« March 2005 | Main | August 2007 »

I'd be on Republican Radio (as a non-Republican nonetheless). I'm sitting in the studio right now and all I'm thinking about is how humiliated my mother would be right now. It's not often I get to be the token.

The theme of today's program is "It's a Big Tent," debunking the myth that all conservatives are rich white men. The show will feature a number of different non-white, and in my case, "non-rich" HA! conservatives. Among them are Muhammad Ali Hasan, founder of "Muslims for America," and Nathan Scott, a homosexual conservative (sitting right next to me) who runs the blog HomoCon. Andrew Sullivan, eat your heart out. You'll recall I find some conflicting philosophies there. But I won't waste my breath, er, finger strength right now.

The show is two hours long and Nathan and I will be more in the second half than the first. The black conservative and homosexual in the same segment? Wasn't I just talking about this yesterday? We'll see.

We're broadcasting live online 11am-1pm (PST). Does that mean I'm live-blogging? Never. That is for nerds.

From the Epistle of "Will & Grace", Chapter 2, verse 9,677:

Is there an antonym for "Amen"? Because I think it's appropriate here. But then again, blacks and homosexuals have the same plight, right?

*As heard while channel-surfing (Lest you think for one minute I would ever watch that show.)

(Update 4/29): A homosexual nightclub in San Francisco accused of discriminating against blacks. But wait though...how can they do that? I thought we were the same.

You put a lot of hard work into your weblog so it's perfectly understandable that you want people to recognize your efforts. If you're a human being and you live on the earth, chances are, you need some type of affirmation. We all do in varying degrees, but the necessary vulnerability associated with broadcasting yourself and your opinions on the world wide web is unparalleled.

Not only is the blogosphere full of nerds and introverts (of which I am neither by the way), but it's also full of people who just want to be liked. Yes, even the jerky ones. For this reason alone, you'll find people more hesitant to be original or do/say something that hasn't already been. I can peruse a weblog and figure out within a matter of minutes if the person is insecure. Insecure writing is a turn off. As you read, it's like there's a musical underscore to the writing saying, "Is this okay? Am I okay? Do you like me? Well, do you? If you don't, I'll change."

What separates the good bloggers from the average is the level of nonchalance with which they view reader opinion. Rockstars do not need constant affirmation from others. They just are.

You slave all day over the "perfect post." When it's all said and done, you think yourself pretty smart. Hey, you were witty, you were insightful, and you even cited other sources! This one's a keeper. Surely you will get lots of comments. Surely someone will recognize your genius and link to your brilliant post. Surely your fame will spread all throughout internetland and your site will be featured in the New York Times, right?

My message to you: get a life.

There are three main forms of cyber affirmation after which most bloggers seek: Comments, Hits, and Links. All three are very important, but only when viewed in proper perspective. Today I will address the first.

Comments
Many will argue that commenting mechanisms are one of the greatest appeals of blogging because readers have the ability to give instant feedback. I disagree. I would venture to say that commenting is not only grossly unimportant to good blogging, but it's also overrated.

Don't get me wrong. I love it when readers chime in on my site and at times I've been disappointed when fewer people speak up. When I first started reading weblogs, I used to love being able to freely comment or voice dissent. Unfortunately, there's another side to this. I've heard many bloggers whine about not getting enough comments on their posts. You'll notice some blogs get many comments while others hardly get any. Somehow, number of comments has become a gauge for the success of a post. That's poppycock.

I have an announcement for you: the average reader will not comment. Get over it. I've generally found that less than 1% of your average daily visitors will actually leave a comment. Yes, LESS THAN 1% Don't believe me? Let's do a few case studies:

Site: Little Green Footballs or "LGF"
Average Daily Visitors: Somewhere around 95,000+ (in case you didn't catch on, that's a lot of visitors)
If you browse LGF, you'll see that on average, their posts command anywhere between 75 to 500 comments. At most, that's around .05% of their average visits.

Site: Wizbang
Average Daily Visitors: 15,000+
On average, Wizbang posts usually get between 15-40 comments each with occasional peaks. At most, that's about .02%

I could go on, but I'll stop there. Sure there are exceptions to the rules, but I guarantee you that on average, people aren't coming to your weblog to comment; they're coming to read what you write. It's really nothing personal. Well, not entirely. A few of my own observations about comments -

1. Most comments are left by the same small segment of people.
   
2. The way you frame a post/discussion can both positively and negatively influence the chances of someone feeling compelled to comment.
   
3. Many visitors don't even read the comments.
   
4. A lot of people are too intimidated/uncomfortable to comment publicly. Some people would rather express themselves privately. Make sure you have a visible email address so people can contact you. You'd be surprised what gems you get via email.
   
5. Sometimes a lack of comments is indicative of a good thing. People may be at a lack of words. If you hit on a tough subject or hard truth, sometimes it's best that people say nothing and just meditate on the topic.
   
6. The phrase "Thought-provoking" includes the word "provoke." Are you doing that? If you're not, maybe you should start.
   
