Bush announced an expensive plan to have American students lead the world in math by the year 2000.)

But there is also the Peggy Sue school of thought, which asks: So what?

In all but the most arcane specialties (like teaching math), the need for math has atrophied. Electronic scales can price 4.15 pounds of chicken at $3.79 a pound faster than any butcher. Artillerymen in Iraq don't use slide rules as their counterparts on Iwo Jima did. Cars announce how many miles each gallon gets. Some restaurant bills calculate suggested tips of 15, 18 or 20 percent. Architects and accountants now have spreadsheets for everything from wind stress to foreign tax shelters. The new math is plug-and-play.

True, those calculators and spreadsheets and credit card machines need to be programmed. But, in between bouts of visa restrictions, American universities successfully import thousands of math whizzes each year because jobs await them, and the tiny percentage of American-born students who do Ph.D. work equal the world's best.

In math, as in chess, countries that produce the most grandmasters per capita - like Hungary and Iceland - not only don't rule the world, they don't even rule chess.

This conversation seems a bit chicken and eggish. Although I always found theological error in that "which came first?" scenario. Still, it appears that we Americans need to get our collective beehinds in shape. However, I fear that there is absolutely no motivation to do so. I know I never had any. After all, we're the best.

I've been a bit incapacitated these last few weeks because I'm in the process of moving and the utter disaster that is my apartment has rendered my mental faculties useless. I'm one of those people who can't function when there are unfolded clothes on the floor. I am reminded of how much I despise moving and perplexed that my small little personage of all of five-foot-two (and a half) and 23-years of age, managed to amass such an insane amount of stuff in such a short period of time.

Then there's that whole "First Annual Reader Appreciation Card" bit that sounded like a really great and brilliant idea at the time, but 'round about say, oh I dunno, midnight at Kinko's, and one shot of espresso, I think I entered the land of regret. But by golly, I'm a woman of my word, and thanks to my trusty sidekick who shall be revealed at a later time, cards should be shipped tomorrow for those who requested them (AKA, the cool kids on the block). If you didn't and still want one, too bad. I'm not making anymore. Ever. I will give birth to a child before it happens again. (I jest) Don't ever say I don't love you people. Two paper cuts, 5 gluesticks, and a couple hundred bucks later, I have a finished product that is actually quite nifty if I do say so myself.

A bit of Linkology:

• By way of Joanne Jacobs, a recent federal report says that fewer teenagers are having sex. Somewhere in that data there is a discussion on the usefulness of abstinence education.

• The nonpartisan ACLU recently filed suit against the Dover Area School District in Harrisburg, PA for their recent decision to require that "intelligent design" (the belief that the creation of the Universe is so complex, it had to be orchestrated by a higher power) be taught alongside all other theories in science. The ACLU's premise? Good ole separation of church and state. I don't want to be around when the ACLU gets what they deserve.

• Jeff the Baptist took my bait and discusses the overuse of the term "homophobia" by Liberals.

• Angela Winters at "Politopics" discusses the need for leadership and accountability in her post "Hip Hop Politics".

• Reader Janae takes the veil off the confused hype that is Destiny's Child

More in a minute...

What is the inference behind the phrase, "Give it the old college try"?

Perhaps this is the month of disclaimers. I probably should have done this 11 months ago, but oh well. Better late than never. I need to address a few points on racial dialogue on this web space. Warning: this is incredibly screedy.

For starters, I despise the way we discuss issues pertaining to race in this country. To engage in a conversation about physical differences is like partaking in mentally retarded gymnastics. And I'll bet my reference to mental retardation just offended somebody. See what I mean? We are a bunch of politically correct fruitbats.

The thing that really agitates me is that we've created such a hypersensitivity to race in America, that nobody can talk anymore. We're all walking on egg shells and tripping over ourselves to use the right terms. And MY GOODNESS the terms we have created. Mandatory "diversity sensitivity" training isn't training at all. It's just a class on memorizing terms. Race aside, you can spend 30 minutes on sex/gender terms alone. I mean male, female, woman, man, transsexual, transgender, for love's sake how many different ways can you say "confused"?

Next thing you know we'll be creating special compound words for one-eyed 2nd generation immigrants from Finland. We now have to stop ourselves and ask if one should say Latino or Hispanic or Mexican-American or Chicano? So instead, we just say "they" which is likely to cause even more outrage because under no circumstances should one ever say "they" when referencing a racial group of people. Or so "they" say. Another cultural no-no is to refer to a group of individuals as "you people". This will get you beheaded, especially if you have a Southern accent.

This isn't to discount the value in not lumping the vast array of ethnicities into one like when we ignorantly say "Asian" which includes an abundance of different cultures. I say we'd be much better off if we all just went back to Biblical terminology and were known by tribes. Then at least people could simply ask "what tribe are you?" without people being offended.

This isn't to let people off the hook entirely for off-color (no pun intended) racial remarks. While yes, there have been many Southern idiots slurring 19th century rhetoric out of their mouths over the years, that reality just reinforces the fact that America has yet to fully deal with the wounds of the questionable building of this nation. And no, I'm not suggesting "respirations" as Cederic the Entertainer once said in the movie "Barber Shop". I am however, suggesting that we pull the politically correct rug from under this dog-and-pony show we call "racial reconciliation" and start being real.

You'll notice that in much of my discourse, I often deal in black/white relations. I don't do this to exclude others, but I do this because I think one of the biggest rifts present in America is between black people and white people. That isn't to say that there aren't a myriad of other racial issues on the table, but I think a lot of the strife even between the Republicans and Black Democrats is rooted in some pretty serious stuff that usually gets swept under the rug or blown out of proportion, both of which have been detrimental to politics in this country.

I know talking about racial differences makes some conservatives "uncomfortable". Good. God didn't promise us "comfort" in this life. Heh. Now that'll preach.

From the time that I started this welog, I've always talked openly and candidly about race, blackness, black people, and beyond. I do so because well, if you hadn't noticed, in spite of what the inept arbiters of racial authenticity may have childishly suggested, I am a black woman. While some people have tried to exclude their cultural background from their work, I find it virtually impossible to go about being a writer and not communicating my ideas from a place of 100% candidness about who I am, what I'm about, and where I'm coming from. Everyone's opinions on the world come from a location and an experience (or lack thereof).

Perhaps some aren't accustomed to doing so, but I talk about race very flippantly from time to time and it is a centerpiece of humor in my world. A coping mechanism? Perhaps. But I tend to think that I'm just one of those "say what I think" type of people and I find that we all take ourselves just a tad bit too seriously. Growing up attending predominately white private schools gave me a somewhat sarcastic and comical approach to dealing with misconceptions between races. I can't stand when people walk on egg shells about the subject. Just say what you have to say.

