Kissin' Cousins

I was talking to one of my cousins on the phone and we were talking about dancing (he can dance and I cannot). While we were talking, I looked at a reply he'd sent me and it said something along the lines of he and his friends talking about sex. Gross.

Not saying he's gross, but just saying that the thought of my cousins (or my siblings) having sex just sort of repulses me! I just don't like thinking of my family that way. I never even liked the term "kissing cousins". Yuck!

But not everyone feels that way. Apparently many states now allow for first cousins to marry! The list can be found at http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm . I couldn't believe it! I know in some areas of the world that is the norm, but wasn't that taboo in America?

Looking deeper into the subject, I found many web links about cousin couples. It seems that prior to civil laws were passed and religious creeds were established to ban cousin marriages, this was actually a preference.

I've always been told that if relatives (like first cousins) were to conceive and give birth to children, the offspring had a greater chance of having developed birth defects. This is a possibility, but those thoughts came before modern genetic testing was invented. Did you know that scientifically speaking simply marrying within your own race increases the odds of birth defects just as marrying within your own town further increases your chances? Factually, couples that are related by blood only have a slightly higher chance for birth defects than non-related couples. Here are the facts from cousincouples.com (a very interesting website):
Fact:
Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk.
Genetic counseling is available for those couples that may be at a special risk for birth defects (e.g. You have a defect that runs in your family)
In plain terms first cousins have at a 94 percent + chance of having healthy children.
The National Society of Genetic Counselors estimated the increased risk for first cousins is between 1.7 to 2.8 percent, or about the same a any woman over 40 years of age.

Worldwide, the percentage of cousins marrying is 20%. 1 in 1,000 cousin couples marry in the U.S., and in Japan it's 4 in 1,000. Per CousinCouples.Com, "It is estimated that 20 percent of all couples worldwide are first cousins. It is also estimated that 80 percent of all marriages historically have been between first cousins". The site goes on further to say that "Albert Einstein married his first cousin. And so did Charles Darwin, who had exceptional children". Other famous names that came up have been Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jerry Lee Lewis, Sir John A. MacDonald (The first Prime Minister of Canada), and even in the bible they mentioned couple marriages.

Each U.S. state, however, prohibits marriages between parents and children, sisters and brothers, uncles and nieces, and aunts and nephews. There are strict "incest" laws in the states, thus not making those types of marriages even legally possible.

Though legal the United States of America (26 states allow first cousin marriages and 26 states do not), it is still very taboo here. However, there is an old saying in West Africa that roughly translates to "cousins are made for cousins". The U.S. is somewhat alone among developed nations in outlawing marriage among first cousins. In European countries, there is no prohibition. In some cultures, particularly Islamic ones, first-cousin marriage is encouraged. And let us not forget about Royalty (they like to 'keep it in the family').

American society is so skeptical about first cousin marriages because of very poor research done in the 19th century. It was the Europeans that first discovered more scientific knowledge on the subject, eventually discrediting American findings. This is for "cousin couples" only, not other relationships (father/daughter, etc)between relatives, which has shown 7 to 31 percent of offspring having adverse medical outcomes.

Then there's the biblical/religious views on it. The bible is very specific about which relationships should not be made, and none of them include first cousins.
Forbidden Marriages Scriptures:
Between parents and children - Leviticus 18:7-8
Between stepparents and stepchildren - Leviticus 18:8, 17
With your paternal or maternal aunt - Leviticus 18:12-13
With your uncle or aunt - Leviticus 18:14
Between brother and sister and half-brother and half-sister - Leviticus 18:9
Between stepbrothers and stepsisters - Leviticus 18:11
With your daughter-in-law - Leviticus 18:15
With your sister-in-law - Leviticus 18:16
With your granddaughter - Leviticus 18:10
With your step-granddaughter - Leviticus 18:17

I've found that the Roman Catholic Church does allow First Cousin Marriages. As strict as they are, this surprised me very much! Not because the Roman Catholic Church is perfect, but because their stance on things has always been so "this can be done or this is forbidden".

The scare of genetic deformities has always been the root why it was taboo for couple marriages. But because most state marriage laws have gotten away from mandatory blood tests, it would be safe to say that the concern is not serious enough to warrant steps preventing such mishaps.