7. The more you pose questions the more people will comment.
   
8. You never know what people will identify with. Your deepest most insightful post might not get much response. Your rant on bad customer service, just may. Just keeping doing what you do.

Every time someone comments on my site, I am honored. My readers leave smart, funny, thought-provoking, and well-written comments. I value the comments. Sometimes they crack me up, and sometimes they agitate me. I learn something new every day and I personally believe I have the best readers ever, but of course I am biased.

In the same breath, I realize that I have to continue to be, do, and say what compels me regardless of what readers might say or even if they take the time to say it. Don't write for comments. Don't write for public affirmation. Remember, you are a rockstar; you're on a mission and you don't care. Write because you have something valuable to offer to those who have an ear to hear. The rest will work itself out.

For more see:
- Tips #1-3: Don't Emulate the Success of Others, Get Some Motivation, and Decide Your Genre

- Tip #4: Set Standards

- Tip #5: Be Yourself

Remember a few weeks ago when I said that every social problem begins in the family? Well for all you naysayers out there, I offer you a prime example of parenting gone bad: "Police Handcuff 5-year-old After Tantrum." At this point, I'm sure we've all heard, seen, or read the story about last month's turbulence in a St. Petersburg, FL elementary school classroom. If you haven't, Baldilocks has a good run down. I won't bother regurgitating information. In short, Ja'eisha Scott, a 5-year-old girl with a history of bad behavior was acting out, being violent, and endangering others (and herself) in the classroom. The teacher couldn't control her, so the police department was called. The girl threw a tantrum and couldn't be "tamed" so she was handcuffed. End of story.

Now let me just say this: when we have to use officers of the law to control elementary school children, we are in DEEP DEEP trouble. As of late this has been an all too frequent occurrence.

In Philadelphia, a 10-year-old student was handcuffed and arrested for violating the school weapons policy when she brought scissors to school. In St. Louis, a kindergartener was handcuffed for being unruly and disruptive. Then there's the Texas mom who dialed 9-1-1 because her 9 and 12 year old daughters were fighting uncontrollably. Her reason? They were "bigger than her."

I don't know where you all come from, but my little brother is 6-foot-2 and can bench press my mother one and half times over, but it would be a cold day in a very hot place before my mother would ever be afraid of him. That my friends, is insane.

Do you see what happens when parents do not properly discipline their children? All literal hell breaks loose.

Of all the commentary I've read on the matter, I've yet to read anything with which I fully agree. Most people agree that handcuffing a five-year-old and broadcasting the video on national television is highly suspect. I'll co-sign on that. I hate our media. We sensationalize everything and I'm not particularly fond of seeing the same traumatizing (for the girl) images played over and over again. It's unclear who (if anyone) exactly has her best interest in mind.

Let me just interject a brief caveat on children and police officers. When examining such matters, it's important to remember that there is an all out systemic attempt to weaken parental authority. It's an attack on the family structure. The less power parents have, the more chaos we will see.

Here in Washington state, it is perfectly legal for police officers to march onto school grounds and interrogate your child without parental consent. The only requirement is that they must read the child their rights. Considering investigatie manipulation tactics used and the fact that the average child has no idea what the "right to an attorney" means, I take issue with this type of legislation.

Caveat finished.

In the case of the 5-year-old Florida girl, I believe we're looking at the culmination of three different failures: parental failure, governmental failure, and lastly, educational failure.

Parental Failure: It's politically incorrect to blame parents for their children's behavior, but I'm all for it. After all, this is the land of the free and the home of the blame. Children (not adults, but children) are direct products of their upbringing. They mimic what they see; they test boundaries; they don't always know right from wrong. From what has been reported, this is not the first time the police have been called and this behavior clearly isn't isolated. If kids are allowed to throw temper tantrums at home, they will surely do it in public (and to the nth degree). There may be other household issues to factor into this equation, but simply put this mother is not doing her job.

Incidentally, the mother claimed it was a "set up" and has consulted an attorney and recently announced she will sue. She may very well have a case. I've yet to read anything about her taking any personal responsibility. Typical.

Governmental Failure: Someone else has noted this better than I could. In her post on the matter, La Shawn Barber precisely writes:

We are reaping what we've sown here.

Educational Failure: Many people are coming down hard on the school administrators for their actions, but I say they should've done more. I think they should also be faulted in laying a foundation for this to take place.

I've observed a number of public school teachers and heard from students themselves that coast to coast, many a classroom are out of control. Teachers and school administrators are afraid of students and employ weak methods of laying down the law. Via a video tape, part of the conversation between Ja'eisha and the teacher, Christina Ottersback, and principal, Nicole Dibenedetto was captured. So it goes (as transcribed by the AP):

(Emphasis mine) "Make a choice before they counted to five????" Mistake number one in my book. This isn't Supernanny. Enough with 1-2-3 magic. The only choice the 5-year-old should've been given was the choice to obey, and that doesn't take 5 seconds. Many elementary school teachers try to employ these modern techniques that do not work on hard-headed and undisciplined children. I don't care if you have America's Most Wanted in the third row, classroom control is entirely dependent on the teacher. I've seen it done, but it takes hard work.

