|
|
|
March 31, 2005
Indoctrination is the best way to disseminate a message. Even Mcdonalds seems to know that. Needless to say, deceptive commercial campaigns are rampant. There is one in particular that is driving me crazy. The "Knowing is Beautiful" Campaign Seen both on television, as well as on billboards, when the "Knowing is Beautiful" campaign billboards first began appearing on Boston buses and subway station billboards, people were rightfully disturbed. The Boston Globe reports: Knowing is beautiful? What a weird choice of words, Boston public health nurse Brianne Fitzgerald thought when she first saw the ad in the subway.
Scandalous.
"Knowing is not beautiful," Fitzgerald says now, weeks later. An AIDS counselor and caregiver for nearly 20 years, Fitzgerald recalls a group of her AIDS patients that included a bony, ratty-haired, pock-marked old addict from the JP projects; a tiny baby-doll-like prostitute in the South End who puffed up like a Cabbage Patch Kid before she passed away; and an infant in a Cambodian village whose body was so malnourished and riven by diarrhea that he looked 70, not 7 weeks, before he died. No, says Fitzgerald, "It's not beautiful. It's depressing as ****" Like some others in the field, Fitzgerald, 56, fears that by using such glossy depictions to break the barriers of blase, the ads are veering into dangerous territory: glamorizing the disease, as she put it; disguising the fact that despite great medical strides, people are still dying from AIDS; dismissing the many who are still living but are shredded by the side effects of their medications, from nausea to nightmares; even loosening safe-sex strictures with its elegant touch. "We want everything to look nice in our culture," Fitzgerald says. Still, as it sweeps across the country, the "knowing is beautiful" theme -- a joint effort by Viacom, the media giant, and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit group that provides information on health issues to the public and policymakers -- is being heaped with praise in some quarters for being a chic public service approach to trying to lower the percentages of those who are infected with HIV but don't know it, now pegged by Kaiser as about 1 in 4 in the United States of those infected. By eschewing the scary and statistic-driven messages of typically dull public service announcements in favor of a style more reminiscent of a Gap ad -- sensual sepia tones, hip-hop iconography, and an adhesive bandage from a blood test primped up as a beautiful flower-shaped HIV-test trademark -- the media blitz's participants are hoping to turn the clinical into the cool.
Posted by Ambra at 9:59 AM
| { Comments 10 }
Linkology
Posted by Ambra at 1:11 AM
| { Comments 16 }
It's A Long Story And telling it would involve some very not nice words that should not be uttered by someone who frequently criticizes the poor language choices of others. In short, during the process of changing web hosts (to avoid such occasions as tacky "account suspended" pages), my site was held hostage. FOR NEARLY TWO WEEKS. Ambra was not happy. I shall however, release my pent up wrath by commenting on all the events I missed. I have a new fabulous host (Plug: Living Dot) run by people who act like they have jobs to keep, and this shall not happen again. But if it does (and it had better not), go to ambranykol.com for updates. Thanks for sticking around.
Posted by Ambra at 3:46 PM
| { Comments 9 }
Dude, Where's my Blog? Rule #32 of blogging: Don't apologize for non-blogging because nobody really cares. At first I was going to be all stoic and ignore the fact that I've been MIA (missing in action) for the last week or so by posting some cheeky missive on why Terry Shiavo's husband is manipulative and how many smoke screens the media has thrown up in his defense. Then I started getting sympathy emails about my absence. You know, the ones where people consider a week of non-posting an indication of some sort of quarter-life crisis. Perhaps the loss of a pet or something really devastating like...having a life. Incidentally, I mourned the loss of my dog three years ago, but even that wouldn't have stopped me from posting to my blog. I appreciate everyone's concern, but let me just serve notice: I would never end this blogging venture without some confetti, bells, whistles, and major fund drive. I am however, glad to know people care. To say life's been hectic is an understatement. Never in my life have I been through so much simultaneous change. There's some philosophy that says any lulls in blogging are likely to throw off your readership and decrease traffic. Blah. Whatever. I'd rather go silent a week than post shoddily (made up word) written observations on life. I refuse to be a machine. I keep telling you people that I need to bring another writer on board but nooooooooo. So yeah, I needed a break to brace myself for the good stuff on the horizon. Last week, I had an interesting conversation via phone with fellow blogger La Shawn Barber. She hipped me to the fact that she was phasing herself out of her full-time job. I think there's something in the water. We're both sick of working just to be working. I may be young, but I'm smart enough to know that anytime I have to ask somebody else for permission to use my own vacation time, something is wrong. Drastic times call for drastic measures. I've got lots of exciting stuff in the works. I'll just keep it at that for now. Thanks for your patience everyone. My brain is refreshed again.
Posted by Ambra at 10:01 AM
| { Comments 14 }
That Ambra Nykol...where is she? The world may never know.
