Thursday, December 30, 2004


Just wanted to wish everyone a safe and very happy new year. I pray that God will truly bless and keep all of you out there who read this blog. I started this blog as a means for voicing my opinion, telling of God's truth, and pointing out error when I see it. I am one that enjoys a good debate every once in a while and this blog fills that need. This was my first year blogging and I stuck to it and am thankful for it. I hope 2005 will be a year of more blogging and more growth for me. I couldn't grow if not for those that comment and send emails, you are much appreciated. Your insight, opinions, and challenges are always welcome for they cause me to question my own insight, challenge my own opinions, and really think about what I believe in. For that, I am very much grateful. I hope that you have learned from me as much as I have learned from all of you out there in bloggerland.

God bless and Thank you.

Wednesday, December 29, 2004


I was reading an article on by Wendy McElroy regarding a Washington Post article about violence against pregnant women called "Pregnancy and Homicide: The Known Toll" What really got me thinking was her response, not really the article itself. In the Fox article she refers to the National Institute of Justice study (NIJ) that agreed with the assertion that "couples living in disadvantaged neighborhoods, facing job instability and economic distress are at higher levels of probabilities of violence." I checked out the PDF link of the report and it seems to draw a conclusion that low income and even poverty leads to crime. Personally, I don't believe this but it does beg the question of if it is true as so many studies seem to imply this including the aforementioned.

According to this brief of the report, no efforts were made to examine and measure the individual and couples personal backgrounds, belief systems and practices. Only their job status, economic stability and neighborhood economy was taken into account. The report implies that the violent behavior is a result of the couples economic status. How so? A mighty flawed conclusion don't you think? Very one sided, no? Could it be that the economic status whether good or bad is a result of pre-existing behavior? What about historical data in relation to the Black community and White community? Is this a new phenomenon or has it been taking place for an extended length of time?

The NIJ report really doesn't do woman any real justice for it seems to leave out the actual cuases of violence against women, which by the way, I would contend is not economic instability, for how do they account for violence occurring in financially stable households? While the stats are lower, they still show that it occurs. Shouldn't the focus be on preventing all violence against all women, not just poor or rich? I would agree that low or no income can contribute to an already stressful situation as an added burden to an already unstable relationship. This report, doesn't speak to the real cause of violence against women and especially pregnant women in particular. If studies like this are to be done, there needs to be a truthful evaluation of the dynamics of a given relationship, i.e., were the spouses previously incarcerated? Did either party grow up in a two parent home? Were they married at any point during their relationship or just living together? Were there children involved other than the unborn? Did they attend church, synagogue, mosk regularly? Are the extended family, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, a regular staple in the couples lives? Was the violence provoked through acts of violence stemming from the woman? And I could go on and on. One big question that apparently wasn't asked was whether or not there was an abortion involved or any other highly emotional "choices" or incidents that could have lead up to said violence? None of these questions are asked or answered and all of them can and in most cases do contribute to the success or failure of a marital or live-in relationship and can agitate one towards violence. According to a Department Of Justice on-going study as reported by the Heritage Foundation, married women fair far better and have lesser risk of violence than unmarried women, as well as the children. Shouldn't this data have been included in such a report by the NIJ? Yet, this aspect of male/female relationships was not addressed in the brief, only economic status. Given that the focus is on economic status anyway, wouldn't it behoove the NIJ to address this particular data in support of marriage and encourage policy makers, especially those involved with regulating welfare benefits, to move to alter existing policies that look to undermine the institution of marriage, which in turn could lead to less violence against women and children in poorer communities? Yet, there is no connection made here, which seems to be an obvious one to make.

I agree that the Donna St. George article in the Washington Post completely misses the mark as McElroy's critique points out. One example is a comment given by Pat Brown, a criminal profiler; she states:
At any age, "pregnancy is a huge, life-altering event for both the male and the female,"... "It is certainly a more dangerous moment in life. You are escalating people's responsibilities and curtailing their freedoms."
Curtailing their freedoms? Who is the "you" in that statement and what freedoms are being curtailed? Shouldn't the notion of losing certain "freedoms" have been considered prior to getting pregnant? Why is the fear of responsibility all of a sudden an excuse for violence? These articles seem more like an attempt to paint pregnancy as a dangerous choice for women, almost as if to dissuade one from getting pregnant or even having a relationship with a man, but is that the real solution? The rest of her statement is quite telling though as she actually touches on a key lesson to be learned regarding the new mores of our culture. Brown goes on:
...If the woman doesn't want the baby, she can get an abortion. If the guy doesn't want it, he can't do a damn thing about it. He is stuck with a child for the rest of his life, he is stuck with child support for the rest of his life, and he's stuck with that woman for the rest of his life. If she goes away, the problem goes away.
This is my major problem with St. George, her premise only shows to bring attention to the issue of violence against pregnant women at the expense of painting male/female relationships with a broad brush, as if it is a matter of the women getting pregnant and somehow the man immediately gets scared and kills her. She stays away from pointing to factors that potentially lead to said violence such as the instability of the homes that the younger men and women came from, economic stresses, attitudes toward family and belief systems as well as whether or not the men who commit these murders have prior criminal records.