If I suggest that black people have a distinct sound to their voice regardless of region or that Samoans are by nature, large individuals, or that white people are the only ones on the planet who wear shorts and sandals in the wintertime, people get uncomfortable because there I go again, associating certain attributes with race. It's taboo. It's wrong. It's a sin! Right? Admittedly, doing this in the past hasn't led to good things for America, but that's mostly because pride came into the picture. But for the record, there is nothing wrong with certain traits or characteristics being specific to a race of people. In many respects, I think God designed it that way. It's man that corrupted it.

I'd rather have people be outright about their bias or misconceptions then try to pander and sugar-coat stuff. At least then I know where they stand. I've never been a very good sugar-coater so I think it better to get stuff out on the table and worry about offending people later. What's "offense" anyway but the result of a society that has told us what is and isn't acceptable. Being "offended" is highly overrated. The only individual worthy of being offended in this lifetime is Jesus Christ because God knows humanity has made an absolute mess and mockery of His sacrifice.

Moving along, although it's not on my short list of allegiances, black skin is what I have and dealing out of any other frame of reference is nearly impossible for me. Just as the fact that I am a woman shapes my worldview, so does the color of my skin whether I want it to or not. None of these things however obscure my view of things as a child of God.

That said, I love being black. I don't boast in it, but I sure will celebrate it as something that short of bleach and some really whack skin grafting, I simply can't get away from. And I'll add that people should love being whatever God created them to be too. Go ahead. Don't be scared. If you're maroon, you better rock that maroon like it's the best thing since sliced bread. That's right folks; I just unleashed permission for the full exercising of white pride. Ain't no shame in loving the skin you're in so long as it's not an idol or the aspect of ourselves that we worship or think superior to others. We've seen where that has landed this country.

I think that opening up the door to speak more frankly with one another will happen when we realize that we all have the bodies we do for a reason. I'm not a fan of superfluous plastic surgery on 22-year-old women who simply don't like their nose. I don't believe God makes mistakes. So in my case, whatever He's purposed me to do on this Earth, He's intended it to be done with brown skin and big eyes (or as they used to teasingly refer to as "Fraggle Rock Eyes"), so I might as well get a matching hat and wear my blackness and big-eyedness in style. You should too. Not your blackness, but whatever inalienable skin color and physical trait you were endowed with.

That's right; say it loud. Throw your fist in the air. As Eminem said, "Mosh". Okay, that's twice in two months that I've positively invoked Eminem's name to prove a point. I think that'll be the last one ever in life.

I've done all this rambling to say that when you come here, please, I beseech you brethern: let your guards down. I'm fairly relaxed when talking about race and I'm not prone to jumping on white peoples' backs because they said something "racial" that rubbed me the wrong way. From white people, I've heard it all. It's the black people that shock me as of late. We all need to cut each other some slack and recognize the place of honesty many are coming from instead of assuming the worst. That said, I'd like to state a couple of general rules:

1. Using the terms "Black" and "White" are fine by me. Cut all the "African-American" stuff. It takes too long to type anyway. And who the heck are "Caucasians"?
   
2. Short of epithets, offensive slang and antiquated language, you generally have free reign with me. I'd rather you just say what you're thinking so we can dialogue. If other commenters get offended, that's fine, but I'm not easily offended so if you haven't been banned or scolded by me yet, you're fine.
   
3. Don't attack people; address their ideas. Ad hominems just don't fly around here.
   
4. Don't write-off peoples' personal experiences simply because you can't relate.

Okay. I think that covers it for it now. It's all love here. Even somewhere deep in the cut there is love for Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson too. I'm a uniter not a divider.

Growing up around trust fund babies, I learned very quickly that money does not buy taste. Michael Moore is proof of this. Here we have a lovely and well-intentioned woman at some high society function in New York City. No, I wasn't there, but if I were, I may have said something to her to likes of "What on Earth were you thinking!" This picture was snagged from some snooty social diary I forget the name of. As always, the identity of the victim is kept a secret, although it was tempting to leave her face so the world could see that even normal, fairly reasonable looking individuals can fall victim to fashion mis-haps.

If you hadn't noticed, there is really only one issue at hand here: SEVERE OVERUSE OF PATTERNS! It's like attack of Geometry! Is it an outfit or is it an error in Microsoft Word? It's not just the bad 70's blouse with vertical stripes. It's not even the fact that this ensemble looks like it should be on the body of someone who wears thick suntan-colored stockings, orthopedic shoes, smells like Chanel No. 5, and was around before black and white television existed. It's the SKIRT! The geometric skirt that quite simply ruins the outfit for all of eternity.

And somehow, call me crazy, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the tag on this outfit may read: 100% Polyester. Then again, maybe that's just my own prejudice talking.

People people people, if you're going to wear prints, you should usually do so on one half of your body. There are some exceptions to this with well designed outfits, but under no circumstances should different prints be mixed. Do you see what happens when stripes go bad?

We have got to better folks. People are counting on us.

Past Faux-Pas
- George and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat
- The Grizzly Bear
- The Blue-Haired, Gun Tights Wonder
- Stripey Girl
- Me Being Stripey Girl
- The Pimp
- The Cowboy Boots

Yeah. So I haven't linked my last two columns because I developed them from some of my posts and well, although they are re-worked, there are similarities that would just be repetetive to regular readers.

But here they are for the heck of it and those that are new:

The Protected Class of Bigots

College Curriculum Gone Bad

Throughout the decades, a number of liberal individuals have found it wise to link themselves with the work of Dr. Martin Luther King (or as he was referred to affectionately in our household, "The Great Afro-American Negro", a joke only those who endured the awful X/King/Tubman black history month curriculum will get). Of course, given the fact that King was indeed an important leader and activist for justice, associating oneself with him is generally a safe bet. Even the likes of Planned Parenthood have beat the life out of any remaining shred of a tie they may have had with the man that is so highly regarded in America and beyond. It wasn't until my lesbian college American History professor pointed out in class how "conservative" King was that I came to realize that the social activists of the left may have fraudulently appropriated his legacy.

There is a debate raging in the atmosphere about whether or not Dr. King would have been in favor of a ban on same-sex marriages. Even within King's own family, there is division on the issue. King's widow, Coretta Scott King has spoken publicly on more than one occasion about the need for justice for homosexuals, claiming that her husband would have been in favor for the rights of homosexuals to marry. Meanwhile, in opposition to her own mother, King's youngest daughter Bernice said the following at a conference in Auckland, New Zealand:

"I know deep down in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex unions."