Ultimately, we all lose in this scenario. The mother loses because she's not properly rearing her child. The child loses because she doesn't get disciplined in love and reaps worldly repercussions. The school loses because they have to spend more time policing students than actually educating them.

And we still want to keep prayer out of schools eh? Foolish we are.

The major problem with extreme victimization is that groups come up with ridiculous tactics to further a cause while simultaneously (and unfairly) invalidating their own message. Proof? Prepare yourself for: "The Panty Line Project."

In um, "celebration" (I guess) of Sexual Assault Awareness month, a Lawrenceville, Kansas shop called "Raven Bookstore" recently set up a rather unorthodox window display. Hanging in the front display window are multiple pairs of lacy red lingerie covered with hand written messages like "Red Panties are Not Synonymous with Askin' for it" printed across the front. The messages were written by actual victims of abuse. Somehow this is supposed to make the display more credible. The Lawrence Journal-World reports:

I think we've all had enough symbolism. Let's look at this logically. A question for the masses: Assuming you've personally disrobed, at what point should a man seeing you in your "red panties" be part of the "No means no" equation? If you're in them, and he's there to see you in them, it seems to me like you're actually saying "Yes," no?

I'm just asking.

The bookstore's display is part of "The Panty Line Project," organized by Tracy Williams, a Sexual Assault Coordinator (proof positive we can make up our own titles) with a local rape clinic who had the following to say about the project:

Umm right. We're talking about sexual assault, right? We're talking about rape, right? We're talking about an event with the potential to seriously damage a woman's life, right? That's what I thought. And now let us all join our heads to figure out from which intergalactic place Ms. Williams came.

Red panties in a window may conjure up a number of different thoughts and emotions, but "rape" and "sexual assault" just doesn't seem to fit in that equation. This is a societal reality we're dealing with, here, not Victoria's Secret.

Sexual abuse is a prevailing problem and a disturbing one at that. As a society, we should have zero tolerance for those guilty of committing such crimes--especially when they walk around in flowing robes and call themselves "Men of God" (but that's another discussion). Sexual assault in any form is disgusting, sick, and has caused much emotional and spiritual damage in the lives of many women.

Here we have a prime example of a very worthy and unfortunate cause diminished all in the name of feminists' quest to be "progressive." Event organizers take a very serious issue and attempt to equate it with what is arguably the antithesis of "serious": red panties. Even the word "panties" alone evokes some sort of school girl/boy giggle. That's not exactly a good thing considering the topic is not funny.

Blogger Matt Rosenberg (who actually hipped me to the story) makes some important observations on "The Idiocy of the Panty Line Project":

There's the rub. Enter the age old debate about a woman's "role" in her own sexual assault. The reality is, no woman deserves to be violated. Ever. I don't care if she's walking down the street half naked, looking like a silicone-injected Fredrick's of Hollywood model. Every man is accountable for his own actions. On the most basic relational level, men should be the protectors of women, not the inverse.

Now let us return to reality. A reality which reveals that men are visually stimulated. This isn't a negative characteristic, but it is a characteristic. Moreover, we live in a sexually perverse society that has given people warped, unhealthy, and immoral views of sex. Unfortunately, there is a certain level of defense involved here. In a sentence: women need to do better--better at protecting themselves, and better at carrying themselves.

Anti-sexual assault campaigns that include red panties are confusing and counter-productive. It's great to allow people the opportunity to tell their stories, but if the goal is prevention, I'm thinking we should be heading a different direction. From a conceptual standpoint, the irony of the "red panties" analogy is this: no one knows you have on red undergarments unless:

A) You're improperly dressed (i.e. you un/intentionally reveal them) or
B) You're undressed.

As women, we could stand to work on modesty, regardless of the cause. Enough with this fruitless quest to be "provocative" in message for others. Let's work on rebuilding the identity of women in their own eyes first. America is the only place I know of that not only allows people to pitch a tent and camp out at their own victimhood, but actually celebrates along with them. As Donna Summer once wisely sung, "Enough is enough."

Over the years we've heard some pretty bad renditions of our national anthem. Admittedly, it's not the easiest song to sing. The notes are all over the place and if I recall correctly, it spans into two octaves. This however, doesn't excuse Roseanne Barr for her mockery some years back. Nothing rivals Ms. Barr, but now it looks like there's a new kid on the block. Caroline Marcil, a Canadian, positively butchered our anthem at a recent US-Canada exhibition game USA Today reports:

I'd leave too if I made that much of a fool out of myself. It takes a lot of something to pick up your pride (and self) off the ground and leave with some dignity. To her credit, she was singing a foreign anthem along with her own. How many Americans know another country's anthem? Come to think of it, how many Americans know our country's national anthem? Come on people. We all saw the American Idol auditions.