So the next time you're at a family reunion and you see someone that appeals to your eye there's no need to worry; chances are it's legal! lol

Copyright ©2007 Attica Lundy

Criminally Fashionable

Image taken from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/fashion/30baggy.html

In Atlanta there's talk of mandated fines given to people who are caught "with their pants down". Actually, it's more or so directed to teenagers and young adults who wear their pants hanging down, exposing their undergarments-all for the sake of fashion. Even women are wearing low cut pants that expose the strings to their thongs, and sometimes even the back of the thong itself.

Congressman C.T. Martin has displayed major disgust regarding this latest fashion trend. He issued statements to the associated press expressing concerns that this is an "epidemic that is becoming a major concern around the country". I tend to agree with the congressman in that all across the country this "look" does not cause a positive impression when viewed, and can sometimes even be offensive. Try eating out at a restaurant with your family and look over to a brunette bending down showing her behind, thong at all. It could definitely shock you and sometimes even ruin your appetite.

I had a supervisor once who had just lost all of her weight and really wanted to show off her new figure (she also had a tummy tuck done, so she was nearly perfect). She wore a slender new business suit that was fitting well; until she bent down after dropping a marker during a meeting and exposed those thong strings. Everyone gasped, and I concluded that she knew perfectly well that her thongs would show, and that she wore her clothes that way thinking they were attractive. It was not.

My oldest son is into the whole "pants hanging down" thing. I hate it. He walks so funny, almost like a duck or worst. But he keeps wearing his pants that way. My husband explained to him that even though this is a hip hop trend, it is in fact derived from a prison trend (Parishioners wore their pants sagging below the his bottom, this was a sign that he was homosexual). My son says that he's not a homosexual and it doesn't matter what other people think; which totally contradicts his reasoning for wearing his pants down low anyway (saying, "it's the style, mom!").

As a parent, it can be embarrassing to see my sons (or daughters)wearing their clothing that way. I wonder how they would feel if I did the same thing around their school, the neighborhood, or their friends. I can only imagine the names people would call me, and I can guarantee that my kids wouldn't like that very much at all.

But what does it say to a young person when this fashion trend is engulfing the nation, even spilling out to other countries? Well, some places want the message heard to be that by "indecent exposure" of the undergarments, a citation will be issued and a fine will be mandated! Delcambre, Louisiana's lawmakers have already put this ordinance in place with the fine being $500 or up to a six-month jail sentence-whichever the judge chooses if the accuser is found guilty. In Mansfield, a town Shreveport there is a possible fine up to $150 plus court costs or a maximum of 15 days jail time. Other states are following this trend of establishing ordinances against the sagging style, however some states have failed due to objections towards to "freedom of expression". And, lets say, a homeless person was to have his/her pants hanging down-not due to fashion but because they didn't have a belt to hold their pangs up-; would they be fined and/or jailed? Who enforces this law and are there any exceptions to the rule?

And I also suppose, in all fairness, that if this thing gets any deeper, we could have the issue at hand of being mandated by law to dress a particular way in general. But I think that possibility is a bit extreme. Back in 2005, Virginia passed a bill in the House of Delegates which mandated a $50 fine for anyone with sagging pants, but after much ridicule from the citizens, the Courts of Justice Committee met "solely for the purpose of addressing this bill, senators admitted today that they had been embarrassed by the publics reaction and quickly voted to dismiss the controversial measure. The committee's vote was unanimous". They determined that the style of people's clothing could not be an issue governed by the government.

Not all states are dismissing the initiative, though. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) got several calls regarding this topic, stating that the ordinance would cause racial profiling towards black youths(even though this style isn't limited to one race in particular). The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees such as citizen's First Amendment rights, equal protection under the law, the right for due process, and the right to privacy. They've extended their services to all citizens, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor. The ACLU was founded in 1920. The ACLU's position was that they agreed that these efforts could possibly lead to racial profiling against the black community.

As cities crack down on this issue, independent businesses such as some public school systems have implemented stricter dress code restrictions. In most cases this has been successful in decreasing "sagging pants syndrome". It's a start, right?

Okay kids, here's my favorite part of the show! It's Q&A Time!

1- Is your city/state involved in creating/enforcing laws regarding pants hanging down?

2-What is your opinion on this topic?

3-Do you agree that a law or bill should be passed in your area, or is this a attack on your civil right to freedom of expression?

4-Any additional comments?