A few of those who "knew" King, including a friend from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Rev. Joseph Lowery, said if King were alive today, he would view marriage as a "private affair".

The reality is, King never spoke publicly about the issue of homosexuality and today, the frame of reference is quite different.

In the ongoing quest to equate the plight of homosexuals with the civil rights movement, the rainbow brigade is once again up in arms due to a recent Atlanta march in favor of a ban on same-sex marriages. This particular march called "Reigniting the Legacy" from King memorial, also happened to include the late Dr. King's daughter Bernice King, a minister. The Atlanta Constitution-Journal reported:

There they were — thousands of them, wearing long-sleeve black T-shirts with the words "STOP THE VIOLENCE" across the front.

About 50 counter-demonstrators lined the street, singing, "In the name of Jesus, hate has got to go."

And so it went Saturday morning, as Bishop Eddie Long, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Church, a predominantly black megachurch, led a march from the King Memorial to Turner Field calling for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

As the 45-minute march from the King Center to Turner Field concluded, Long told his supporters, some shivering from temperatures in the 40s, that it was time for the black community to be heard.

"We can't be silenced," Long said to cheers in a parking lot outside of Turner Field.

"We are not marching against folks," he said. "We are marching for folks."

Earlier, as the group made its way to Turner Field, Bernice King, youngest daughter of the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and an elder of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, one of the largest in Atlanta, walked arm in arm with Long, the church's senior pastor, and his wife, Vanessa.

The backlash from this march has been predictable. In typical childish fashion, Bernice King's stance on this issue has earned her the title of "House Nigga" in some circles. This black on black hate thing? It's getting old.

Liberals and gay-rights activists (often the same individuals) are outraged at the fact that their beloved Dr. King was associated with anything opposing homosexual marriage. Among the many protesters from gay-advocacy groups were signs that read "I STAND IN OPPOSITION OF NEW BIRTH'S HOMOPHOBIC MARCH". Right. I love how the Left uses "homophobia" as a scare tactic; as if being called "homophobic" is something new or offensive. The following are a few quotes regarding the recent event:

"If Dr. King were here today, he wouldn't participate in this march," said U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a veteran of the civil rights movement who marched alongside King. "During the civil rights movement, we were trying to take discrimination out of the Constitution."
...........

"I think it's very sad. I think he's abusing the good name of Dr. King and the work he did creating equality for all Americans," said Chuck Bowen, a spokesman for Georgia Equality.

A great success of liberal groups has been to disconnect the work of Dr. King with the fact that he was a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. People love to call King "Doctor" but rarely do they refer to him as "Reverend". We don't hear a great deal mentioned about King's ministry and his sermonizing from the Bible. There was once a day when "social justice" and politics were closely tied with the "black church". Based on the fact the King was a Bible-believing Baptist (and assuming he didn't subscribe to the private interpretation methodical, choose-your-own-adventure brand of Christianity), we can deduce that he probably did not condone homosexuality as a lifestyle. Although, Liberals will point to the fact that one of King's top advisers and organizers for the March on Washington, Bayard Rustin, was an openly homosexual man as proof positive that King was in favor of homosexual marriage. The reality is, this example merely shows us that King was in favor of showing an attitude of love towards all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. This is simply the cause of Christ. However, the philosophy of King is currently being distorted to support the homosexual agenda.

Fundamentally, the debate gets murky. Earlier this year, Thomas Sowell wrote an article called 'Gay Marriage' confusions, in which he points out the holes in the arguments being made by gay rights activists. Sowell wisely notes:

Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as the "gay marriage" issue.

There is, for example, the argument that the government has no business getting involved with marriage in the first place. That is a personal relation, the argument goes.

Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a legal relation. To say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say that government has no business governing.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what happens between "consenting adults" in private is none of the government's business. But now gay activists are taking the opposite view, that it is government's business -- and that government has an obligation to give its approval.
...........
The last refuge of the gay marriage advocates is that this is an issue of equal rights. But marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three or four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes and species?

Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and a woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that.

Even at the individual level, men and women have different circumstances, if only from the fact that women have babies and men do not. These and other asymmetries in the positions of women and men justify long-term legal arrangements to enable society to keep this asymmetrical relationship viable -- for society's sake.

Neither of these considerations applies to unions where the people are of the same sex.

The whole debate of "justice" and the government's role in defining marriage is already an argument with many sides. That said, in the context of the Civil Rights movement, the "rights" to King's legacy cannot be bought without taking into account the fact that he was a Christian man. And of all the reading I've done of King's work, speeches and books, the running throughline seems to be his commitment and devotion to God first. I doubt we would ever see King, a man of faith, a Reverend, raised in a fundamentalist home, publically rallying in favor of a woman's right to murder her unborn child.

A little perspective here please.

Based on a 2004 Black Entertainment Television and CBS poll, more than half of black Americans oppose same-sex marriages. In fact, this has been the very issue that has gained President Bush more support from the black communitiy. This "majority" is not new, but speaks to a culture that is deeply rich with a history of Christianity. As a whole, the black community has always been more socially conservative. That majority is telling. King represents a generation whose activism was rooted in an understanding of God's intention for humanity.

I find it highly interesting that the homosexual community--number one hijackers of the King legacy--are crying heresy at the fact that Christian leaders are invoking his name when King was in fact a Christian. In spite of what his own wife may be saying, there is no finality of the argument on where King would have stood on this 21st century issue. Post-Civil Rights Coretta Scott King has been sketchy on more than just this issue.

There have already been many developments over time that have shown us that Dr. King wasn't the flawless leader everyone believed him to be. I certainly don't discount him from taking a stance I don't agree with. I would however, like to see a proper examination of this issue in light of King's moral convictions.

Doubt it will happen anytime soon. After all, King is the "Great Liberal Mascot".

Carrying over from some of the comments addressing my assertion that black women are oversexualized in media, I frame a statement Actor Will Smith made in the form of a question:

Is Hollywood "black", "white", or is it green?

Discuss.

These people are out of their minds.

Washington State Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a mother's eavesdropping on a telephone conversation between her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend violated "children's privacy".

The Seattle Times reports:

The high court unanimously reversed a 2000 robbery conviction against Oliver Christensen, 22, of Friday Harbor, in a case based in part on the testimony of the mother and what she heard in that telephone conversation.

"The court said it is against the law to intercept or snoop on anybody's private conversation and that even a child has privacy rights," said Christensen's attorney, Michael Tario. "And further, the law says it is a crime for someone to do that, and that whatever is heard cannot be mentioned in court."

The mother, Carmen Dixon, was incredulous.