In addition, she and the many so called health experts and studies cited in the two articles so far don't bring to light the real and blindingly obvious issue involving violence against pregnant women and women in general, a lack of moral character among the men committing such acts. She and those interviewed seem to miss the mark as indicated here in talking about the high risk of violence among pregnant teenagers:
"It's something we need to look into more," said author Cara Krulewitch, wondering: "Is there a vulnerability factor we don't know about? Is there a social factor?"
Is there a social factor? What causes violence in anyone? I contend it is a lack of moral character. What leads to strong or at least acceptable moral character in our society? A stable upbringing in a two parent home, good life choices, a perceived or real commitment to the spouse (i.e. marriage), regular and consistent practice of character building activities, i.e. attending church, volunteering, organized sports and other types of positive group affiliations, which ironically, will probably be found prevalent in older, more affluent, and higher income earning households. Although I do agree with the article in that more needs to be done in documenting such incidents yet when the data is gathered, there needs to be a profoundly honest look at the facts in light of what we already know is true and works.

Overall, this seems like another blind attempt to paint a negative image of male/female relationships, pregnancy and ultimately family in our society. Isn't it ironic that such a strong front is made on behalf of these slain women, including strumming the heartstrings by giving names of mothers and the unborn, their ages, dreams, aspirations and quotes from family members, yet no stink is made over the amount of abortions performed each year? It seems more as an attempt to romanticize single motherhood rather than present an honest look at a potentially growing and gruesome trend.

Interesting though that some of the women mentioned in the article had had prior abortions before deciding to keep the last child. If we want to truly calculate the amount of violence against women, why not include the data from Planned Parenthood so that we can get a true picture? Isn't abortion, especially partial birth abortion, among the most violent acts committed against women and children? Unfortunately it is one that is pits mother against child. We consider a pregnant women's fetus to be a victim of homicide, yet in an abortion procedure, it isn't even human.

The new revelation of the increase in violence towards pregnant women(notice how the word mother isn't used) should be no surprise to those who understand the nature of man. The more we devalue the weakest among us, the less valuable we all become (i.e., only as strong as the weakest link) and whether you agree or not, women are the weaker vessel. They are the next logical step in being receptors of violence, even from other women. The next two WP articles in this series will be interesting to read indeed, hopefully they will actually hit at the heart of the causes of these unfortunate series of events and discontinue the disingenuous strumming of the heartstrings.

Thursday, December 23, 2004


To all who read this blog whether you agree with me or not I wish you a Merry Christmas. I thank you for coming to this site and reading and thank you to those who post messages and send emails, it is much appreciated.

This year I am looking at the coming holiday with a new fervor and appreciation for what it really means and what it is actually about. Given all of the so called controversy over the use of the spiritual terms of Christmas and it's symbols, I think this is a necessary point. We who are men and women of God through the salvation of Jesus Christ must be ever vigilant in living and speaking for God in our everyday living. We must push ourselves to never waver or falter on our responsibilities, both natural and spiritual. Next week the emphasis will go from Christmas to New Years and the whole banter around making year end resolutions for the following year will be the center topic. Let us move beyond empty year-end resolutions and start right now in making a change. Lets turn away from those bad habits that cause us to doubt, procrastinate or simply be lazy and lets start being single minded and focused on truly living what we believe. I've heard it said that change happens in an instant, a single moment, we move from sinner to saint, from evil to good, this is the power of God and the ability He has given us in the natural world is similar. We are able to choose, in an instant, whether we are going to continue along the same path, walking in circles, or if we are going to start being active Christians being a force for good within our communities. This is not just my resolution for the end of the year, it is my life goal, to live for God. To do exactly what he is calling me to do. I pray that you will do the same, make living for God your life goal. Make all that you do, say, and think be for His glorification.