I've given the Q's, now you give the A's! Please leave a comment!

Copyright ©2007 Attica Lundy

Celebrities serving their country?

Today while on MySpace, I received a bulletin from one of Beyonce's sites. It was basically an announcement about the "Beyonce' Experience".


"THE BEYONCÉ EXPERIENCE LAUNCHES GLOBAL ANTI-HUNGER INITIATIVE.
BEYONCÉ, PASTOR RUDY RASMUS, THE GLOBAL FOODBANKING NETWORK AND AIDMATRIX TEAM UP ON VIRTUAL FOOD DRIVES.
Donations Will Help Feed the Hungry in Ethiopia, Turkey and India."




I thought to myself,"Ethiopia, Turkey, and India? What about the hungry people in the United States of America?".

I reside in Georgia, and here we are facing a serious drought. We've got major water restrictions, and it doesn't look like it's going to get any better. And not saying that Beyonce or any other celebrity OWES ANYONE ANYTHING, but it is just sort of, unintentionally, a slap in the face when you hear about celebs taking care of everyone else except for those at home. From adopting babies to feeding the hungry, did they forget that America is not perfect and we have the same afflictions as people in other countries?

I mean, don't we help them out by buying their songs and tickets to their shows, etc. Most of their money, or at least their initital money, came from the good old US of A. And the last time I looked around, people were still suffering from Katrina, the homeless shelters are over crowded to the extent that people are living outdoors, and many live below the poverty level - all here in the US. And guess what? They are saying that by January, Georgia may not have any drinking water. Will we have to move to Ethiopia, Turkey, or India just to be able to drink?

Yes, I'm a published author, but I don't have Beyonce money. But I do try to give back to home. All of the proceeds of my first published book, A Quiet Time, goes to the National MS Society Georgia Chapter. And that's an organization that's right here in the US. And I still give to the women's shelters here and also other things...all centered around America because THIS IS WHERE I LIVE. And if I were to adopt a baby, I'd get one right from here. And if I were to open up a new private school for underprivilaged children, I'd open it up in America because THIS IS WHERE I LIVE.

I'm not bashing these celebrities for doing what they want to with their own hard earned money. They have the right to spend it however they want to. And the good deeds they've done and continue to do are simply wonderful and are most definitly changing lives. In some cases they even save lives!

A little child spoke to me the other day, though, and said "that thing with Brad Pitt isn't that bad, but it's like if my dad went to get christmas presents for someone else's kids and not for me". In my mind I thought, "Wow, this kid is so right on point. We are getting angry about celebs doing things for others and not doing them right here at home.". But is it wrong to do for others (other nations) when so much is available for those of us (America in general).

It boils down to choices and freedom. We as Americans do have opportunities available to us that other nations do not have. With the adoptions, perhaps American children would have a better chance of being placed in good homes whereas other nations orphans would not. As far as opening up schools, perhaps it's the same thing-smaller opportunities in outside nations than here.

America, nobody said that you can't step up and do something here. Citizens in America can still go and adopt a child here if you feel the need. Citizens here can open up schools, too. There was never a law stating that only celebrities have those options, even though their money is more than the average person. Perhaps we should look at that.

Here's the Q's:

1-What is your opinion on the celebs adopting children from other nations?

2-What is your opinion on Oprah opening up the school in South Africa?

3-General comments?

I've given the Q's, now you give the A's!

If you would like more information about "A Quiet Time" by Attica Lundy, whose proceeds go to the Georgia chapter of the National MS Society, please visit the site at http://www.myspace.com/aqueittime .

Copyright ©2007 Attica Lundy

Did you ever ask yourself Why Did I Get Married?

Over the past weekend, my husband and I went to see Tyler Perry’s new film, Why Did I Get Married?. In the movie, four couples who are old college friends go on their annual couple’s vacation to work on strengthening their marriage. At the end of the trip, they must be able to answer with full knowledge: Why Did I Get Married?. This question is easier asked than answered and as secrets are exposed, will these marriages be strong enough to endure?

Terry and Diane (Tyler Perry and Sharon Leal) initially are dealing with Diane not being able to balance work and family. Terry misses his wife and is hoping this vacation will be the chance they need to make love (and make this love work), but Diane just doesn’t get it. But instead of making love Diane makes excuses and her priorities regarding family (something Terry very much values) are exposed.