"I just believe you have the right to know what your kids are doing and who they're doing it with," said Dixon, 47, of Friday Harbor. "We were having a hard time with her as a teenager. She was sort of out of control."

When I was growing up (I arguably still am), my mother would threaten to knock the sense out of me if I even suggested that she had to knock before entering my room. My favorite line of hers, "I'll be required to knock when you participate in paying the mortgage."

Now I'm all for respect between parents and children, but if a parent wants to eavesdrop on their child's conversation, I say more power to them. Maybe we can intercept some more bedroom bomb-building that way. What is all this talk of "rights" anyway?

Joe at the Evangelical Outpost writes in "Let's Think About Sex":

"...the debate between “comprehensive” and “abstinence-only” sex education programs is itself a misguided focus on a false dilemma. Both approaches are primarily concerned with indoctrination toward a particular viewpoint and inoculation against the effects of certain behavior. Neither is concerned with providing a true education. The abstinence advocates, for example, want teens to 'just say no' while the comprehensive crowd want students to 'just wear a condom.' Both are more concerned about “effectiveness” than with teaching teens how to think for themselves about human sexuality.

Now we're getting somewhere. Maybe next week I'll have the strength.

(It's 2 am and therefore the following may or may not be coherent)

I probably should have said what I'm about to say eleven and a half months ago, but whatever; call me an optimist. I'm an optimist because whatever I was smoking (figuratively) when I started this weblog must have led me to believe that the vast majority of people on the world wide web had the capacity and at least a shred of decency that allows them to critically think and exchange the political label sieve for oh I dunno, a brain. I've been down from my "wishful high" for quite some time now and can say with striking clarity that people are very disappointing.

This is by no means a new revelation. I mean, a simple flip through the newspaper and you're bound to get disappointed at least 16-20 times. In fact, while I'm on the subject, my own parents disappoint me on the regular, but probably not half as much as I disappoint them so let us all commiserate in the fact that disappointment is inevitable.

That said;

There are certain individuals I've encountered in my almost year-long journey on the internet that I'm quite sick of. These two-celled brain individuals are comfortable throwing out all reason and logic for the sake of political label slinging. And while I'm sure all of us would love to re-live kindergarten where snacks and recess abound, the "I'm going to disagree with everything you say quite simply because you're a '[insert opposing political label]' and I don't like you'" type of thinking is juvenile and petty. Damned if you do/damned if you don't standards don't really bode well with me. Dealing with these type of individuals is a waste of precious energy.

I'm not doing it anymore.

Then there are other individuals who refuse to engage anyone on a human or ideological level and instead cop-out (yeah I said it) by using epithets that are so played out and tired, they've completely lost their potency. "Uncle Tom", "Coon", these are all names believe it or not, I've never been called until I went online. And although I've always been vocal about my perspective, my political disagreements with other black people never went "there" because quite frankly, in the flesh, people know me better than that. Thankfully, some people online (see item #4) can also see through the facade.

Really folks, if we're going to play the role of grand arbiters of race authenticity here, let's at least get original. I mean, Uncle Tom is so Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill trial passe. I say "Uncle Tom" the character needs to be de-constructed anyhow. I think we're grossly misappropriating the term. I'll add that topic to the docket.

People wonder why I'm irritated by the false political labels we worship and adore. I'll tell you why. Because our lovely labels are among the many things that hinder people from being able to engage each other beyond surface political talk. The buck usually stops at which candidate you voted for or how you feel on a given issue. I'm sorry, but that type of dialogue is boring and although there is little from Liberal side of things that interests me personally, I have no desire to dwell in the conservative echo chamber. This here ditty on the web is intended to be read by all types of people.

Maybe us black conservatives just have a higher tolerance for opposition. After all, we'd have no contact with family members if we didn't.

The "title wave" allows people to perpetuate facades. When someone doesn't like an idea, instead of addressing the idea, they can get away with saying "Republicans make me sick" and talk about how ugly I am or break out the ad hominems in rapid-fire. It's a defense mechanism for real dialogue and it smells. Smelly people will be ignored by me.

I'm not exactly sure what type of special Barry Bonds-type steroids certain internet dwellers take to puff themselves up and become so high and mighty on the internet, but it doesn't impress me. There is often very little substance to the umpteen million accusations that get thrown at black non-democrats. You should see some of the high-minded emails I get. When people start acting indignant and making up stuff, I simply reply, "Do emails like this make you feel better about yourself?" That's usually the last I hear of the purveyors of internet hubris.

What really cracks me up are the people (especially the spawn of the Tupac Shakur cult), who love to email me and drop haughty comments to suggest in the most patronizing fashion that there is some sort of pay-off or paycheck being earned by those blacks that don't espouse the typical liberal viewpoint. And yes, some of "us" are earning a paycheck (unfortunately, not this one), but so are liberals and so is my hair stylist, and so is the tripped-out Haitian man three blocks from my office that stands out on the street eight hours a day, yelling about the police being the devil. So what exactly is the point? Last I checked, Al Sharpton was the one collecting $86,715 in "travel and consulting fees" from the Democratic National Committee to spread Kerry-love and play church in the pulpit. But hey, I'm not mad at him for collecting his paycheck, so ease on up offa me.

As it stands, it costs me more time and money to publish my ideas than it profits me and God knows that I did not sign up for this gig with the hopes of becoming a mouthpiece for "the Right". In fact, that's what I feared the most because as I'm sure you've seen, I don't like it when people think they have me "figured out". I don't have time for the garbage that requires me to worry about if what I'm going to say is going to offend [insert socialized group of people], including conservatives. If God's pleased with me then that's all that matters.

"Blogging" is by nature, highly narcissistic, so thank you for indulging me for a moment. I just had to get this on record for the future. I must be myself and if "being me" offends or provokes or numbs or bores to tears, well then by golly, I did my job.

P.S. Don't go trying to figure out which post/comments sparked this throat-clearing rant. There isn't one. It's the build up and compilation of much frustration with the online world.

When I was all of 4-years-old, the only two television shows I watched with vigilance were "The Cosby Show" and what I called "The Archie Bunker Show" (maybe I was a little ahead for my age). I even made my parents tape it when we had Thursday night Bible study. In taking a look at the lyrics to the theme song for "All in the Family", I had to chuckle because I think they may have been on to something:

"Boy, the way Glen Miller played.
Songs that made the Hit Parade.
Guys like us, we had it made.
Those were the days!
Didn't need no welfare state.
Everybody pulled his weight
Gee, our old LaSalle (a car) ran great.
Those were the days!
And you knew where you were then!
Girls were girls and men were men.
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.
People seemed to be content.
Fifty dollars paid the rent.
Freaks were in a circus tent.
Those were the days!
Take a little Sunday spin, go to watch the Dodgers win.
Have yourself a dandy day that cost you under a fin (five dollar bill).
Hair was short and skirts were long.
Kate Smith really sold a song.
I don't know just what went wrong!
Those Were the Days!"