For those men out there especially, I am compelling you to begin to stand up in your communities, churches, jobs, and schools to speak up for God's truth. Stand up for what is right, be real men and not cowards. Do not let this world define what you are but be defined by what God says you are. You, who believe on our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, are men of God, mighty warriors armed with the two-edged sword of truth, that being God's immutable, unchangeable, infallible Word. Use it mightily, with authority and purpose and do not be ashamed of the gospel for in it there is power and salvation for those who believe.

I had a conversation with a cousin of mine who is a member of the Merchant Marines. He works on oil tankers doing maintenance and repair. Needless to say he has traveled all over the world over the past several years. We got into a discussion about the AIDS epidemic in Africa and the states. He told me that he has seen some of the sufferers first hand and it is gruesome. He then went on to tell me that he believes it is the "white mans" fault for bringing that disease over there. Amazing! I immediately disagreed with him and told him that we cannot put the blame for the spread of an STD on one group of people, who for all intents and purposes, has nothing to do with the current crisis. I then shared with him the truth, that AIDS is rampant in Africa and this country as well because of one simple truth, the lack of moral character. Much of the spread of AIDS in Africa is perpetuated through the sinful actions of the people and their leaders, i.e., corrupt governments who neglect the needs of their own people, men raping young virgins believing that by doing so one can be healed from disease, as well as a continued emphasis on contraception rather than abstinence. Here in the U.S.A. it is the same, too much emphasis on "safe sex" and an all too liberal perception of sex and marriage. Needless to say, he did not agree. I say this to point to an unfortunate fact, there are still many men, especially Black men, who do not know the truth. Who continue to perpetuate the group think of blaming society on a whole rather than holding individuals accountable for their own actions. I know that I didn't change his mind from that one conversation, but I do know that a seed was planted and I earnestly pray that more good men of God will do the same when confronted with false ideology. We must speak the truth in love, not hating or resenting but hoping that the power of God will take hold on those who hear.

I hope your holiday will be warm, festive and full of God's blessings! Merry Christmas!

Wednesday, December 08, 2004


This is my response to an article written by Mike Straka of Fox News, for his daily Grrr! Column. He commented about the current situation in Major League Baseball and steroid usage. Usually I pretty much believe he is spot on with alot of his Grrrs but this time I wasn't to keen on some of what he had to say so I decided to respond with a very long-winded Grrr response email which he probably won't even read, which is fine, I am sure he is a busy guy. I am also sure that he considers long emails a major Grrr for him as well. But, I just can't let things like this go un-addressed and I had a lot to say, thats just the way I am I guess, not a very pithy guy I suppose.

While your commentary on steroid use in baseball was quite passionate, it was also very misguided. It is definately wrong and unfair for these guys to be using a known illegal and dangerous substance and they should definately receive the blame for it. They should be held fully accountable for their own actions and choices as should anyone who supplied them with the drugs, as well as anyone in a position to do something about it who may have turned a blind eye to the whole thing. You asked us if we would still want to watch athletes who look like us, my answer is yes, I would. I would love to see a guy like me, not in just physicalities, but in character as well, playing professional baseball, football or basketball. That is what the lure is for anyone who does follow sports, movies, and video games. We project our own personal sensibilities onto those people because we see a little bit of our own selves, our desires and aspirations, in them.
So, while it was nice to point out the shallowness of our society on a whole, that is no excuse to allow these men and women to get away with their poor choices. The comparisons you made between steroids giving an edge and filtering technology in music, or plastic surgery are disingenuous, neither of these things are illegal or immoral, nor are they used in a way that cheats someone else of victory. Steroids are both illegal and immoral, and they do cheat, not only the competitors in these sports, but the abusers themselves of their own good health and the pride of winning based on their own good efforts and merits. Ultimately they cheat the fans of seeing the true potential of human efforts.
We should not continue to perpetuate this behavior by offering excuses instead of solutions, giving leeway instead of rebuke, pandering rather than helping. The users and abusers should be openly and honestly rebuked and disciplined.
You said " Isn't that what America is all about — having an edge? " My answer to that is hell no!, that is not what America is all about, if it is then God help us! If you look at our history in this country, it has never been about having an edge, it has been about opportunity, freedom, justice, and the persuit of happiness. That is what America is about. While I would agree that the very structure of our free market society encourages one to seek out an edge in order to succeed or attain certain goals, it is not about having an "edge". In other words, happiness CAN be, and has been obtained without having that so called "edge". Plastic surgery wasn't always the norm in Hollywood, nor was music sampling and filtering for the music industry. There was a time when such successes were accomplished through old fashioned hard work and determination, with a little pazazz thrown in.
In so far as the government getting involved, they are overstepping their bounderies, let MLB figure out what to do about it on their own. The market will dictate how they respond, when ticket sales decline, special family oriented groups begin to protest and encourage boycotts, when advertisers begin to distance themselves from the organizations, or God forbid, when more of these same athletes fall over dead and there families sue the pants off of the sports franchise, that will cause them to do the right thing. It can happen if the people make it happen, if government intervenes it will just get a lot worse. The drug problem in the rest of the country ought to be a key indicator of that. Less government, more personal responsiblity.
Grrrr! to you for saying otherwise.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

