“Marriage” Sends Mixed Messages, Offers No Solutions March 28, 2006

In Sunday’s Outlook section of the Washington Post, author Joy Jones wrote an essay entitled, “Marriage Is for White People”, that hypothetically looks into why the marriage rate among blacks is declining at such a sharp rate. In essence, the author concludes that the reason why the marriage rate is in such a decline is because the quality of men to marry is sorely lacking, and suggests that marriage is more of a business deal in today’s society, and women just want to be free to be.

I’m not smart enough on this issue to argue the math of the numbers, so I won’t even try. However, after having read it back and forth several times since Sunday, this essay is missing one key element—a solution to the problem. It seems as if Jones is advocating against marriage; that women who are successful singles don’t need to marry, because men are constant losers in life, and that women don’t need to be bothered, if they have the material and superficies already in their possession. That’s just how I interpreted it; you might read it a different way, and I’ve read several varying opinions to that effect.

As I saw it, no man, whether good, bad, or Jesus, is acceptable enough to reach the standards of superficial women. Moreover, that’s exactly what Jones is suggesting—what with the fact that she turned down a marriage proposal, because she didn’t want to move to the Midwest, or didn’t want to be a step-mom. Those are outright excuses. She states in one sentence that she was willing to make adjustments, and then in the next line says that when it came down to it, she didn’t want to make the adjustments, because she had everything she wanted (materially), and marriage just was not on her radar.

An Anatomy of a 419 March 27, 2006

Okay…wait a second. This guy Fred, who I’ve never heard of, is sending me an email telling me that I’m entitled to over $10 million USD…because no one has claimed the money from a guy who just happens to have my last name? First of all, I refuse to believe that Marty C. has no next of kin; not if he’s got $10 mil in the bank. I mean, come on. And there’s no way he could have died without somebody knowing about it—especially his creditors (presuming he had any), with that much money in the bank. So, I ain’t buying that.

Nantz/Packer Filibuster: The Cultured State Response March 13, 2006

[T]he almighty Oracle of Basketball Nantz claims “spots were taken from the bigger conferences”? What planet is he on; Pluto?

Conversely, as Nantz and Packer whine about the four MVC bids, the Big East, a behemoth of a conference at 16 teams, put half the conference in the NCAA tourney. The Big Ten had six. The SEC had six. The ACC, Pac-10, and Big 12 had four a piece. That’s half your bracket right there. Moreover, the rather pious argument that Nantz pulled out of his rear end—that by selecting four teams from the MVC, the selection committee was putting them on an equal plane with the ACC—is a straw man. Please do not tell me a powerhouse like that of (18-12, 7-9) Clemson would have been an automatic to the Sweet 16.