Except the "skirts were long part". I would have made a horrible orthodox anything as don't like long skirts. Anything to the knee is more than appropriate.

As noted by one of my commenters, Grouchy Old Yorky Lady:

"I was recently part of a Board of Ed advisory committee tasked to review new sex ed curriculum materials for all the middle schools in the county. During the discussion, the issue of when or if to introduce contraception to high school students came up. My point was this: if we are all in agreement that children having sex is a bad idea, how does teaching them how to have it more safely address the problem? And since young women between 16 and 25 represent the largest number of new AIDS cases every year -- a number that continues to skyrocket -- it's clear that our current 'safe' programs aren't working.

Last but not least, the Heritage Foundation has numerous studies showing -- among other things -- that young women who have sex at an early age are significantly more likely to suffer from obesity, depression, and higher rates of suicide later in life than their abstinent peers.

All the way around, regardless of religious positions on the issue, abstinence programs are hands down the best choice when considering both the long- and short-term mental, emotional and physical health of our children. I am angry and disgusted at the political factions that choose to take to the sex-ed barricades funded by radical social groups like Planned Parenthood rather than do what's right and responsible for our kids."

I'd say she's preaching (which is a good thing in my book). Other thoughts?

Many may remember 2002, the history-making year when both Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won Oscars for best actors. Washington won for playing a crooked cop, but Halle Berry made history as not only the first black woman to win an Academy Award for "Best Actress" but also the first woman to do so having lost all of her dignity in one of the raunchiest and self-degrading sex-scenes of that year. The mini-celebration that broke out when Berry won the award for her role in "Monster's Ball" came to a screeching halt when some came to realize that she had won the award for whoring herself, something hardly worth applauding. Even more telling was that the "who's who's" in Hollywood made perhaps the most obvious yet subliminal statement about how exactly it is they view black actresses. If you want to get ahead in this business (no pun intended), you have to take off your clothes. History was made alright. That day marked the day that the we gave the highest accolade to someone who displayed one of the lowest forms of human behavior.

Maybe this issue isn't significant to many, but when black people are already underrepresented in so many aspects of life, it's no aid to the culture when the majority of our representation is embarrassing and degrading.

There was once a day when black slave women that were put up on the auction block would have their blouses ripped open by their owners for prospective buyers to see the suppleness of their breasts. How interesting that now, although the auction block looks a bit different, women are ripping their own blouses open and selling themselves down the river. The raping and using of black women solely for sexual purposes during slavery ultimately led to the sexualization of black women in all forms of media. But as the pattern of history shows us, the representation of black people in media has a direct correlation with how we are viewed by society. A study out of Duke University by Cheraine Stanford called "Advertising in Black and White: How and Why Perceptions of Difference Shape Magazine Advertising", states the following:

Representations of African Americans within various media underwent very similar processes of change. Their existence in visual and audio media outlets often reflected their societal status and the way in which white people envisioned their importance. During slavery times and segregation, African Americans were almost invisible within the advertising industry. It was almost as though America was composed of only white people. When blacks began to make their first appearances, they were shown as a number of different racist images being subservient to whites or representing some form of entertainment for white people. Images of people like the faithful, smiling, black servant Rastus (who would later grace the pages of magazines and products as the Cream of Wheat man) and the faithful Mammy figure used to advertise Aunt Jemima pancake mixes and syrup are two infamous examples. These pervasive icons all had similar racist traits and showed "black men and women with bulging eyes, thick red lips, and expressions of stupidity" (Dates and Barlow 433). These images were used to include blacks into the white American society while ignoring their status as people. The black people presented in these advertisements were carefully selected not only to confirm existing stereotypes but also to soothe white people. Whites could see in all the ads that included blacks that they were still subservient and docile. They never appeared as threats, but rather a group of happy, ignorant, partial human beings who only existed to serve whites.

So today it still stands, the images we see portrayed in media regarding black peoples' sexuality is exactly how society as a whole views us. Perhaps the biggest guffaw of this whole nauseating fraud is the current self-perpetuating nature of black images in media. Even on what was once a black-owned television network (BET), there is 24-hour self-devaluation going on, with no plans to stop it.

Last week, I linked to a personal narrative by Duane Brayboy at the Black Informant called "Can a Black Man Be Abstinent?". The portrayal of black men is equally vexing. Brayboy's question particularly struck me because there is a general media portrayal of the sexuality of black men especially that would lead the indoctrinated masses to think otherwise. Whether it's on the big screen, primetime, or music videos, black people in general are most commonly portrayed as sexually animalistic in varying degrees.

Were I to line up four men, one black, the remaining three white, and say that one of those men was a rape suspect, chances are, the black man, no matter how clean-cut and put together, would be one of the top two suspects. Even I myself as a black woman may be inclined to think so because quite simply, we've been indoctrinated to think that black men are sexually primal and aggressive.

For a black person to make a statement of abstinence today is especially counter-culture because we are not thought of in that light. Picture in your mind, the image of the typical "American Virgin". Betcha that person isn't black. This country has yet to release the historical baggage of the black race being portrayed as sexually perverse, deviant, and dirty. And regretfully, I say that white and black people alike are now equally guilty of allowing such a myth to be perpetuated for so long. I've said it many times before: black people cannot afford improper representations. We also can no longer continue to sit by passively as false images are portrayed as real.

I find the words at the beginning of Halle Berry's acceptance speech to be particularly perplexing:

"This moment is so much bigger than me. This moment is for Dorothy Dandridge, Lena Horne, Diahann Carroll. It's for the women that stand beside me, Jada Pinkett, Angela Bassett, Vivica Fox. And it's for every nameless, faceless woman of color that now has a chance because this door tonight has been opened. Thank you. I'm so honored. I'm so honored. And I thank the Academy for choosing me to be the vessel for which His blessing might flow."

Color me haughty, but I almost think it a slap in the faces of the black actresses that have attempted to build a clean career in this business. For all the black women that spent years playing the maid, this is what we have to offer them? I think not. And to quote Berry, we're being used as vessels alright, but for God's blessing? That notion is highly debatable.

Something has got to change.

I'm under attack. No really, I am. The comment SPAM is out. of. control.