UPDATE: John R. Lott, Jr. and Sonya D. Jones of New York also way in on the steroid usage issue asking What's So Bad About Steroids?. Once again offering excuses rather than holding these guys accountable. Although I do agree with their premise regarding government regulation. I definately do not believe the government should be getting involved with this situation. I mean, it is o.k. for John McCain to speak up about it and express disgust,dissappointment but threatening government enforcement is going too far.

Tuesday, December 07, 2004


Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all.. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.


David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia

Thank you sir for breaking it down for the common folk.

Sunday, December 05, 2004


The theme of the day seems to be race politics. The always lovely Lashawn Barber of Lashawn Barber's Corner blogs about the issues of diversity on Historically Black Campuses, Illegal Immigration in the Golden State and the lovely Michelle Malkin responds to some liberal bloggers who weren't smart enough to realize that it is not a crime for a minority women to change your last name after marriage. Finally we have Mr. Keith Harris giving the scoop on Southern race politics below.


Bill James, a name that some of you may get to know some day soon. Mr. James is a County Commissioner in Charlotte-Mecklenburg North Carolina. I live in what we call Upstate South Carolina and I am in close proximity to Charlotte. Bill James has over the years been called a lot of names, he even semi prides himself on being know as the bishop of Charlotte. Just this week Mr James is at it again with an email that he sent to some 1000 Charlotte area residents.

This is an excerpt from the email:

"Most people know why CMS (Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools) can't teach kids within the urban black community. They live in a moral sewer with parents who lack the desire to act properly. That immorality impacts negatively the lives of these children and creates an environment where education is considered `acting white' and lack of education is a `plus' in their world. Count on the Democrats and the media to try and ignore that debate as well."

Needless to say the “Black Leaders”, the Black Clergy, Democrats, and surprisingly the local Republicans are all over James’ email for what it implies and because it will have an economic impact on the Charlotte region. Some guy from the chamber has said that companies looking to relocate to the region will hear about James’ comments and rethink coming to this region. Once again they are more concerned with the image and not the plight of the people.

Let me see if I get this straight Bill Cosby can say basically the same thing as Bill James and in just a matter of a few months liberals are looking to draft him to head the NAACP. Bill James on the other hand has been asked to resign from his County Commissioners seat. So constructive criticism is good when it comes from one of our own but when it comes from a white conservative it is racism. Just a few weeks ago it was ok to paint Condolezza Rice in a less than favorable light, hay lets just say it was out and out racism. Again let me understand when it (racism) comes from liberals its ok but when it seems that its coming from a conservative it is not ok.

What indeed are the solutions to this problem of failing, morally bankrupt, and undiscipline black school children? I know the ultimate solution is Jesus Christ Himself, but how do we put legs to this so that its not just a mantra but a way of life? Its your turn to tell me what we should do. Please, I don’t want to hear about any programs that are government sponsored. This ultimately is a faith based problem so lets hear some faith based solutions.

I'll start by saying that the solutions are found in the truth. A common theme of what Mr. Harris' point and the other links here is that there is a great deal of hypocrisy stemming from the left or liberal minded. While these people cry racism at the slightest utterance from a conservative, they fail to address the real problems at hand. Instead of blogging about Michelle Malkin's maiden name why not address the issue of the lack of assimilation of the American culture by immigrants? As an alternative to bashing a Black or White conservative for telling the truth about the plight of the Black community, why not actually respond with a viable solution and challenge our leaders to address and actually fix the problem? Instead of calling Mrs. Condaleeza Rice an Aunt Jamima, Sell-out, house nigga, or Brown Sugar, why not give her position of authority the respect it damn well deserves by intelligently and constructively critiquing her job performance with tangible, viable and (gasp!) factual information?

The behavior and mindset of much of the liberal left is out right shameful and disgracful and needs to be put in check. Going around name calling and accusing others of racism by being racist is of the lowest frame of mind. It is a sign of anger and amorality. Such behavior deserves no more respect than the gum on the bottom of my left shoe.
I think the late, great President Ronald Reagan summed it up best...