Still, Marcil should've done her homework. Lesson learned. (I hope)

Incidentally, I think I know three: America, Canada (Oh Canada) and France (La Marseillaise). Now the singing part, well, that's another story.

Okay folks. Regular blogging to re-commence this week. A few updates first.

1. The Nyktionary: Is taking forever. And since you people want to complain, I request your help. Over the last year or so, I've been compiling some of my favorite made up "or re-defined" words, phrases, and expressions. Those who've been reading awhile and know my propensity to use slang, make words up, etc., so please let me know of any expressions/words you think should be included .

2. The Photo Gallery is finally up. It's a work in progress, but I'm still trying to decide if I'm going to keep it. I've never been too keen on photos on the net.

3. New Media: By request, I added some new audio. I often do some teaching, lecturing, blah blah, so I uploaded two from the last few years on the media page. Maybe more to come, we'll see. Thanks reader Alex for helping me get rolling on that.

   Also, by way of announcement, I think I have another radio interview coming up this Saturday. "They" say Dinesh D'Souza may be on as well as others. We'll see. Probably not. I think it'll be broadcast online. I'll keep you posted.

Happy Monday everyone.

This weblog is living proof that you don't have to play by the "rules." I very rarely check my web statistics. When I did recently, I found that despite my sporadic nature as of late, you people just keep coming back. Thank you for bearing with my weeklong absences. Remind me to rant about how much of a gigantic pain it is to sell a house.

Things will even out shortly, I promise. Immediate plans are in the works to ensure this weblog as well as other writing endeavors get 100% of my attention (and some). You know what that means...yeah, I'm crazy.

America is a funny place. You can go your entire life stopping for pedestrians, paying taxes, and being an all around good citizen and be totally ignored by the masses. Contrarily, if you have sex with married men, write about your adulterous escapades on your weblog and then pose nude for playboy, you get a book deal. Just ask Jessica Cutler, aka "The Washingtonienne," a blogger and former Capitol Hill staffer fired for writing about her multiple sex partners on the world wide web. One would think intelligence and a way with words would be typical of any blogger given a book deal. Incidentally, Cutler's blog maxed out in profundity when she wrote:

Now there's a role model for young women everywhere. What's the payoff for being a blogho? For Cutler it was an online playboy spread and a book deal with Hyperion.

Now before you go to calling me a hater, let me just spare you the brain cells and say it: I'm a hater. Actually, I am quite the opposite. Although I don't particularly see any type of self-deprecatory behavior as a credible means of building an audience, let alone getting a book deal, I am content in the knowing that bloggers are getting book deals.

Cutler (along with a few more crediblee bloggers) was featured in a recent USA Today article on bloggers with book deals. As marketing new writers becomes more difficult, publishers are seeing green with bloggers who've already gained a following. This is very good news to any blogger who's ever pondered writing a book.

I've never been a voracious reader (see the "Reflections On the Ill-Read Society"). I got through high school and part of college without actually reading through an entire book. That probably says less about my abilities and more about crappy curriculum. I've read the first half and the last chapter of countless books, but unless the writer is captivating, it's tough for me to make it cover to cover. As I'm sure you can deduce, I'm strictly a nonfiction reader. With nonfiction you can afford to speed-read, skip, and skim. I have to buy every book I read because prep school gave me a nasty habit: annotation. I underline, I highlight, I fold pages, I write notes in the margins. It's bad. The good news is when I like a book, I'm a faithful customer. I'll read it and reference it again and again.

Growing up, I always envisioned myself in bed on rainy Saturday mornings (of which Seattle has many), devouring books off my nightstand without a care in the word. Then life happened and I now realize that what little time I have for reading is usually spent online. When I get married, I will have to institute a "no laptops in bed" rule...for me not him. Ah the pitfalls of internet.

My nightstand looks like a library these days. It's full of books I've put off reading, as well as references I've read hundreds of times. Here's my current pile, what's yours?

1. Think and Grow Rich, Napoleon Hill
   
2. Imposters in the Temple: A Blueprint for Improving Higher Education in America, Martin Anderson
   
3. Boy Meets Girl: Say Hello to Courtship, Joshua Harris
   
4. Undercover, John Bevere
   
5. A Christian Manifesto, Francis Schaeffer
   
6. Jesus, CEO: Using Ancient Wisdom for Visionary Leadership, Laurie Beth Jones
   
7. I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Joshua Harris
   
8. The AP Stylebook, The Associated Press
   
9. The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America, Shelby Steele
   
10. Addicted to Mediocrity: 20th Century Christians and the Arts, Franky Schaeffer
    
11. Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ, John Piper

Related entries:
- Reflections on the Ill-read Society
- Books that Changed Your Life
- Hi, I'm Charles Dickens and I'm Overrated

The recent dust kicked up over the Conservative Brotherhood has seen some rather interesting commentary. There are some who feel race and politics are in no way correlated. As usual, notions of a colorblind society have been brought into the fray. Can I just interject how completely idiotic I find the idea that we are supposed to walk around the Earth and not see each other's differences? God's no fool. He knew what He was doing. I linked to much of the commentary on Monday, but yesterday, I received the following email and found it accurate to say the least:

Yesterday, Townhall's weblog analyzed Washington Post columnist William Raspberry's most recent column on closing the gap between blacks and whites.