Posted by Ambra at 11:50 PM
| { Comments 18 }
The Requisite Monthly Rant: How Not to Get a Job Just a few tips as pulled from today's experience in the recruiting department:
Posted by Ambra at 7:55 PM
| { Comments 20 }
When Good People Attack
Yet in all our "good doing," one has to wonder why we still can't shake this pesky crime problem. Recently, the media has reported on the "goodness" of two very disturbed individuals. It seems that not only do bad things happen to "good people," but "good people" do bad things. This past Friday, 33-year-old rape suspect Brian Nichols saw fit to exonerate himself by opening fire in an Atlanta courtroom, killing at least three people. While Nichols has mostly been painted as a heartless criminal by the media, his family is alleging that his character is completely the opposite of what's been depicted. Indeed, there is little evidence that Nichols is the hardened criminal that's been presented, save 1989-1990, when Nichols was arrested three separate times on the campus of his Eastern Pennsylvania university for harassment, disorderly conduct and such. Still, Nichols's family contends that he just "snapped." The AP reports: Felisza Nichols says the portrait of her 33-year-old brother-in-law as a bloodthirsty killer doesn't make sense.
Did you know that coming from a two-parent home automatically makes you a good person?--Apparently so does being a churchgoer.
"He's a good person," she said. "He didn't come from a broken home. He's not a person who hung out in the streets and was always in jail. He came up living a good life." Brookfield, Wisconsin citizens were recently deceived by a "do-gooder." The Saturday following Nichols's killing spree, 44-year-old Terry Ratzmann, described as a "buttoned-down churchgoer" opened fire on the congregation at the Living Church of God, killing seven people, wounding four others, and ultimately turning the gun on himself. Did you know good people are cowards too? Fellow friends, neighbors and churchgoers were stunned. The AP reports: None of those who knew him expected Ratzmann to be violent, though some said he had grappled with depression. Neighbors said he was quiet and devout, that he liked to tinker about his house and garden. He would even release the chipmunks caught in traps he set in his yard. Because we all know that having an affinity for chipmunks means you are incapable of evil.
Thus far, news reports have come to many conclusions about Ratzmann's motivation. Some say he was provoked by the sermon, while others say he was depressed about recently losing his job. In one consistent vein however, every report thus far has drawn the conclusion that Ratzmann's churchgoer status automatically made him a "good person." All this goodness, and yet we can't get to the tipping point of what is wrong with our society. It's America in a nutshell. We'd do ourselves well to attempt to come to some sort of resolution about the definition of "good." Unfortunately, it is a fruitless endeavor. In general, we have been very careful not to take the "morality conversation" too far. It is inevitable that any type of examination of right and wrong will eventually trace itself back to truth. But no. Amid the neo-moralism of America, we prefer vague standards, non-existent principles, faulty status symbols, and imaginary lines to guide our society. We equate accomplishments and financial status to morality. The result is numbness to our conscience, one of the important built-in authorities resident in every human being. Lack of moral accountability equals chaos. Yet, when our "good people" defrock their "goodness" we have the nerve to act surprised and baffled, when in actuality, we're in part responsible because we've fostered a society that both allows and encourages people to think going to church, graduating from college, and rescuing chipmunks It is disgraceful that lives must be lost in the wake of our morally relative society, but if nothing else, perhaps we will eventually see that "good" isn't good enough.
Posted by Ambra at 11:20 PM
| { Comments 22 }
My ADD I think I have Yesterday I began spring cleaning. This usually means that you can find me sitting in the corner of my living room somewhere reminiscing over yearbooks, reading old essays, looking at bucked-teeth pictures from the eighth grade, and getting absolutely no cleaning done. Yesterday I found all my old college acceptance and rejection letters. I was instantly reminded of the nauseating pretension that comes along with the whole college admissions process. Accept me! Accept me! Even worse was the obsequiously-obtained Harvard recommendation letter I found from author and professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. What Dr. Gates didn't mention in his letter was that I stalked him, hunted him down at a post-book-signing cocktail party and acted like a complete fool just to get a letter that had no chance of getting me into Harvard (thank God). Dr. Gates probably wrote the letter because he felt sorry for me. Heck, I felt sorry for me too. You know when people ask you to name one of your lowest moments? Well, next to urinating on myself in public, that one is probably number eight on my list. I don't live life in regret, but I cringe at those times in my life when I knew I wasn't being myself. Enough navel-gazing. I'm working on my columns this morning so I'll be back later today. There's too much to talk about. I need to get back to 5:7 posts. Remind me why having a job is a good thing again?