Patricia and Gavin (Janet Jackson and Malik Yoba) seemingly are the couple that has their love relationship intact and are the glue that holds all the other couples together. But when they have to confront their feelings about the death of their child, will the blame game destroy them?

Sheila (Jill Scott), a wife that will do anything to make her husband Mike (Richard T. Jones) love her the way he used to, even if it means looking like the fool. The question arises when the couple’s friend Trina (Denise Boot) and the local sheriff Troy (Lammon Rucker) enter into the picture: is this the end or the beginning?

Pam (Keesha Sharp) and Marcus (Michael Jai White) were the funniest couple of them all. Their marriage was full revenge, and plain old ghetto-fabulousness. Their biggest issue, however, was in learning how to respect and value one another-because the love never left.

Touching on realistic marriage issues such as love, honor, trust, communication and everything else you could possible imagine, Why Did I Get Married is a great movie for friends, family, and couples (married or not) to see. We can all relate to at least one of the characters, and the other characters will remind us of someone. Some scenes will bring you to tears, and others will almost make you wet yourself with laughter. Based on his stage play, Why Did I Get Married? The movie is both thumbs up a must see! And when it comes out on DVD, this is definitely a movie to add to your collection.




Now it’s Q&A Time.

Here are the questions:

1- Would you be willing to do a couple's vacation to work on YOUR marriage?

2- In an open forum, could you tell your better half EVERYTHING-just lay it on the table?

3- Is there anything that your signifigant other could do to make you divorce/breakup with him/her?

4- Have you always obeyed your vows/promises?

5- Any additional comments?

There’s the Q, now give me the A! What are your answers?

Copyright ©2007 Attica Lundy

The Latest Celebrity Fad: Is the price too high?

We admire them every day; the stars. Our eyes watch their every move and we aspire to be like them. The public praises them, mimics them, and love them from bits to pieces. However, the latest celebrity fad seems to be getting arrested for breaking the law and that, my babies, is NOT HOT.
And still, we’re still watching their every move. I have to wonder is this attention (albeit negative) egging them on to continue on the path of recklessness?
Ah, I’m just throwing that out there. I don’t really believe that the celebs are getting criminal charges (driving while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, illegal dog fighting/gambling, and assault/battery) just for the attention. And I don’t feel that celebs are having all these relationship issues just so the cameras won’t forget their faces. I think that the celebrity legal woes and personal relationship problems are just REAL problems that exists for any of us; the only difference is that they are broadcasted for the world to see.
My issue is this (see, I do have a point): Celebrities are role models whether they like it or not. And being a role model has certain responsibilities. It’s just not right to be irresponsible with your life when you have chosen for the world to see you. And if you are not a responsible celebrity, I feel that the powers that be should simply take you out of the limelight.
So is it the fault of the casting agents, the recruiters, and anyone else who puts these people that are clearly not mature enough to handle themselves responsibly or behave within a standard code of conduct in the watchful eyes of our children? If Joe Blow when out there are committed a crime, it would simply show up on the news that week very briefly, and then it would go away. Unless Joe Blow really just set it off, his name wouldn’t be remembered. His face wouldn’t be posted all over the world, now would it? He’d do his time forever how long that was and the only folks that would be aware of it would be those closest to him.
There should be some sort of mandatory universal conduct agreement form that ANY celebrity needs to sign PER JOB. It needs to be sworn to and signed and notarizedby anyone who would be working in a job or position that would make the person a public figure. And that form should basically read that he/she agrees to act legally and/or morally responsible as seen by society’s standards, if not the celebrity should have to pay a hefty fine (and that amount will be different for each person based on their last year’s earnings-like 10%). And they should not be allowed to work again in any field that would put them back in the public until that fine is satisfied. The money from the fine should then go to inner city schools, after school programs, health clinics, etc. And they should not be able to work for six months at least. This would perhaps nip a lot of this foolishness in the bud, and also show our youth that irresponsible behavior is not acceptable.
I don’t care how great an actor you are, how strong an athlete you are, how melodic your singing voice is, or how great a politician you are- if you are a bad boy or girl they should not hire you at all. It’s a liability to our youth, for one, and our society. The NFL has a Conduct Policy that I feel is very admirible. And they hold their players accountable, as we've seen with the Mike Vick situation, as well as other athletes in the past.
So yeah, I know that everyone makes mistakes. But whatever. If I made a million plus per year, do you think I’d be driving around drunk, fighting dogs, hanging my kid over a balcony, fist fighting a girl because she said my music was too loud? Hell no! I’d be smiling big, counting my money, attending charity events, swimming at my mansion, and being the best me I could be. But that's just me.
Now it’s Q&A Time.
Here are the questions:
1- Do you think celebrity mishaps affect our youth?
2- Does the idea about the universal signed conduct agreement seem to be a good one?
3- If the universal signed conduct agreement is a good idea, how could we get people to require it?
4- What can be done about celebrity coverage in the media that is so negative?
6- Is the celebrity only responsible for him/her self or do they have a responsibility to the public?
6- Any additional comments?