As proposed to me by my best friend, who overheard it from the mouth of his old school conspiracy-theorist barber. While generally his barber is prone to the "everything is Bush's fault" philosophy of life, I must say, this theory may well lend him more credibility than I thought:

Bush appoints Alberto Gonzales as the first ever Hispanic American to hold the cabinet position of Attorney General. There is no hoorah about that fact because colored folk that are not liberal do not qualify as true colored folk. However, had Bill Clinton done this, we'd be establishing the Bill Clinton Hispanic and Latino American Memorial Library in his honor. But never mind that.

Bush strategically appoints Gonzales (who is well qualified for the position on his own merits) because doing so will not only gain him favor in the eyes of the Hispanic community, which already tends to be more conservative, but it will set the Republican party up for success in the coming elections. There is a reason Bush is not working harder to tighten up the borders. Over the next four years, I wouldn't be surprised if the laws, or rather, the enforcement of the laws become even more lax as Bush and Gonzales work together to strategically build a loyal Hispanic base.

Ultimately, thanks to the Bush administration, a good number of border crossers will enjoy entry into the United States and easy access to citizenship. They will turn around and repay Bush by always voting another Republican into office.

Notice to black people: we've disenfranchised ourselves by putting all our eggs in one basket. No one cares about our collective voting power any more. Not. One. The coming years are going to be all about courting the Hispanic vote.

Just a theory, but I think Monsieur Barber may be right on this one.

Saturday I partook in one of my favorite pastimes: shopping. However, I must add the disclaimer that "favorite" pretty much goes out the window during the entire month of December because that is when people forget how to be people and instead act like animals (as a note to the Darwinians having their pseudo fun in the comments section about church and state apartheid, we're not animals by the way). Did you know that everyone and their mother had the same brilliant idea to go shopping this Saturday? The coincidence is simply uncanny.

Nevertheless, although my stay was brief, shopping did for me what it always does which is cultive some thought. So I give you a few of my deep insights and observations about the mall:

• There are two types of people: people who know how to walk briskly to their destination, and those who do not.

• Only 25% of the people at the mall are there to actually shop. The other 75% are there shopping for, um, other things.

• The extreme patience necessary to navigate through 55 different types of cable-knit sweaters was dispensed to women in far greater proportions than it was to men.

• The only thing more annoying than someone chewing loudly with their mouth open is someone tailgating you in the accessories department.

• As long as the Apple Store is around, I may never want a husband. Have you touched the new iMac G5? I think I'm in love. We're talking 700 square feet of Apple-flavored goodness including iPods, Powerbooks, and 30-inch high-definition displays with *gasp* in-store internet access. It's official. I'm quitting my job and moving into the Apple Store where the two of us shall become one and not be put asunder.

• There is a running competition among 15-year-old girls to see who can wear the least amount of clothing in the lowest degree weather. It's currently a tie.

• Salespeople should be required by law to wait at least 3 nanoseconds before abruptly asking, "Are you looking for something special today?" Why yes I am Suzie. I'm looking for you to ease back just a smidge, thanks.

• The entire saga that is being in a shopping mall in the month of December could be made ten times more fun and interesting if everyone had on roller skates.

A round of links for everyone:

• Joe at the Evangelical Outpost has a must read pro-choice conversation overheard at a shopping mall.

• The voting for Wizbang's 2004 Weblog Awards is underway so go and cast your vote in a number of different categories. I'm a little disappointed with the offerings. I don't think all the nominees highlight the best of what the blogosphere has to offer. And no, no, I'm not saying that because I wasn't nominated. Well actually, I think I was, but I don't think I kiss enough butts to make it to the final cut.

• La Shawn Barber (behind whose back, I refer to affectionately as "L-Breezy") covers Ann Coulter's latest column on Condoleezza Rice's supposed lack of qualifications. Hmph. L-Breezy's also got a good one up on "Customs, Traditions, and Moral Values."

• Duane at the Black Informant writes quite poignantly from personal experience on the question of Can a Black Man be Abstinent?". Contrary to the portrayal of black men in media, the answer is yes. Love it, love it, love it.

• My favorite Liberal blogger Oliver Willis (who just admitted his real first name is Lloyd *snicker snicker*) has a new online radio show or excuse me, I believe the geek term is "Pod-Cast" (as in iPod) called "The Willis Effect". Can't say it's not an ingenious idea. Can't say I wouldn't bite it either (vernacular translation of "bite": to copy). I thought about doing audioblogger like 6 months ago but passed on the idea because you have to do it via the phone. Willis has tapped into something I dig big-time. Ambra radio? There could be danger.

• Fellow Seattlelite Timothy Goddard did some research and found that in the Blue State of Washington, Bush's biggest percentage of support came from none other than non-white men. Go figure.

• One of the smartest people I've come across in the blogosphere is founder of the Conservative Brotherhood, Michael Cobb Bowen. He and I don't agree on everything politically, but the dude's wicked smart (and obscurely so) and I dig that about him. He and his wife (just celebrated 10 years) have also done fairly well on the reproductive side of things. Okay, enough gushing. He's got some good photos up lately, but one in particular struck me because I realized how well-dressed everyone used to be back in the day. What happened? Now everyone walks around looking like slobs. At least it's good Fashion Faux-Pas fodder.

Mkay, that's all for now. I'd link more stuff, but oddly enough I have this nagging need to give commentary on all my links so it gets long. If anyone has any leads on the UN oil-for-food brooha, send 'em my way.

(Better late than never, sorry guys...)

I recently caught part of the Oprah interview/reunion with the cast of Seinfeld (which despite its popularity, I never really got into because what NBC/ABC/CBS fails to realize is that there comes a point when watching a bunch of white people do nothing all days gets very very dull) and Jerry himself said something very simple, yet profound when asked the question, "Why did you end the show?"

I don't recall his exact words, but he essentially said that they ended the show because it was "time". Better to end while you're on the up and up, then out-stay your welcome.

And so it has ocurred to me that our current culture has not quite mastered the art of throwing in the towel. Instead, people beat the living pulp out of their careers, and the limelight, ultimately to their demise. This isn't to say that people should retire altogether, but instead make way for the next generation. There are a number of valuable contributions that can be made to society: consult, produce, train up others, becoming a talk-show host. The world is teeming with possibilities.

And with that, I ask, who needs to throw in the towel? Just a few from my list:

• The Pope
  
• The entire cast of ER
  
• Michael Jordan
  
• Rod Stewart
  
• Boyz II Men
  
• Matt Groening
  
• LL Cool J
  
• Disney
  
• Cher

Yikes! I wish I could speak extemporaneously (literally) on this issue because it's one of my passions and my discourse flows a bit more freely from my mouth than it does my fingertips, but here goes. It's always been clear that Democrats are not in favor of abstinence education. Period. Why? Well, many may argue me, but I think the main reason they oppose it is because it's a philosophy commonly associated with the "Religious Right" and let's be honest, Democrats hate the "Religious Right" and everything for which they stand. So regardless of whether the concept of abstinence education makes sense, Democrats would hate it just based on the fact that Jerry Falwell supports it, and Planned Parenthood doesn't.