Posted by Ambra at 3:06 AM
| { Comments 10 }
Linkology
Posted by Ambra at 2:30 AM
| { Comments 3 }
The Face Behind the Words Perhaps it's just me, but when I read a book, the first thing I do is turn to the back flap to see what the author looks like. I don't do this from a "shallow" viewpoint. I do it because when I enjoy something, I want to attach a face to my enjoyment. Unfortunately,our culture is very much fueled by "looks." A consistent observation I've made about visual media in general is that higher standards are set for women. I certainly am one in favor of well-grooming a nice attire, but what I find perplexing is that not only do women have to be smart, we also have to look well-put-together, only to have people completely ignore our intelligence and focus on our appearance. It's a vicious cycle. On average, female media personalities have to look fabulous well into their older age while the men--also known as "the decrepits"--can wear toupees, have sagging skin and missing teeth all while anchoring the network news. There will never be a female version of Michael Moore because a woman could never get away with looking like that and still be considered credible. The writing world is a bit different. I've always found it interesting that certain writers (bloggers especially) choose to reveal their identities while others stay behind the curtain. When I started my weblog, I threw up a photo because I wanted people to know there really was a legitimate person behind this site. Plus I figured that as a columnist, I'd have to do it anyway so I might as well just put myself on out there. The unfortunate thing is that while no one is under any obligation to post their photo, when a woman doesn't, people start drawing their own conclusions. Recently, blogger and columnist Michelle Malkin changed her weblog photo. When she did, people had a lot to say. It's a seemingly insignificant thing, but I bring it up because in the past, Malkin's opposition had a field day with her looks. Posting your photo online makes you an open target--especially if you're a woman with contrarian views. People cannot fight the urge to draw some sort of connection between works and appearance. Some interesting conversation has been generated around the idea of how a person's image contributes or takes away from their writing/weblog. Mick at "Uncorrelated Thoughts" writes: I suspect in most cases, NOT having a photography probably serves the reader the best...LaShawn Barber has a nice, friendly picture on her site. She seems happy to see me and has cookies in the living room... Does it help the blog? In LaShawn's case I think it does. Nothing intimidating or off-putting about it. Interesting. I can't really imagine what people might imagine me to look like without seeing my picture, but it's a given that we all formulate some idea of what a person looks like regardless of tangible proof.
Words and thoughts don't exist in a vacuum. There are real-live breathing people behind every thought that's ever been expressed on the earth. Whether or not those people choose to identify themselves (and how they go about doing that) seems to be entirely dependent on the culture. Take for example, the real estate industry. Most real estate agents display their picture in their advertisements. I once asked an agent why they did this. The reality is that purchasing a home is a major decision and when clients can see the face of potential agents, it establishes credibility and comfort. Similarly, major newspaper columnists generally have their photo published alongside their work as well. So what does credibility look like? It depends on the times. There has long been a debate around about whether or not Ludwig van Beethoven was a black man. We're not talking Afrocentrism here (which I don't agree with), but mounting evidence that Beethoven was not "white". I'm a pianist so this discussion has always intrigued me. What I find so fascinating (and telling) is the lengths to which some scholars have gone to refute Beethoven's "blackness." I mean, surely Moonlight Sonata and other great classical scores could not have been written by a black face. Not now, and certainly not in 18th century Germany right?. So why the battle? Well, it's all about perceived credibility. We subconsciously prefer the vessels of certain expression to look a certain way. I often think my age works against me. I opt not to put my photo on the frontpage because I'd rather people first read my words. Funny though because when I read columns and weblogs, there's a certain mystique about visual anonymity that forces us to use our imaginations. Afterthought: Incidentally, somebody emailed me and told me it was time to update my photo, so my brother and I shot each other's photo yesterday for fun. I'm not too pleased so this one will be temporary, but my brother...is he my twin or what?
Posted by Ambra at 10:54 AM
| { Comments 25 }
Michael the Thespian William Shakespeare once wrote: All the world's a stage, Michael Jackson is apparently familiar with the works of Mr. Shakespeare because his child molestation trial is day-to-day drama.
And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts... Is it not odd that on the day when 15-year-old Gavin Arvizo is testifying about Jackson molesting him, people aren't talking about the trial, but instead discussing what Jackson was wearing? Brilliant that Michael Jackson. What a crock. Umbrellas, costumes, dancing on top of cars, sickness, back pain, hospital stays, tardiness, tears, and now pajamas. Distractions, distractions. The man is making a mockery of the judicial process and only reinforcing his mental instability. Enough of the Michael Jackson show. Jackson, pull yourself together.
Posted by Ambra at 10:10 AM
| { Comments 4 }
Premium Linkage I've stated in the past that I'm a bad linker. I embrace it. One of the unwritten rules of the "blogosphere" is that you're supposed to link frequently to other weblogs. I could write the book on how to break that rule. Do you know why? Because it takes so much bloody effort, and let's face it, writing every day takes too much time to be worried about trying to give props to the entire world wide web. Plus, I try to read everything I link and the minute I send someone somewhere, they take it as my endorsement and I'm not always comfortable with that. I think linking is great, but it's also very time-consuming. While I intensely dislike it when people email me asking me for a link-exchange, I love when people send me links to stories, news, or blog postings. I'm lazy like that. This said, I'd like to go on record as stating that I always welcome leads, even if they're written by you (yes it's pretentious, but in this case, I'm asking. I don't link everything I get, but it sure makes my job easier. Thank you. This has been a public service announcement.
Posted by Ambra at 12:10 AM
| { Comments 6 }
Caught In a Fashion Faux-Pas
I haven't done a "Fashion Faux-Pas" in awhile. Today's fashion faux-pas is a celebrity one. The image you see here is that of Mr. Johnny (I'm always serious and obscure) Depp at this year's Oscar Awards ceremony. Suddenly I'm feeling the urge to sing some Beatles lyrics: "Wait. Oh yes wait a minute Mr. Postman. Wait! Mr. Depp looks less like he is attending a formal event and more like a mail carrier finishing up his evening route. You'll also notice the ensemble isn't replete without the chain and key (as all mail carriers have).