To a large degree, various pockets of American people refuse to properly address our country's racial tension. It's present in the Church, education, government, and Conservatives in particular, often fail to note the specific attention needed in the area of black/white relations. The history of communication there is not good. There's too much hypersensitivity on both ends. It's a counter productive way to communicate.

At this point, I'm more interested in reading what other people have to say, particularly in regards to this email.

For quite some time, I've attempted to pinpoint the exact moment at which the blogosphere became boring to me--reading it that is. Don't get it twisted. As long as Al Sharpton has a perm and MTV is on the air, I will always enjoy the writing aspect. Yet these days I find myself completely uninterested in the goings on of the latest blogosphere hype. From one day to the next, most "conservative" blogs I check start reading identically. Same stories, same news, same tone. Same goes for "liberal" blogs. Maybe it's the overkill. Maybe it's the lack of original thought. Maybe it's the catblogging. I simply do not know. All I know is I miss the weblogs of yore.

This year has seen lots of conversation about the power in the blogging medium. Pajamas will never be viewed the same way again. All around the world, people with vast amounts of time on their hands have abandoned the title "blogger" and picked up the mantle once held by McGruff the Crime Dog. Inspector Gadgets are everywhere exposing lies, weaknesses and flaws in mainstream media. It's all great--really it is, but so help me, if I have to read about Dan Rather one more time, I am blacklisting my OWN self.

The way I see it, "the blogosphere" has hit a wall of irony. We made an inner vow of sorts. In short, by attempting to police the news media we despise and vowing that we'd be different, the blogosphere has in fact become just like them: dry, unaffected, impersonal, and driven by scandal. As it stands, blogs are slowly trying to assert themselves as alternatives to regular news media. For the most part, the integration is slowly working. Major blogs are being added to popular search engines, network news programs are reporting on blogging, and some are even integrating bloggers into their daily news reports. I assume this is for the better.

I'm not a voracious blog reader but when I do read, I don't go to blogs for the news (although at times getting daily news is a byproduct). I go to blogs to filter the news and get wise analysis. I liken a good blog to a glorified opinion column, not a rundown of events I can read at MSNBC.

When I first began reading weblogs there was only one intrigue: personal opinion. With so much regurgitation in the world, I found it refreshing to read the opinions, rants, and analysis of people willing to just tell it like it is. Even better was the insight of those who told it like it wasn't. The point wasn't even so much that I agreed with what I was reading, but more that I was able to gain access into the uncensored worldview of people around the world.

I suggest that not only should blogging not take the place of mainstream media, but it never will. The schizophrenia of mainstream media is what makes blogging great.

In his post, "Rediscovering Wisdom in the Blogosphere," Joe at the Evangelical Outpost precisely writes:

Words are powerful. I look on my nightstand and I see books written by people who are no longer alive. Their written words have remained beyond their lifespan. When I began this blog, I wanted it to be a running chronicle of my worldview. That included current events, but it also included the issues of life that seem to be relevant from one generation to the next. When I've left this earth, I want my great-great-great grand children to be able to read my words and gain insight into my thoughts. There are many goals in blogging. Maybe everyone isn't trying to have an impact. In his post, Joe asks,I'll tell you what we shouldn't be doing: trying to become news media sources, that's what. It's a mistake that will turn the blogosphere into a biased monolith (an oxymoron? I think not).

Blogs can impact people beyond news bites and exposes. I don't know about you, but I prefer bloggers, the people, not bloggers, the institution. Blogs should offer a unique and unfettered voice. That's the foundation of the blogosphere and the selling point of a blog.

As a reader, I am drawn to perspective, insight and the ability to leave a weblog changed, provoked, or even bothered. My advice to bloggers: write in such a way that sets you apart. Form a unique perspective and communicate it in a unique way. Make it personal and real because in the end, people connect with people, not laundry lists and newsletters.

• Racial Affiliations: There's an interesting if not typical conversation going on at Wizbang Blog (a place that too frequently lacks civility IMHO) about the "reverse racism" (barf) of "The Conservative Brotherhood. The conversation jumps off of course with someone making a comment that goes something like this: "The Conservative Brotherhood is racist," and "I'll bet it wouldn't it be alright if I started a White Conservative Brotherhood." Call me crazy, but I think there already is one.

  I'm a part of the CB, and the fact that people would even burden their thoughts with us in such a manner is completely hilarious. Baldilocks eloquently offers her take on the matter, as does Michael King, Cobb, and Uncle Sam's Cabin.