A few have noted that Rep. Henry Waxman (D) in his recent report, has sought to wage war on the concept altogether by trying to dismantle 13 of the most commonly used abstinence curricula. Waxman claims that the curriculum is leaving young people uneducated and confused. Meanwhile, a recent article by Ceci Connolly in the Washington Post (email: nobiz@nobiz.com pass: nobiz) underhandedly co-signs on Waxman's findings which used convoluted manners of fact-finding to make a point.

The issue of abstinence education is a loaded one, and I don't think either side has done a good job making their case.

When people talk about "abstinence-only education", there are really two definitions of it. One definition states that schools should only be teaching about abstinence and not discussing contraception and other issues that pertain to giving up your purity in high school. The other definition states that schools should be honest and forthright in teaching that abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid pregnancy and STDs, but other basic (and I stress basic) issues of sex education should also be taught, and all with equal weight. Although the first philosophy I mentioned is in my opinion ideal, I am of the latter belief.

Do I think teenagers (or anyone for that matter) should be encouraged to have premarital sex? I can say with about 658.9% certainty: NO. What I recognize is that gaining of any ground on this issue is going to take some diplomacy. (Not compromise, but diplomacy). In addition, this country is too carnal and too self-seeking to latch-on to the reality that premarital sex for anyone, is ultimately a bad decision. For the nation to come to that revelation alone would take the mighty hand of God. For this very reason, Conservatives need to be wise as serpents in how we push abstinence-only education and other similar initiatives because the very semblance of "morality" or "Christianity" will send Liberals flying off the handle. Not only that, the Liberal knee-jerk reaction to abstinence-only education is usually to write-off abstinence education altogether and I believe that possibility to be very dangerous.

That said, I am a hardcore proponent of abstinence education being given equal weight and classroom time as the "slap on a condom and just go at it like an animal until you can't stop, or get pregnant, in which case you can have an abortion, but don't forget to get tested for HIV too, and here's a Planned Parenthood representative to take your questions" theory of sex education. It's time we stop using tax dollars to lie to kids. The way we educate about sex in this country is lacking any semblance of balance.

While ultimately, it should be the parents' role to educate their children on sexual matters, a brief reality check reveals that the public school system (and private schools too) are attempting to fill a gap that's been created by the breakdown in the family. In regards to many matters, but specifically sex education, the public school system has usurped the role of parents. Since they're going to usurp, we might as well push for them to usurp the right way. The Left's sex-ed propaganda is dangerous, deceptive, and--despite what they may say out of the sides of their Planned Parenthood-worshipping necks--isn't one bit interested in the well-being and physical and emotional health of young people.

Those against abstinence-only education usually state that they're in favor of "comprehensive sex education". "Comprehensive" my size-nine-foot. "Comprehensive" meaning that the idea of abstinence gets mentioned during the last five minutes of the last class on the last day of the semester. And if how we've educated on sex in the past is any indication of the future, the Liberal brand of "comprehensive" means everything under the sun:

• "What happens if Billy feels like a woman trapped in a man's body? By gosh, even though Billy has a penis, he might really be a woman!"

• "It's perfectly fine and normal to be 16-years-old and get an abortion without parental consent or knowledge."

• "Sure condoms aren't 100% effective, but who cares about that 3% anyway?"

• "Masturbation is fine! It's perfectly normal and healthy!"

• "Birth control pills are perfectly healthy!"

• "It's fabulous is you have begun having 'feelings' for the same sex...you just might be gay."

Interestingly enough, it was Rep. Waxman himself who was quoted as saying,

"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases...I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."

Well won't that one preach. It's uncanny that the very thing Waxman is fighting against is exactly what Liberals have been doing for years. Nevermind that according to the Center for Disease Control, 50% of the sexually active adult single population has at least one STD and one quarter of all sexually active teens have an STD. Nevermind that the emotional stability and well-being of teenagers has been directly and negatively linked to sexual activity. High depression rates in girls have been linked with teenage sexual activity. Attempted suicide rates for teenage boys has been linked to sexual activity. These are the things that even nonpartisan fact-finding has proven true.

But down with facts for just a moment. The reality is, both sides skew or mis-represent health statistics to support their own agendas. Even Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the abstinence material that was surveyed, admitted that. Somewhere in all this mess, there is the truth. And although I run the risk of sounding totally uncool by borrowing an over-used phrase from "A Few Good Men", people can't handle the truth.

I'm going to spend a good deal of next week examining this issue from my perspective and personal experience. I think there are a good number of things Conservatives could and should be doing differently as it relates to furthering the cause of sex-education curriculum reform. It's time to expose the Liberal sex-ed propaganda for what it truly is because it's reaping a harvest of confused souls.

Completely unrelated to anything important going on in the world, but I was up entirely too late as I usually am (note to self: stop doing that), and happened upon yet ANOTHER tragic television moment:

Rod Stewart on the Tonight Show belting (and I use that term VERY loosely) Louis Armstrong's classic "What a Wonderful World".

Two words for Mr. Stewart: "No" AND "NO!"

Absolutely not. Under no circumstances. Just stop before you hurt yourself.

And while we're on the subject, I'd like to post a memo to all the middle-aged rock stars that are on this "trying to look young with the spikey hair and MAC foundation make-up and eyeliner" kick: Please Stop it. Stop it right this instant.

Updates in a few....

Today I just wrote my last rent check, ever. Excuse me while I do the hokey pokey.

You'll recall that earlier this summer, I expressed my sentiments on "the big potty in the sky" where people throw their rent money.

Now if only I could get Oprah to buy me a house too.

Thankfully, President Bush has a plan and I'm glad I don't live in Ireland.

In other news, if you ever want to make yourself REALLY happy, buy a box of Krispy Kreme doughnuts and stick them in your car at night. When you come out in the morning to leave for work, you will have a happy surprise.

I don't want to get deep, but I am getting that feeling in my belly that something is about to go down in this country. In a good way I mean. Like let's start with the fact that Washington state just elected their first Republican governor in 20 years--Dino Rossi--who by the way earned the endorsement of the NAACP AND the Urban League. Yeah I had to pinch myself too. There's been far too much change going on over this last month and I believe the guards may be changing in our country politically, socially, and spiritually.