There’s the Q, now give me the A! What are your answers?

Copyright ©2007 Attica Lundy

The letter of the law made easy

I'm surfing the net today, and ran across an article on Yahoo about legislation in Arkansas possibly having an emergency session regarding the marriage bill, which states that a minor can marry with parental consent if under the age of 18 if pregnant and with parental consent. Well, apparently there's a big screwup because the verbiage reads "In order for a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is not pregnant to obtain a marriage license, the person must provide the county clerk with evidence of parental consent to the marriage." Well, this makes sense to me, but apparently the verbiage is too risky, as their thoughts are that this will allow anyone regardless of age (even as young as 10) to get married as long as the parent's sign off on it. They feel that this will allow pedophiles to drive to the state and marry children as long as the parent's agree and that people that would sell their kids for the right price (ie;drug addicts, sickos, low-life's, etc).
This is the photo caption that preceded the article. I only read it because it seemed so ridiculous, but as I read the article I began to understand why this was a real problem to them. There are some crazy people out there in the world!
We have to follow the letter of the law. And even though the law is written to protect us, some people use it to their advantage to get over on the system. So now they've got to go to a special session to try to correct their mistake. However, they are getting some push back because the law states that they can only correct a bill if there was a typographical error, and clearly there was not.

I was also shocked at the fact that some states are no longer requiring blood tests in order to obtain a marriage license. Though this may make the process quicker, it comes with some scrutiny. For instance, with the huge increase of HIV/AIDS and other STDs running rapid in our country (and across the globe), you'd think that blood tests would be a major advantage to the institute of marriage and family, but obviously all governments do not feel the same way. Not only would a blood test screen for disease, but it would also catch similarities in DNA, thus allowing foreknowledge of couples potentially being related (for example, individuals who have been adopted do not necessarily know who their true blood relatives are).

In addition to that, many states no longer require a waiting period for marriage. You can obtain your marriage license and get married the very same day! Even in swimming, there's a suggested two hour wait to get into the pool after eating. But I suppose the institutes that regulate marriages don't feel that marrying too soon could lead to disaster. They must not be reading the same divorce rate statistics that I've been reading.

They've made it so convient. You can just wake up one day, say "hey, let's get married", and go get hitched just as quick as you'd pull up to a fast food restaurant drive thru and get a value meal. And that's what American's want. They want it fast and easy with no thought process. No longer is Vegas the only "quickie" place.

And what about counseling. You could clearly be out of your mind, high on crack, quite unstable, or being forced to go against your will-but you can walk in and obtain a marriage license, leading to the "I do" which will ultimately change your life forever more. And what I want to know is what the rush is. Why has the marriage process been reduced to a time saver? Something so legally bound should have some stipulations, don't you think?

I'm trying to be objective here, and in a way playing 'Devil's advocate'. Honestly, the convenience of the new marriage process is in fact very satisfying for some people personally. For instance, a couple could get their marriage license on their lunch break, and if they don't already have a wedding scheduled, it's possible to get married right then and there! Let's hope they know they are right for each other. What about those that aren't so sure?

Now it’s Q&A Time.
Here are the questions:
1- What state are you from and what's the marriage law there?
2- What do you think about states that don't require blood tests? Is it necessary?
3- Do you think states should have stricter marriage laws?
4- In the case of the Arkansas bill, do you think there will be many ridiculously under-age marriages there?
5- Any additional comments?

There’s the Q, now give me the A! What are your answers?

Copyright ©2007 Attica Lundy

Britney's Drama-Wassup with that?!