• Moral Stupidity: In his post, "Experts in Stupidity:
  Conservatism and the Moral Intelligence of Society," Joe at the Evangelical Outpost points to some new legislation out of Texas,outlawing booty shaking and other sexually suggestive behavior in cheerleading, school performances, and other extracurricular activities. Is this one right up there with Richmond, VA's "Droopy Drawers Bill"? Interestingly enough, Joe notes Conservatives' unique ability to recognize a sick governmental structure, but inability to know how to build a healthy one. Hmmm, why does this sound familiar? Ah yes, because I said it too. Legalism will never build a healthy society.

• The Big D: Speaking of Texas, I love it when people love what I love. Friend, blogger, and travel writer Bijan Bayne writes about visiting Dallas for the first time on business. Seriously. Give me Dallas, peach cobbler and an Apple store and I'm a happy woman. Speaking of travel, does anyone have any leads on getting a good deal on tickets to Montego Bay?

• Shiny New Digs: Speaking of Montego Bay, Jamaica, one of its former residents, and my used-to-be-favorite-liberal-blogger-until-he-started-slinging-insults-and-swearing Oliver Willis revealed a snazzy new newspaper-style weblog design. Unfortunately, no snazzy new thought. Same old same old (i.e. "Right wingers suck").

• Catholic Backlash In response to her pointed words on the pope's passing last week, La Shawn Barber published some "dislike mail" (the more civil version of "Hatemail") she received from folks who wrote to inform her of their intent to DE-LINK her. This my people, is how nerds fight. They threaten to de-link your website from their. Not only that, they also write you and email or drop a comment telling you so. NERDS NERDS NERDS NERDODIC NERDINESS!

Rebel: Roger Powell, Jr.

Age: 22

Representing: Joilet, IL

Status: Recently graduated from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, star forward on one of the winningest college basketball teams in the nation.

Why You Should Fear Him: This man could've made even the diehard UNC Tarheel fan root for Illinois. Standing at 6'-6" Powell is more than just a star forward for the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Nicknamed by his teammates as "The Rev," he's a star off the court too.

Powell's biggest accomplishment? A transformed life. Growing up in a Christian home, Powell got to college and admittedly struggled maintaining the lifestyle standard he knew was right. He joined the university's "Fellowship of Christian Athletes" and that was the beginning of his turn around. He is now proud to say he lives his faith in public via his actions.

Bold about his faith both on and off the court. You'll recall his first words when being interviewed immediately after defeating Kentucky in the Final Four were, "I'd like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (and said it without scantily clad women dancing in his music video too). At age 22, Powell became a licenced minister last October at his home church, Mt. Zion Full Gospel Tabernacle.

The latest NCAA campaign proclaims, "There are more than 300,000 student athletes in the NCAA and almost all of us will go pro in something other than sports." Case and point, Roger Powell. Breaking the myth that most black college ball players try to go pro, Powell went a different route. He went to seminary.

After graduating early in December with a Bachelors degree in speech communication, he started courses at Urbana Theological Seminary on his way to earning a Masters in Theology.

Powell wants to go into full-time ministry with his platform being basketball. With the respect of his teammates, Powell has been deemed "real" by everyone who knows him.

It's nice to see some authenticity in a world of phoniness.

Articles:
- "Straight Shooter", published by the Fellowship of Christian Atheletes
- Fighting Illini Player Bio Page
- "Basketball Player GLorifies God" - Charisma News Service
- "Q&A w/ Roger Powell - Daily Illini
- "Soulful inspiration guides Powell to lead Illinois" - Palm Beach Post

Past Rebels: Taylor Moore, Ben Shapiro, Erika Harold, Farrah Gray, Hans Zeiger, Adam Hunter, Dwight Howard, Sheri Valera, Princella Smith

The other day, a few friends and I got into a very interesting conversation about the cultural implications of this gut-wrenching new reality show called, "The Supernanny." For the record, don't watch it. Once was enough for me. Let me spare you the coronary I nearly had when I saw a 6-year-old boy cuss at his mother. Say what? Nothing makes me want to hurl my television into the Pacific Ocean more than seeing family dysfunction on primetime. Is it just me, or are 21st century children growing ruder by the second?

"The Supernanny," (in short) chronicles the life of a family with hellion misbehaving children as they become subject to the advice of an experienced British disciplinarian nanny-type. The show is not without the typical clever editing and musical underscore that tells you how to emote. By the end of the one-hour show, the parents are in awe of the results of fairly stand standard disciplinary principles employed by the "Supernanny," as if to say, "You mean when we discipline our children, it works?"

Why yes you fools. It does.

See I have this problem. I can't stand disrespectful children or the parents that raise them. When I'm in a store and I hear a non-mortgage-paying adolescent talk back rudely to their parent, I have to exit the premises. It makes me sick to my stomach. Call me a traditionalist, but I think young people should respect their elders--especially the elders that pay the electric bill and stand in line at the crack of dawn to buy overpriced basketball shoes. You know, the sneakers (or tennis shoes depending on region) that kids kill for.