Responsibilities are shifting, influence is being stripped away, and there is window of opportunity here that I believe we need to be aware of. Just a few things that I've noted among many:

• George W. Bush is re-elected.
  
• Yasar Arafat Dies
  
• Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, and Tom Ridge resign
  
• A black Conservative woman is appointed as secretary of state
  
• Dan Rather steps down
  
• Kwiesi Mfume leaves post as President of NAACP
  
• Tavis Smiley ends his NPR talk show citing lack of diversity
  
• All 11 states seeking to allow homosexual marriage failed miserably
  
• Mount Saint Helens erupted (Biblically, the natural is an indication of the spiritual, last time Helens erupted was 1980, also an election year.)
  
• Ken Jennings finally lost on Jeopardy..ha.

I'm just saying, none of these things are coincidental. I'm forgetting quite a bit. Any more you can think of?

I don't want to get deep, but I am getting that feeling in my belly that something is about to go down in this country. In a good way I mean. Like let's start with the fact that Washington state just elected their first Republican governor in 20 years--Dino Rossi--who by the way earned the endorsement of the NAACP AND the Urban League. Yeah I had to pinch myself too. There's been far too much change going on over this last month and I believe the guards may be changing in our country politically, socially, and spiritually.

Responsibilities are shifting, influence is being stripped away, and there is window of opportunity here that I believe we need to be aware of. Just a few things that I've noted among many:

• George W. Bush is re-elected.
  
• Yasar Arafat Dies
  
• Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, and Tom Ridge resign
  
• A black Conservative woman is appointed as secretary of state
  
• Dan Rather steps down
  
• Kwiesi Mfume leaves post as President of NAACP
  
• Tavis Smiley ends his NPR talk show citing lack of diversity
  
• All 11 states seeking to allow homosexual marriage failed miserably
  
• Mount Saint Helens erupted (Biblically, the natural is an indication of the spiritual, last time Helens erupted was 1980, also an election year.)
  
• Ken Jennings finally lost on Jeopardy..ha.

I'm just saying, none of these things are coincidental. I'm forgetting quite a bit. Any more you can think of?

There is a point to all of my stories.

During my first two years of high school, I was a closet-Christian. I was like, you know, undercover and whatnot. I had mastered the art of not saying anything and fading into the background. Probably like some of you. Then again, I'm certain this disposition had to have been specific to me, right? It was the summer before my junior year that I went with my mother and sister to Zimbabwe and had my life totally transformed in one moment during a conference of thousands of Zimbabweans, collectively praising the God of the Universe. After that point, I was "firebrand Ambra" as a fellow blogger once called me. When I returned to school that fall, my first order of business was to try to start a Bible study group at school along with a few of my friends.

If I knew then what I know now (one of the dumbest phrases ever to be uttered by humanity), I would have petitioned the school administration to be able to start an after school study group of a particular "historical text" for the sake of personal enrichment and a higher score on the SAT II subject test for Hebrew. Instead, thinking our "cause" was certainly just as valid as the queer folk (their self-imposed title, not mine, although it's fitting), who had recently been granted permission to start a group called "Gay, Lesbian, or Whatever" (GLOW), we approached the possibility in all honesty and purity with the words, "We want to start an on-campus Bible study".

Just what were we thinking?
It would never happen.

Although my high school was private, it certainly wasn't "religious" and it definitely wasn't "tolerant" despite what the guidance counselor who got paid to hand out condoms may tell you. In all their autonomy and "independence" my private high school resorted to referring to the public schools' observance of "separation of church and state" law as a means to deny us our most humble and unobtrusive request.

"No religious groups on campus," they said. And I might add, they were certainly well within their rights to say so. After all, anyone who charges $19,320 a year in tuition for a mere secondary education and perhaps a slightly higher possibility of making it into an Ivy League school, can do whatever the heck they want to. It's their world; we were all just squirrels tryin' to get a nut (and high paying salaries in our adulthood). But I will say this: they certainly didn't stop us from praying around the flag pole when we did so. And I can just about guarantee that following 9/11, nobody up on that campus had any problem with Bible OR prayer. Funny how things work that way.

The tossing in of the "church and state separation" rhetoric was pretty low of them considering that A) most public schools I knew back then had on-campus Bible studies and B) That aspect of the First Amendment has been mis-interpreted for years, and thereafter manipulated to remove prayer from schools, force-feed evolution, and keep students from collectively discussing the Bible on their own free time. I submit to you that the greatest detriment of the Left's mis-representation of this aspect of the First Amendment is the effect it's had on how we educate in this country.

Let us read the writing on the proverbial wall:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The "separation of church and state" language is a lie because it's not there.

It is a sword improperly yielded by the the God-hating section of the Left (which is arguably all of the Left, except of course my Democrat family members and my next-door neighbors). The words "separation of church and state" were actually co-opted by Thomas Jefferson who referenced the words of another when referring to the "wall" or "barrier" that must be built between the church and the state. However, it is rarely noted that Jefferson did so in a written address to a Baptist Convention where he was assuring them that the state would not dictate to them how they ought to worship God or stop them from teaching Biblical values....Uncanny.

The intention of the law is in fact to protect the church from the state, not the other way around. And how prophetic it was as someone a long long time ago was able to foresee that humanity, when left to its own devices will seek to destroy anything in its wake. During the time Jefferson's words were spoken, there was a fear present in the church that America would move towards adopting a national religion like the church of England and ultimately, regulate worship into the crevices of peoples' homes. And thanks be to God such a law helped us not to go that route as the the Church of England is stoic and nearly dead. Unfortunately, that same law was a double-edged sword.

In his recent column, "We Don't Need Them", activist and pundit Mychal Massie eloquently and insightfully inquires rhetorically about our application of this law:

"Why must we wage costly court battles to retain the right to ask God's blessing on our food; to not have our children subjected to the loathsome homosexual agenda in grades K--5; to not have our daughters taught how to deceive their parents; to have our children taught without bias and prejudice of agenda-driven professors? Why fight for our children to celebrate Christmas, but not Ramadan or Kwanzaa? Why would anyone-- much less a Christian -- continue to send their children to such institutions?

Good question. And the answer is two-fold: one because the average person with the insight Massie just gave probably can't afford to send their children to private school or homeschool, and two, because the Church isn't doing its job. We've left education of children as a responsibility for the government to handle and that's our first (and biggest) mistake.

But the issue is complex. Massie points out some statistics behind our country attempting to remove God from schools:

"Every facet of public school system has been negatively affected since the anti-God rulings in 1962 and 1963. It doesn't matter what those who revel in those rulings say -- the proof of the matter is as follows:

• Pregnancy rates for ages 15-19 girls are up