The latest news on the Britney Spears and Kevin Federline drama is his newest claim that Britney is bi-sexual. It seems that his team is going subpoena crazy and servicing almost everyone from Brit's camp (reportedly 10 people thus far)!
Brit and K-Fed’s divorce was finalized on July 30, 2007. The two have joint custody of the two sons that they share. With Britney’s recent bad publicity ( wild behavior, and her bouts with rehab, and alleged bad parenting skills) Federline is seeking to gain full custody of the children.
According to rumors, Brit has experimented with girls since she was sixteen, especially while under the influence of alcohol. Word has it that her lover is Shannon Funk, Britney’s ex assistant. One week ago US magazine ran photos of Matt Encinas (a male student that was an extra at Brittany Spears most recent video shoot) and topless Brit in compromising positions. Matt allegedly claimed that Brit was overly at the late night private pool party she hosted at the Standard Hotel.
Now, K-Fed’s camp claims that among the guests Speared invited, Funk was in attendance and not only did she party with Brit, she eventually joined Brit in an one-on-one in Britney’s suite. Funk denies all allegations that she’s had any romantic dealings with Britney Spears and that their relationship was purely professional.
He must have some top people on his team, because the only bad publicity Kevin had was reports that he and ex-girlfriend Shar Jackson (Federline dumped then pregnant Jackson in 2004 when he began dating Spears had reunited and are now expecting a baby. Both Jackson and Federline have denied the pregnancy.

Now it’s Q&A Time.
Here are the questions:
1-What do you think about this whole custody case?
2- Why do you think Kevin hasn’t had any bad media lately?
3- Do you think Brit is a bad mom per media reports?
4- Do you think Kevin is really that concerned that Britney is a bad parent, or is he doing this for financial gain?

There’s the Q, now give me the A! What are your answers?

Copyright ©2007 Attica Lundy

UnLucky Number Seven - The Mike Vick Saga

Seven has always been my lucky number. It was always good to me when I played dice (just for fun). I got married on 7/7/07 at 7pm.
I chose Seven because it seemed to be the most logical number for luck. You figure if God made earth in Seven days, there has to be something signifigant to it. Then you have the seven wonders of the world. And my favorite child hood store was the infamous 7/11.
Was it a doubt that when Michael Vick showed up playing for the Atlanta Falcons that he would gain my undivided support? I wear my #7 jersey proudly around Atlanta proclaiming to be on Team Vick. And it breaks my heart whenever he gets bad publicity, and now I'm seeing that whereas Seven has been lucky for me, the same can't always be said for Mike Vick.

It seems Lucky 7 wasn't so lucky in 2005 when a Georgia woman accused him of giving her herpes.

The 17 page complaint was filed in Gwinnett County on March 14, 2005 and was the topic of major media bashing. It put a scare in our hearts, and especially for single women who thought hanging out with athletes and having sex with them was a "free ride". Wow...it made people think! Elliott (the woman from Georgia) supposedly settled for an undisclosed amount.
Now in 2007, new allegations of dog fighting has warranted an indictment on a federal conspiracy charge, and other charges may follow.


The fans this time around seem to be keeping an open mind, but the rest of the world is singing a different tune. "I don't think anybody on this team right now is hoping that Mike comes back," Dunn said. "If he comes back, that's great, but I just think right now we're at a point where the guys that are here are trying to get better and move on down the road. Mike is going to be missed and has been missed, but at the same time you have to go on." I guess one person can't stop the show. And let's not forget that the retail circuit had already deemed him guilt, pulling away his endorcements as well as his Number 7 items.
On both notes, I don't agree with promiscuous sex nor do I believe in dog fighting. Both show a lack of self control, respect, and maturity. The saddest part is that no matter how many victories Michael Vick has contributed to, the bad overshawdows the good at moments like these. He must feel really low and lonely right now, and my heart goes out to him. He's only 27, and this could possibly ruin his career. I hope he's invested wisely.
Word is he has until Friday to cop a plea if he wants to, and this could possibly be his best bet. Seems the other's that were indicted with him have all tucked tail and copped pleas-so they may just turn on him. I'm sure Lil'Kim is real pissed off right about now-you know she feels about snitches!
I'm wondering, though, what is your take on this. Here's the questions:
1- Do you think Vick is guilty of dog fighting and/or funding dog fights?
2- How do you feel about Mike Vick apparel being snatched off the shelves?
3- What do you think the outcome will be for Vick?
There’s the Q, now give me the A! What are your answers?