It seems the last 20 years have given birth to a new breed of ungrateful offspring (myself included at times) that live life out of entitlement and lack proper appreciation.

When I was growing up, "What" was a bad word. When an adult called our names and we answered, "What?!" it was over. We were read our last rights and death soon followed. To this day, there are adults whose first names I still do not know because we always had to address them as "Mr." and "Mrs." And yet these days it's considered "cool" for kids to call their teachers "Bob" and "Chloe." I don't care how progressive we get, I do not foresee a day when I would address my parents by their first names.

For someone who's never been a parent, I've never lacked an opinion on child-rearing. Take my thoughts with a grain of something if you must. As the days go by, I am more convinced that almost 95% of our country's problems could be solved in the family. I've said it before and I'll say it again. We don't have crime problems; we have family problems. Family dysfunction spills into the streets, and eventually we pay for it with our tax dollars and more painfully--our time. Rarely do we make that glaring connection. Instead, we collectively throw our hands up in the air, wondering where our society went wrong.

To make matters worse, now we need television shows geared toward helping parents learn that they have to discipline their children. I realize that children don't come with manuals, but COME ON. Seriously, some of these peoples' children should be confiscated. And I know what you're thinking: it's just entertainment. It's scripted. It's fake. I agree to an extent that surely creative license is taken, but the children's behavior--that's all real. No matter how commercial the reality television scenario has become, something tells me there are desperate parents around the country tuning in each week with baited breath, pad and pencil in hand, taking copious notes whilst frustrating themselves in trying to employ the "naughty rug" method.

"The Supernanny" is not the issue. It's a symptom of a greater problem, and the fact that the show is even a hit speaks to the dry place the family must be in. There is a bigger picture here. The family is the training ground for life. It was designed to prepare us to be productive and purposeful members of society. When children are not properly disciplined, I fear for their success in life. Why? Because society's chastisement hurts far worse than that of a mother or father.

Growing up, my parents used to "minister" to us via a wooden rod. In other words, we got our rear-ends spanked. Every last one of us. It hurt too. Spanking isn't really the issue. While I'm a huge corporal punishment proponent, it's not so much the method as it is the principle. Discipline can look a number of different ways. Namely, when children are young, there has to be an association between sin and pain. Once that revelation is had, adulthood will be a much smoother process.

My fear however, is that when young people are not given the opportunity to associate their wrongdoing with severe consequences, they become destructive adults to both themselves as well as society.

Teaching children to properly address adults isn't so much about the title as it is acknowledging the authority that comes along with the title. When children become too common with authority, they're less likely to respect it. Referring to adults as "Mr." and "Mrs." so and so prepares children for submitting to authority as an adult. This is something we all have to do.

I recently read a study out of the University of Washington that found: "The more time four-year-olds spent watching television, the more likely they are to become bullies." Since we're a blame-based society, our first inclination would be to use the results of the study as further proof that television is a bad thing. The verdict is fairly secure on that accusation. Television is bad. But the real issue doesn't seem to be media intake. The real issue is the replacement of quality family time with media intake.

The family is desperately in need of repair and children are suffering. It's shows like "The Supernanny" that remind me why better child-rearing could save us all a few tax dollars.

USA Today published an interesting story today about companies intentionally seeking out CEOs without college degrees from Ivy League Schools. And before you start thinking that I am still riding my bitterness about Harvard, let me just remind you that the Crimsonites are responsible for accepting the same students that accused Jada Pinkett Smith of being "Heteronormative."

I rest my case.

The article features Brenda Barnes, CEO of Sara Lee foods (nobody does it like Sara Lee), who didn't graduate from one of the top business schools, but managed to snag a Chief Executive Officer position that makes Sara Lee the largest corporation with a woman at the helm. She did it all with a Bachelors degree from little ole Augustana College in Rock Island, IL. Apparently, this is a rising trend.

In the USA Today article, they've linked to a chart that shows colleges attended by CEOs hired at Fortune 1000 firms in 2004 and 2005. The number of CEOs that graduated from places like the University of Arizona and the University of Nebraska is pretty astounding. What's most shocking to me however is how few CEOs actually have graduate degrees.

I am seriously beginning to question the relevancy of the graduate degree. I suppose it depends on the field. But I will say this: Working in recruiting, you see a LOT of MBAs applying for entry-level sales positions. It's a bit disturbing.

And now on a completely unrelated note, I must interject a bit of Cosby show context. Anyone who knows me must get used to my propensity to recite entire paragraphs of Cosby Show dialogue in the midst of conversations. After all, the Cosby Show is the sum of all wisdom.

Anyone remember the time when Denise (Lisa Bonet AKA the space cadet who became even more eccentric and strange after she procreated with that Lenny Kravitz guy) was trying to choose a college and was deciding between NYU, "Hillman," Berkley, and the University of North Dakota at Bismarck? Classic. Maybe she should have gone there; she could perhaps be a CEO by now. In TV-land that is. Because the Cosby Show characters are not real. They are not. They are not. Eventually this will sink in for me.