Wai-ai-ai-ait Mr. postman" To make matters worse, it appears that Mr. Depp is attempting to redeem himself by coupling wing-tipped shoes with this get-up. Not working. For the record, it is absolutely not okay to wear Federal Employee-inspired clothing to formal occasions. While I'm certain Johnny is going for the whole "I'm obscure but cool--in fact so cool that I can even pull off polyester" motif, we shouldn't have such low expectations for elusive celebrities. As always, my camera shall be on the prowl... Past Faux-Paseses
Posted by Ambra at 9:39 AM
| { Comments 10 }
Linkology World Barista Championship: Reinforcing the fact that Americans can make a sport of anything, Seattle will host the biggest espresso competition of the year in April. One can only imagine the hyperactivity present at those things. What Their Mommas Named Them: See a listing of the real names of hip hop and R&B artists. Did you know Foxy Brown (the rapper) was born "Inga Marchand?" Or that "Snoop Doggy Dogg" was born "Cordazer Calvin Broadus." Cordazer!!? Oh I could play with that one for months. Some of these folks have the country bumpkinest sounding names I've seen in a long time. But hey, I think real names are significant. If Oprah (or Ofra, depending on geography) can make her real name popular, anyone can. Morality TV: Just when you thought they'd done every scenario possible via "reality tv," Fox surprises us again. Their new reality show, "Who Wants to Live Forever," as described by the network, is a show on which " everyday people are confronted with their morality, motivating them to make surprising and dramatic changes in their lifestyles." I must say, I am very curious to know what standard of morality we're talking here....people who smoke? people don't make their beds? This one should be uh, interesting. Let me know how it goes. Colorado University Keeps Churchill but Dumps Christian: Professor Phil Mitchell, a twenty-year CU veteran has not been invited back and he feels it's for both political and religious reasons. Kevin McCullough takes issue with this. Smart, young freelancer, Nicole Russell discusses Churchill's dishonesty and and poor example for younger generations. Race and Retirement: Old news, but I thought "The Snob" made some interesting points in his piece on "Economic Apartheid and Social Security." I have a luxury of prentending to ignore the whole SS debate. Too bad I can't. Abortion as Hate Discrimination: Joe at the Evangelical Outpost discusses a piece of Maine legislation that would prohibit abortions on unborn children who posses the "homosexual gene." The bill's sponsor, a conservative state representative is clearly strategic about this. I think it's ridiculous.
Posted by Ambra at 11:19 AM
| { Comments 12 }
Ben Shapiro on Jada Pinkett Smith I never thought I'd see those two names in the same sentence. Commentary on the Harvard/Jada Pinkett Smith disaster keeps on coming. Before I move on, did you know that Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith have also opted to homeschool their children? My how the anti-family folks will love to hear about that. Now, onto the good stuff. To those who have vocalized beef with Ben Shapiro and asserted that his "youth" and political naïveté render him incapable of having wisdom or formulating opinions, I have a doozie for you. I rarely quote at length, but Shapiro's most recent column is worth it. Quite simply, the boy is preachin': The BGLTSA, as a wing of the radical homosexual movement, is looking to broaden the definition of normality to include deviant behavior. They're not looking for passive tolerance. They're looking for active acceptance. Now, ignoring homosexuality is no longer allowable; we must instead champion it, equating it with heterosexuality. In fact, homosexuality must be prized over heterosexuality; an open homosexual may proclaim to his heart's content that "dreams can come true -- you can find a same-sex partner," but an open heterosexual may not state that marriage constitutes "having it all."
That's heat. Read the whole thing.
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted such a broad societal trend toward normalizing the deviant as early as 1993, when he coined the term "defining deviancy down." He posited that "the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can 'afford to recognize' and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the 'normal' level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard." Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out that alongside the movement to "define deviancy down," there was a concurrent movement to "define deviancy up": "As part of the vast social project of moral leveling, it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized," Krauthammer wrote. "The normal must be found to be deviant." One of the agendas of the "defining deviancy up" movement, Krauthammer noted, was promoting "an underlying ideology about the inherent aberrancy of all heterosexual relationships." The Moynihan-Krauthammer prediction has come to pass. Straight men and women may no longer consider themselves normal, unless they also consider homosexuality normal. The rage against "heteronormalism" is rage against traditional societal standards as a whole. Exclusive morality has always offended the immoral. The only difference is that now offensiveness receives a stiffer societal sentence than blatant immorality. This is what political correctness -- the "live and let live" societal model -- has wrought. The rise of the homosexual movement is a textbook example of societal amorality devolving into societal immorality. The rationale behind societal amorality is the myopic question: "How does my immoral behavior hurt you?" The answer is: It may not, in the short term. But when society sanctions your immoral behavior, that does hurt me. If millions of people accept the deviant as normal, that reshapes society in vastly destructive ways. Your moral self-destruction may have no consequences for me, but destruction of societal standards always has consequences. Other bloggers give commentary:
Posted by Ambra at 2:50 AM
| { Comments 7 }
Washington's Turmoil Am I the only one to find it prolific that yesterday, the day the Washington State Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue of same-sex marriage, Mount Saint Helens also erupted? Washington state will most likely be in national news for awhile on both of the above issues. Here is a timeline of the national attempts to define marriage. (Update 3/8): Glad to know there are so many grammar experts out there. For the record, my use of the word "prolific" was intentional. I did not intend to say "prophetic." That would of course mean something entirely different. Thanks for having my back though.
