AMERICAN IDOL 3-11-08-Beatles

Tonight on American Idol, we're down to the top 12. At this point, they're on the new set, and it's time to shine. Tonights theme was "Beatles songs". How did they fare?

Syesha Mercado1 came on the stage and initially her rendition of "Gotta Get You Into My Life" from Revolver album. Initially she was off tune, but got better towards the middle of the song. I'd say she wasn't the worst, but she could have done better. She's a little cutie, though, isn't she?

Chikezie tore it up on the stage. He sang "She's a woman" and he really changed it up. His performance was so entertaining, and he had the whole crowd enthused. He got kudos from all three judges, and he really showed his potential tonight.

Ramiele Malubay bored me to sleep. She was singing "In my life", but really put the song to shame. I could barely keep my eyes open-and the sad part is she was singing one of my favorite songs. She sang way too slow.

Jason Castro did okay. He sang "If I fell". His harmony was off. The judges seem to have faith in him, though they weren't overwhelmed by his performance. Last week was much better for him, but he's still a favorite. I think he could have done a lot better.

Carly sang "Come together". She did a fantastic job, and really gave the song justice.
Randy - Yo Yo Yo. That felt amazing, didn't it. Strong, confident, stellar performance.
Paula - like watching a star. Amazing performer.
Simon - Week after week, chose the wrong song until now.

David Cook sucked major. Singing All The Lonely People in his rock version, I really wasn't feeling it.
Randy was enthused, but when it came to judging he said he has a big voice "but this performance was too overdone". He said that he tried to do too much with it and had too much going on.
Paula said though she loves his voice, he overdid it and needed to scale back. She was, of course, full of compliments and seemed genuinely saddened as she said he "had too many runs".
Simon stated "No, NO, NO!" He said it was corny verging on desperate and that he looked like a deer or rabbit in the headlights.
Overall, this was not a strong performance. But he did say "if this show remains a talent competition instead of a popularity competition, you could actually win".

Brooke White sang "Let it be", another one of my favorites. She's one of my favorites, and from the very start I knew she'd rock this. True enough, she had my attention. Playing piano as she sang, it was simply beautiful. Randy called it "heartfelt". Paula commented about how she gave a emotional connection that would make America fall in love with her. Simon says it was a brilliant choice, one of the best performances, and unbelievable! When he said that, tears of joy and appreciation fell from her eyes. And it truly was brilliant. And she played in her bare feet (Ryan caught that, lol).

David Hernandez sang "I saw her standing there". I didn't like his version of it. He sang great, but the rendition of the song really sucked. Major. Randy said he tried to do too much, and that lost him. I agreed totally. Paula said she felt that he over did it, and since he is a brilliant singer he could have pushed back. Simon said "no, no, no" and commented that he was like a deer in the headlights, and that it wasn't a strong performance.

Amanda Overmyer sang "You can't do that". She put her spin on it in her average 'rock out' style, and though all the judges gave her kudos, Simon wasn't feeling it as much as the others. He said that he likes her style, but he words sometimes slurred. He and Paula had a little spiff during this judging because Simon got disrespectful by telling Paula to "shut up"..but hey, isn't that how it always ends up being?

Michael Johns sang "Across the universe", from the Beatles in 1970. This was one of John Lennon's favorite songs; so did Michael do the song justice?
Randy said it was a little sleepy in his opinion, but Paula disagreed. She said he had quiet confidence and connected with the audience. Simon agreed with Randy, saying that he's frustrated because it was a little "monogamous" and safe; and he knows he can do better.

Kelly Lee Cook sang "Eight days a week" country style. She hit some great notes. She danced and had fun with the song, flirted with her eyes, and flashed a brilliant smile. Again, she hit some great notes; I can't stress it enough.
Randy said he liked the arrangement, but he was torn. Half of him liked it and half didn't. Paula said she didn't like it at all. She says that it was too country, and she didn't get it. Simon says he thought it was hideous, even though he was the one who gave her the advice to go country. Paula did comment that due to her fan base, she may make it back next week.

David Archuleta sang "We can work it out". He said that he wasn't that comfortable with it because he didn't really listen to songs of that era, but because he was familiar with Stevie Wonder's version he felt a little more confident. The crowd cheered! Randy said that he was a fan of Davids, but this was not his vibe. It felt forced, and all he felt was Stevie's version and nobody can do it better than Stevie. Paula said that he should never let it show on his face that he's not confident. Simon said that he shouldn't have done the Stevie version and it was his weakest performance.

My top two performance choices were Chikezie and Brooke White.
Copyright ©2008 Attica Lundy

Confessions of a Quitter

Okay, so the ongoing saying is "Winners don't cheat and cheaters don't win". This saying is as old as I am (and even older, can you image? lol). In most cases I'll agree; but what if you are cheating not only to win, but also to quit?

I know you're wondering what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a way to quit a habit of cheating in a relationship by going "cold turkey".

Most people that cheat in a relationship cheat because it's a trait imbedded in them. We call these people "players", but what happens when the game is old and you want to stop, but something inside of you won't allow you to be faithful?

Sure, you can pray on it. You can make it a New Year's resolution and try your hardest to keep it. You can decide to go celebate for a bit, just until you shake the feeling. All of these methods have been prooven to work-but what happens if you will won't allow you to act on your desire to be a faithful lover?

Don't give up hope. There is an alternate solution! Albeit, it's unconventional; but it works. It's called Hypnosis.

To test this theory I was kind enough to go through this procedure just for argument sake. Yes, readers, I did it for you-but I also did it for me.

See, time and time again in relationships when things got too bad, I'd seek the love of another. Well, not the love...but you get my drift. Anyway, I wanted something better for myself; I just didn't trust myself to solve this problem on my own. So I underwent therapy and in the sessions, Hypnosis came up.

Now, if any of you know me, you'll know that I'm pigheaded and not very gullable...so I thought hypnosis would never work for me. Also, I had underlying trust issues, and didn't think I could trust any therapist to play with my head like that without thinking they'd do something unethical while I was "under".

Eventually I concented to the treatment-and guess what? It worked! Not only do I not have the ability to cheat anymore, I also detest the thought of it to the point that my stomach aches and I get nausious even at the offer of affection from another.

So I kicked the habit, on a subconscious level. It's wonderful, I'll tell ya! No more "hiding" phone numbers, emails, etc. because I'm not doing anything wrong! And I find that living my life on the straight and narrow is a wonderful and stress-less feeling.

I underwent this treatment last year, and even though I was in a committed relationship at the time and was being faithful, I thought that if anything too bad happened, I'd "go off the wagon". After that relationship ended (and thankfully I hadn't cheated in it at all), I moved on with the knowledge that one thing I could offer the next man was my undying faithfulness. And guess what? It came in handy when I said my marriage vows, knowing that I could say them honestly. That was a wonderful feeling.

Hypnosis can also be used for weight loss, to quit smoking, to overcome fears and phobias, to quit drinking, and even for healing (Doctors and medical journals are finally beginning to acknowledge hypnosis as a tool for healing. It has been proven to reduce chronic pain, improve recovery after surgery, lessen the side effects of chemotherapy, ease insomnia, and so much more)!

If this is something you are interested in, please google "Hypnosis" followed by the name of your city. Search results will pop up and you can find something in your area. Be sure to ask as many questions you need to so that you feel safe and secure in doing it.

Well, kiddies-that's it! Now for the Q and A. If you have any questions, please reply below and I'll do my best to answer them for you. Take care!

Attica Lundy

Copyright ©2008 Attica Lundy

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