It's not often that I quote Ann Coulter, but her most recent column touches on a story the media quickly buried: the redemption of Brian Nichols.

Last month America saw a rash of senseless killings all in the same week. The events that transpired in Atlanta's Fulton County courthouse on March 11th were broadcast nearly the entire day. The event was no doubt tragic, but there came a point when the reports on the story became excessive. The culprit, Brian Nichols was vilified by the media and proclaimed a thug by bloggers. Which isn't to say that he deserves a halo and a can of Spam or anything even remotely spectacular. He certainly doesn't deserve our pity. What he does deserve is the right to be viewed as a frail human.

I wrote last month about what happens when good people attack. In the same week that Nichols summoned death for four people, a church-going white man named Terry Ratzmann murdered seven people. The press was far more sympathetic to Ratzmann's humanity. How could he have possible done such a thing? Granted, Ratzmann wasn't on trial for a crime like Nichols, but Nichols' record is fairly clean compared to how he's been portrayed. Surprisingly enough, the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson were nowhere near this issue. And while I agree there may have been (enough cushy talk, there were) some discrepancies in reporting due to race, the bigger issue is the media's pathetic coverage of how Nichols came to surrender.

The reality is, neither of the two men could have predictably committed their crimes. In what can only be estimated to be a point of human weakness and desperation, they both gave way to a murderous spirit and their actions took the lives of others. Sad it truly is, but we are in no way justified in identifying these men by their crimes.

In her most recent column, "The purpose-drive left," Coulter tells the story rarely told by the media:

As a self-professed language butcherer (see) I can appreciate Ann's clever insertion of parentheticals in this particular column. Moreover, I appreciate that she has precisely nailed this issue.

The Brian Nichols portrayed on television was not the Brian Nichols sitting with Ashley Smith. Nichols himself admitted that his actions were quite unlike him. Coulter continues:

Amazing. I am less irritated about the lopsided coverage of a black murderer and a white murderer than I am about the media's preference to spend more time vilifying a black man than they would reporting on his repentant attitude as a result of *gasp* God. Who knew He worked?

Apparently, not Christians. It never fails to amaze me how collectively distracted American Christians can become. Post-trauma, while the news media was busy glossing over key parts of the Nichols surrender, Christians were too distracted, yammering about how they don't like Rick Warren (author of "The Purpose Driven Life"), and being critical of the fact that Ashley Smith would get the full amount of Federal reward money for helping the police capture Nichols.

When all is said and done, yes lives were lost and that's not to be taken lightly. But we certainly can smile in knowing that there is redemptive value in aspects of this tragedy's end.

I'm not entirely sure on whose hands the blood of Terri Schiavo rests. As far as I'm concerned, Michael Schiavo is the Scott Peterson of 2005. He's a coward. So are the rest of our public officials and so-called leaders who've consistently remained timid on the issue over the last few months.

In the wake of Terri Schiavo's passing, I am more convinced that although she didn't get what she wanted, after ten long years, her husband got what he wanted. His motives for starving his "wife" to death, I do not know. To say he is "shady" is putting it lightly. I am however certain that he will be able to find comfort (and convenience) in re-assuming the life he's long wanted with his live-in girlfriend/fiancee and their two children. A life minus the guilt of having an infirmed wife in the picture is surely better. Sure does bring a whole other meaning to the phrase, "Till death do us part." In fact, now he can even legally marry his make-shift wife while everyone celebrates and talks about how great it is that Terri can finally have peace. Which is to assume that she didn't have peace when she was alive; which is to say that people who are "brain-dead" and in a "persistent vegetative state" have emotions.

Nice logic.

No doubt, there's nothing sad about leaving this earth. What's sad however, is when we manipulate and sensationalize death. Breathing isn't some selection on the pick 'n grab menu of life. It's not a right either as the "Right to Life" movement has suggested. No; life is a privilege, and its authority isn't ours to dictate.

It's no secret that our society has little respect for human life. We're arrogant enough to think we should be able to pick and choose when life should have a chance. Enough smoke screens. We can make this to be about necessary changes in legislation and that's great, but beyond that, we've got a great issue on our hands. Our society sensationalizes premature death.

I gave up on watching the news a long time ago. A few weeks ago in Seattle, a local man was arrested for holding his two-year-old son hostage. All the news stations were covering the stand-off, hoping to catch a breaking story. When the stand-off finally ended with the child being safely returned to his mother, you would have thought the news reporters were actually sad that no one was killed. Now that would have made a great story, right?

I really do think there is a sick aspect of fallen humanity that actually revels in the pain of others. And despite my disappointment with his vigilance on this situation, I'm with President Bush on this statement:

The media has been strategic in turning this into a Left vs. Right issue, but Deroy Murdock of the National Review wrote about how all different types of people put their support behind the efforts of Terri's parents to spare her life:Write that quote down and keep if for later. This situation is far from over.