Posted by Ambra at 2:01 AM
| { Comments 9 }
Blogger Ethics
The media's coverage of "blogging" has generally been relegated to two main topics: stories about how blogs have impacted media and forced journalists to resign, and stories about people getting fired for blogging. As with all major news stories on blogging, this one offered nothing new. What it did do was reinforce to me exactly how ignorant the majority of our society is to the "blogosphere" (hate that term). The whole segment on "links" drove this point home. If people have to have the concept of "links" explained to them, we shouldn't be directing them to read blogs, we should be sending them to computer school. Nightline spent most of their program interviewing Maura Keaney, a liberal blogger who used the power of the blogosphere (more specifically, The Daily Kos) as a means of bringing down Virginia Delegate John Cosgrove and his bill HB1677--a bill that would require mothers to report fetal deaths to the police within 12 hours of delivery. There's more where that came from. Due to pressure and emails stemming from the buzz created in the blogosphere, Cosgrove withdrew the bill on the grounds that it was too confusing. In his interview with Keaney, Nightline's John Donvan asked if she felt a responsibility to get answers from Cosgrove and inform him of her "wide" readership before she posted her complaints about the bill. By the end of the interview, I finally realized the gist of the story: "Bloggers and Ethics." So as with all Nightline programs, the final thought goes as such: "To their credit, the bloggers have given us in the traditional news business, a swift kick in the pants. Knowing that a vibrant electronic community can galvanize at the drop of a dangling modifier forces all of us to be more careful, accurate and thorough. It's also true that the collective effort and expertise of the blogging community is invaluable for bringing new information to light on almost any subject.
Then they went on to say some stuff about the next "Nightline" being on Angelina Jolie and her new role as ambassador to the United Nations. Oh dear. And ABC has the nerve to be preaching about credibility? Poppycock.
That said, the blinding speed of the blogging world and the tendency of some bloggers to shoot first and answer questions later should raise a yellow flag. Good journalism is tedious. It requires legwork, research, and editing. Even that does not preclude big mistakes that the bloggers themselves have so clearly exposed. But over time, such tedious work is the price of credibility, and the new media kids on the block will have to earn that one blogger at a time." In related news, Joshua Claybourn of "In the Agora" asks a very pertinent question, "Are newspapers dying?" As printed media, I'd say yes. This being the case, perhaps the blogosphere is more of a threat than anyone would like to admit. To be honest, all this "official stuff" (lawsuits and whatnot) is not what I signed up for. I'm a journal-ist. Not a journalist. What irks me the most is when people write me to critique my published columns and refer to me as "a journo-type." Never that. So I ask the trite question of the month: To what degree are bloggers journalists? Are we just "private citizens" as Kearney said in her interview? Besides readers, who are we accountable to?
Posted by Ambra at 11:41 PM
| { Comments 7 }
In My World As Ice Cube once said, "Today was a good day." It is with much sadness that I bid adieu to my unemployed life. Today I secured a contract to do some recruiting work for a major company. The best thing about this job is that it's neither permanent nor perfect. You see, a short-term job will ensure that I pursue other things. A temporary job will ensure that I stay uncomfortable. Comfort is the enemy of productivity. In my brief stint as a jobless wonder, I figured out some things I already knew:
I also found out today that I've been invited back to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Today I also mastered a banana pudding recipe I've been working on for weeks. Indeed, today was a good day. Thanks to all who have prayed, encouraged. This "situation" isn't over yet, but things are looking up. I won't for one minute take one bit of the credit. He knows who He is.
Posted by Ambra at 5:55 PM
| { Comments 14 }
The State of the Black Union
Good luck on that one. The symposium as I see it, is merely an event where a panel mostly full of "so-called" black leaders, ministers, and intellectually arrogant individuals discuss the "black issues," strategize for the future, and do their best to out-talk one another, while manipulating the emotions of the people to applaud. This year, the symposium was held at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Georgia. But don't let the level playing ground fool you. Bishop Eddie Long, pastor of the church, was brought under scrutiny for supporting bans on homosexual marriages as well as attending a meeting at the White House. The nerve of him! We must remember, blacks must only be loyal to the Democratic Party because the Democrats are in fact, god. During the panelist discussion, Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., a Democrat who voted for President Bush in the last election, announced what he felt was the dawn of a new black agenda based on the Bible. Here is where the fall-out begins. I have a problem with Tavis Smiley's endeavor. And trust me when I say it's not just because I am unhinged by Dr. Cornel West's refusal to groom himself or the uppitiness of University of Pennsylvania professor Michael Eric Dyson (whose books exude so much bourgeoisie intellectual snobbery, they don't even make sense). The problem I have is with this "We Are the World" notion of black people coming together under one banner and one cause. Forgive me if this sounds terribly simplistic, but it's not going to work. Not under current conditions because there are too many different allegiances present for that to take place. I'm fairly young, and even I am tired of hearing black people moan about how "we just need to come together." It sounds really great, but there's a reason why it hasn't happened: conflicting gods (and yes, we all have them). This year the symposium was "treated" to the presence of There are some who are watching by television and some in this audience who think that we will never come together, that we will never make the right covenant or contract. I say to you: Go back and read your scripture, "So the Son of Man went back to His Sender and he said, 'I been talking, the bones have been shaking, but there's no life in them.' He said, 'Well don't talk to the bones no more. Prophesy to the winds, and let the winds blow on these bones.'