Copyright ©2007 Attica Lundy

Modern Hollywood in Blackface?

I was reading online and came across a write up about Angela Jolie and her new role as Mariane Pearl in the new film "A Mighty Heart". It seems that Ms. Pearl was Afro Cuban/Dutch ancestry, and some folks had a problem with Jolie being casted in that role.

"To portray Pearl, Jolie covered her blue/gray eyes with brown colored contacts and wore a tight, curly wig that resembles Pearl's hair style and texture." quotes the article on Atlanta's 102.5 website. They go on to talk about how the make up artist used spray on tan, and how a concern has risen regarding the "new generation of Hollywood in blackface".

Teresa Wiltz, a Washington Post staff writer has written a piece called "A Part Colored By History-Choice of White Actress For Mixed-Race Role Stirs Debate on Insensitivity" which is a stupid article, in my opinion. In that article, she quotes blogger Lauren Williams as stating "It irks me to see her in the makeup and the hair," Williams said. "Every fall, you hear about how on some college campus, white kids are having a pimps-and-hos party and painting their faces. People are ignoring that this is a very painful part of America's past."

Jolie was quoted as making the following statement: "The idea is, if you ask Mariane, because she did address that, and if you did actually want to find somebody that was her exact makeup, she's actually majority Dutch, and she's as black as she is Chinese, and she's Cuban, and she's French. So, it could have gone to many different racial backgrounds, probably, if you went technical on it. And that, you know, is a reality. At the same time, to her, the importance was the essence of her spiritually, and I think that was what mattered and I think that is a question to ask her. But no, if you break down the DNA, it's very complex."

Glamour magazine actually did a full write up on how the movie got it's start, and how Marianne feels about the role that Jolie plays. Marianne was the one who first approached Jolie, seeking a play date for their children. After meeting with the now single mom Marianne, Brad Pitt had a chance to read her book about her fallen journalist husband, Daniel Pearl, titled "A Mighty Heart", he wanted to make her story into a movie. Hense, this is how the movie was created.
Angelina Jolie as Marianne

As I stated, Washington Post's Teresa Wiltz's article was written rather well but it was a stupid article and I do not agree with the logic. Well, let me just say that I do not think that Jolie's role was "blackface". First of all, Marianne is a friend of Jolie and Pitt. He asked her if he could do this project, and she agreed. Plus, nobody says anything when Eddie Murphy portrays different race characters via way of terrific make up artist's magic. No, when he does it, it's genious! Reverse that and let a white actor be made up to portray a black character, and it's war!

People...you can't have your cake and eat it, too. As a black american, I cannot take offense to each and everything that is done in society today by non-blacks if blacks, too, do that very same thing.

An example of this is the N-Word. Yes, I'd be appauled if someone non-black said it. But at the same time, it's really unacceptable for a black to say it. It's so negative. It's repulsive. That one little word says so much. It speaks of a time when blacks were enslaved, beaten, demeaned, and killed because of skin color. It speaks of unmentionable abuse. The N-Word should bring a tear to the eyes of the ones that were branded by it! So then why does it fly so freely from the lips of browns and blacks alike? And why is it okay for some to say it and wrong for others? If we want to talk about blackface, let's not leave out the fact that blacks play white characters, too, so is that 'whiteface'?

Our society is filled with hyprocity. And that's really the point of my blog. I'm not bashing those who are out here fighting for equality and rights. I am so grateful to each and every thing that has been done for the fight for freedom, and I continue to hope that one day everyone will be on the same page in unity. Having said that, I also must state that though i'm grateful for those who are out there fighting for 'justice for all', I'd be greatly disappointed if they were at the same time using the N-Word, the B-Word towards women or the H-word (slang for the W-Word), and other's like it. Black men tend to forget what the N-word means while out on a basketball in the heat of a game, but are quick to remember it whenever it's said by the wrong 'face'. That's bull!

My question's to you are these:
1-Do you think it is offensive for Angelina Jolie to portray Marianne Pearl?
2-Is "blackface" wrong or is it simply acting?
3-Is there a difference between "blackface" and "whiteface" and if so, what is it?
There’s the Q, now give me the A! What are your answers?

Copyright ©2007 Attica Lundy