And I say this to you Louis Farrakhan: go back and read your scripture. Poor Biblical interpretation and application aside, it is common knowledge that the black community is rich with spiritual history. This will never go away. And if we're dumb enough to think that the "You see, Bush is a wind. Your rejection at the table is a wind. My brothers going to dinner in the White House and can't come away with what's in the best interest of all our people; Jesse running twice, but still couldn't come away with what our people need, all of this is a farce, if, if, we don't make up our minds—today—to make this contract, this covenant, today. Not with us and the Democratic Party. To hell with the Democratic Party and to hell with the Republican Party. If they want our vote, let's come as a unified body. For there to be any type of unity, Black America needs to decide under which banner we will seek to empower people. Education isn't enough. Entrepreneurship isn't enough. We can meet, assign committees, and sympose (I made that word up) all we want, but as long as we attempt to build unity under the deification of race, we'll keep beating the air.
Posted by Ambra at 11:55 AM
| { Comments 21 }
10 Most Powerful Women It seems we have now begun the part of the year where we watch the parade of the protected class history months. This month? Women's History Month. In light of this fact, "MSN Encarta" has put together their list of "10 Most Powerful American Women":
Posted by Ambra at 10:13 PM
| { Comments 17 }
Linkology
Posted by Ambra at 10:03 PM
| { Comments 10 }
Where Education has Failed Overheard on television during an episode of a reality show that shall go nameless: Character 1: Wait, "African" is not a language. Words fail me.
Character 2: Yes it is! They have their own language. Character 1: But Africa is a country. Character 2: Right! And they speak African.
Posted by Ambra at 1:40 AM
| { Comments 20 }
Heteronorming : a load of crap
"Women, you can have it all - a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career." This is just one of the many sane things recently uttered by Jada Pinkett-Smith, actress and wife of Will Smith when she was honored as "Artist of the Year" by Harvard University's "Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations." I've always appreciated the fact that Jada Pinkett-Smith, although hyphenated, has taken on her husband's name. In Hollywood this is rare. Unfortunately, her sane commentary on family and marriage got her in trouble with the rainbow brigade on Harvard's campus. Her crime? Speaking on the roles of men and women in relationships. The nerve I tell you. The Harvard Crimson reports: After some students were offended by Jada Pinkett Smith's comments at Saturday's Cultural Rhythms show, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard.
Let's keep in mind that any attempt to define roles of men and women in relationships will be perceived as narrow because we live in an "anything goes" culture that resists order. And yet we have the audacity to wonder why women are running around acting like dudes, and men are gallivanting around the city carrying Louis Vuitton purses. I don't care what "Bravo!" says; there is nothing normal about a man wearing capri pants.
Students said that some of Pinkett-Smith's remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships. BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods '06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith’s speech was "motivational," some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships. Confusion. The idea of femininity and masculinity have been rejected, reversed, and skewed by certain aspects of the culture. Even worse, now they're making up words to further validate chaos. According to one of the BGLTSA members present at Pinkett-Smith's speech, "Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable." Heteronormative? I want to know what UC Berkeley sociologist coined that term. I say, "Deal." Efforts to water down the institution of marriage should be resisted.
A few weeks ago, someone asked what troubled me about feminism. Among the many reasons I find it disgraceful, I list "the creation of cynical attitudes towards gender roles" as preeminent. Our society balks at the idea that men and women were created for distinct purposes. Never mind that one of us can retain water for nine months only to push a watermelon through a cheerio and the other one can't. Even in a natural illustration, men and women do not perform the same duties. What's illustrated first in the natural is far deeper than anatomy. In feminism, we find that what was once a valid move for equality has resulted in neutralized gender roles that rob the dynamic male/female union of its intended potency and render the family structure useless. Throughout history, it's clear that whenever society has attempted to drastically redefine gender roles, confusion ensues. At this point, I can only hope that Pinkett-Smith won't pander to the plight of the whining inclusionists by apologizing for speaking the truth.
Posted by Ambra at 8:43 PM
| { Comments 13 }
Heteronorming : a load of crap
"Women, you can have it all - a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career." This is just one of the many sane things recently uttered by Jada Pinkett-Smith, actress and wife of Will Smith when she was honored as "Artist of the Year" by Harvard University's "Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations." I've always appreciated the fact that Jada Pinkett-Smith, although hyphenated, has taken on her husband's name. In Hollywood this is rare. Unfortunately, her sane commentary on family and marriage got her in trouble with the rainbow brigade on Harvard's campus. Her crime? Speaking on the roles of men and women in relationships. The nerve I tell you. The Harvard Crimson reports: After some students were offended by Jada Pinkett Smith's comments at Saturday's Cultural Rhythms show, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard.
Let's keep in mind that any attempt to define roles of men and women in relationships will be perceived as narrow because we live in an "anything goes" culture that resists order. And yet we have the audacity to wonder why women are running around acting like dudes, and men are gallivanting around the city carrying Louis Vuitton purses. I don't care what "Bravo!" says; there is nothing normal about a man wearing capri pants.
Students said that some of Pinkett-Smith's remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships. BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods '06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith’s speech was "motivational," some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships. Confusion. The idea of femininity and masculinity have been rejected, reversed, and skewed by certain aspects of the culture. Even worse, now they're making up words to further validate chaos. According to one of the BGLTSA members present at Pinkett-Smith's speech, "Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable." Heteronormative? I want to know what UC Berkeley sociologist coined that term. I say, "Deal." Efforts to water down the institution of marriage should be resisted.
A few weeks ago, someone asked what troubled me about feminism. Among the many reasons I find it disgraceful, I list "the creation of cynical attitudes towards gender roles" as preeminent. Our society balks at the idea that men and women were created for distinct purposes. Never mind that one of us can retain water for nine months only to push a watermelon through a cheerio and the other one can't. Even in a natural illustration, men and women do not perform the same duties. What's illustrated first in the natural is far deeper than anatomy. In feminism, we find that what was once a valid move for equality has resulted in neutralized gender roles that rob the dynamic male/female union of its intended potency and render the family structure useless. Throughout history, it's clear that whenever society has attempted to drastically redefine gender roles, confusion ensues. At this point, I can only hope that Pinkett-Smith won't pander to the plight of the whining inclusionists by apologizing for speaking the truth.
Posted by Ambra at 8:43 PM
| { Comments 13 }
It's all relative right? In response to Hugh Hewitt's announcement of GodBlogCon, a Christian blogger conference (also known as the place where nerds dwell), noted blogger Jeff Jarvis said the following: "Well, I am a Christian. But I don't think I'll go. I'm a Howard-Stern-loving, gay-marriage-backing, prochoice, Clinton-voting, separation-of-church-and-state, cabernet-guzzling Christian." And people still wonder why I'm weary of calling myself a "Christian."
In regards to "GodBlogCon," since it's taking place on my coast at Biola University in California, I may consider going--that is if they promise not to have seminars with really bad PowerPoint presentations on how Christianity is relative.
Posted by Ambra at 8:04 PM
| { Comments 13 }
Got Black Boots?
Robin Givhan's Washington Post article makes a shallow attempt at dissecting Rice's fashion by talking "sexuality": Rice's coat and boots speak of sex and power -- such a volatile combination, and one that in political circles rarely leads to anything but scandal. When looking at the image of Rice in Wiesbaden, the mind searches for ways to put it all into context. It turns to fiction, to caricature. To shadowy daydreams. Dominatrix! It is as though sex and power can only co-exist in a fantasy. When a woman combines them in the real world, stubborn stereotypes have her power devolving into a form that is purely sexual. Please.
The only thing "sexual" about Rice's clothing is that she actually looks like a woman instead of a middle-line-backer. Ms. Rice's first wise move of last year was getting a new hairstyle. The whip she had going on just wasn't working for her. As aninterjection, I am miffed by a frequent occurrence that plagues the population of privileged and wealthy Americans: the curse of the bad hair. I pose a simple question, "how is it that you make six figures to millions of dollars a year, and you cannot hire a good stylist?" The last year has seen some good transformations. See Ms. Rice, and "Carolyn Kepcher" from "The Apprentice":
Long live fashion!
Posted by Ambra at 5:54 AM
| { Comments 11 }
Chris Rock Fails to Deliver Ratings I tuned in rather distractedly to this year's epic-long pageantry known as the "Oscars." I say "distractedly" because while the events carried on, I attempted to do many other more important things like file my nails and re-count the specks on my ceiling for accuracy. More than anything however, I also found myself praying that Chris Rock wouldn't completely make a fool of, um, everybody. I've always classified Rock as the "crazy cousin" at the family reunion. He shoots from the hip, oversteps boundaries, and makes everyone feel uncomfortable. Strangely enough, there are parts of our society that need this. Celebrydom is one of those parts. That is why at the very least, I gave Rock points for pulling celebrities down from the mountaintops of their own vanity. Chris Rock has the uncanny ability to make you teeter on the line between discomfort and humor. One writer correctly noted it as "offensive charm." That said, by modern standards of "offensiveness," I don't particularly think this to be a good quality in anyone, and it's certainly not appropriate for the Academy Awards. "Offensive charmers" would be much more useful to society if they could clean up their offensiveness. Offending people isn't always bad. The simple name of "Jesus" offends to this very day. In fact, if you're not offending someone, you're probably playing it too safe. On many levels, I understand the emotional location from which Rock's humor comes. It's a valid location, but I believe it's the delivery that kills Mr. Rock. While Chris Rock may be a talented comic material-wise, the language in his stand-up routine has always bothered me. See, I am one of those Americans who has bought-in to the lofty notion that the English language has far more to offer than some simple-minded four-letter words. So when I found out some weeks ago that Chris Rock would be hosting this year's Academy Awards ceremony, I was certain the "Academy" was suicidal. Except for a few jabs at the President (a safe bet in a room with Tim Robbins and hundreds of DNC supporters) and some tasteless racial humor (yes, it does exist), Rock managed not to be "bleeped" (from what I saw), and maintained some level of decorum. Although I maintain the standard of "decorum" is entirely relative when it comes to Chris Rock. Still, for all the hubbub surrounding Rock's appointment, this year's televised ceremony failed to deliver the ratings for which executives had hoped. The Los Angeles Times reports: Oscar organizers wanted higher ratings, and all they could get was Chris Rock? Maybe they should have just … waited.
The Drudge Report, however claims the opposite. Whatever. It all boils down to one thing: the Oscars are boring. By the time they show is over, you feel like you just wasted five and half hours of your life. And guess what? You did. There's a reason why comedians have always hosted the event. Laughing, is the only way to make it through the epic saga.
At his much-anticipated debut hosting Hollywood's biggest night, Rock didn't utter any naughty words — as some had feared he might — but he didn't boost ratings, either. Average viewership of the 77th Academy Awards telecast on Walt Disney Co.'s ABC slipped 5% to 41.5 million viewers compared with last year's show, according to preliminary data from Nielsen Media Research. Save for 2003's telecast — when the outbreak of the Iraq war depressed ratings to 33 million viewers — Sunday's was the least-watched Oscars since 1997. I've always felt that comedians bring a very necessary element to society: they make us laugh at ourselves. Not only that, they can generally get away with saying the average politically incorrect thing that half of us have already thought anyway. They can say things like "Award ceremonies are only for gay men." Don't you dare say you never thought it. But I think there's a balance that's missing. What continues to bother me about comedians like Rock is that instead of falling back on their talent and insights from life (read: Bill Cosby, Johnny Carson), they resort to the raunchy, profanity-laced, brand of comedy that's so popular today. This is why I reject the modern notion of "offensive." Today, offensive=crude. The reality is, offensive needs to equal truth. Ultimately, as a host, Rock didn't break any rules or exhibit any behavior that wasn't expected of him. But in the grand scheme of things, what bothers me is that in fact, we don't expect more.
Posted by Ambra at 3:43 AM
| { Comments 15 }
Version 4.0 Look at all the pretty white space. It's like the rush I feel after I've cleaned out my closet, know what I mean? No? Just me? Every time I redesign my site, I claim that I will never do it again. Why you ask? Well there are three simple reasons:
So...whatever. It's nothing too special. I treat my website much like I do my wardrobe--I get tired of the same look day after day. It should be "fun," lack clutter, and not appear too "corporate." I think we achieved our goal here. Unfortunately, not without some bloodshed. This is the main reason why I was silent. I've added a media section. Hopefully I'll have my photo album up by the end of this week. That should be a humorous endeavor. At this point, I'm setting the stage to launch some new content features on the site, so continue to look for changes. Some things are still quirky. Comments were down yesterday, and the date-based archives are currently a disaster, but let me know if there's anything else not working properly. Comments and trackback should now be working fine.
Posted by Ambra at 2:36 AM
| { Comments 7 }
|
 "...playful philosophizing" Dan Leroy, National Review Online |
||
 |
|
|
I've always been convinced that Mormons had brilliant commercials. LDS television spots always deal in principle. The subject matter is usually marriage, family, life, or some other pursuit of happiness. The commercials always made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside until I got to the end and heard, "This has been a message from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Then there's the part where they offer you a free version of the Book of Mormon when you dial their 1-800 number, and tell you to talk to your Mormon neighbor if you have any questions. In all the years I grew up in a predominately black Seattle neighborhood, I've never had a Mormon neighbor. Never. But since I'd like to be on CBS one day, I'll just stop there.
Without fail, there are two things America can be counted on to consistently produce: lazy individuals and "good people." It's a safe bet that a good percentage of America consists of your average non-littering, non-baby-seal-clubbing, charity-donating "good" person. Data has proven that Americans are big givers. In addition to this, we also feed the children, build habitats for humanity, seek international amnesty, give the world vision, treat animals ethically, and assemble corps of peace. And as if that weren't enough, we even recycle. Boy aren't we good!
Remember good citizens: money doesn't necessarily buy taste. Just ask Donald Trump. He's the one responsible for decorating the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. I know purple is the color of royalty but gawl-lee.
Just got finished watching the Nightline 
Every February, Tavis Smiley hosts his "
See if you can wrap your mind around this one:
|
|