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so.
-Ronald Reagan


Wednesday, December 01, 2004


This is a website I stumbled across today. I was searching for the website of an old church I once attended and apparently got this site, I guess the site address was quite similar. What made me stay and check it out was this mission statement:

The Men's Center's Mission and Values

Our mission:
The Men's Center provides resources for men seeking to grow in body, mind
and spirit, and from that foundation advocates for healthier family and
community relationships.

Sounds cool right? I thought to myself, self...this is whats needed for men today. To be taught how to be real men in our families and communities at large....Then, I read this:
Our values:

1. We believe men can and should support each other through times of
personal challenge and change.(Yes)
2. We believe in authenticity, which means acknowledging to ourselves and
each other our hopes, fears, strengths and weaknesses as men seeking to
3. We believe in honesty among men, which means men freely expressing
themselves emotionally, socially, intellectually and spiritually in ways true to their own growth and masculinities.(Huh!)
4. We believe in respecting diversity and mutuality in our support groups,
workshops,conferences and outreach activities which means supporting and empowering
all men.
5. We believe in the equality of men and women. (I don't think so.)
6. We believe in recognizing and appreciating our similarities and
differences as humans of all races and national origins, and in the process
fostering mutual respect and brotherhood for us all.
7. We believe in the power of our common humanity, which means regardless of
our sexual orientations, gender identities, or other issues that separate us,
what we have in common transcends our differences.( other words, overlook the fact that some men in your group are gay and therefore are not really men.)

Needless to say I became quite disturbed and fell quickly from my prideful high. Number five really got me going. I will never understand why people continue to insist that men and women can and are equal. Well, if any of you out there actually believes this hog-wosh, I got a news flash for you, men and women are not equal and were not ever intended to be equal and can never truly be equal in this world. Bam! There you have it, the unadulterated truth! Men and women are not equal. Now, take it easy, don't get unset, think first for a moment about the concept of equality. What does it actually mean? How do you know that something or someone is equal? You have to measure it right? Well, how do you measure a man or woman? By their actions, physicalities, qualities, and character, am I correct? Now, anyone with a good pair of eyes can see that for the most part, men and women are built different from the other. Women are naturally able to have babies, men on the other hand cannot. For the most part, on average, men are generally larger, taller, and stronger than women(although there are exceptions). There is a reason why men take on the role of provider, protector and leader and women are, for the most part, the emotional base, the nurturer, care-givers and encouragers. I can go on and on but I am sure you get the point. Men and women are not equal, and cannot be equal. I know that I can clarify further on this point and mention that just because we are not equal doesn't diminish one or the others importance to a relationship and society at large. This should be a given.

But, I digress, back to the website, apparently this organization has been in existence for quite some time, since the '70's actually, a product of the so called men's movement, started on the heals of the feminist movements of the '60's and even states on the site that the women's movement was the inspiration for this so called men's movement to form. Obviously it never grew to the scale of its female counterpart yet, I think, efforts like this has definately contributed to the weakening of the male role in society. Just another attempt at creating a victim based society. Apparently several oranizatons sprang up as a result of this men's movement and evolved into the one you see on this site. The website paints a brief history of the evolution of this movement through the formation of various groups or community based organizations, one being MAN (Men's Awareness Network). It is quite sad to think that there were men actually attempting to duplicate the so called "success" of the women's liberation movements, using the same criteria and motives that being oppression and victimization. Case in point, a quote from a Frank Holmgren, one of MAN’s founders, articulated the group’s focus.
"We are angry at the traditional role models that decree that real men must be strong, independent, aggressive leaders, Humphrey Bogarts who never show emotion and always win."

How sad is this? Independent, agressive leaders, strong? Isn't that what a man ought to be? As far as never showing emotion, who ever said that men don't show emotion, I think far to often we mistake controlled emotion with lack of emotion. As a kid, I remember many occasions where I witnessed my father demonstrate great emotion, including sorrow, but in retrospect, I realize that for the most part, he demontrated them in the appropriate times and manners, i.e. crying at weddings or funerals. Now don't get me wrong, there were plenty of occasions of great wrath that were overboard in my opinion, especially when it was directed towards me(wink,wink). If anything, when a man allows his emotions to overwhelm him, he becomes more of an angry woman than a man. One important fact that I noticed about this site as I browsed through it was there is no mention or reference to being a Godly man. No reference to men being the heads of their homes. No mention of teaching men how to be men in the traditonal sense. I am sure that the founders of this organization had good intentions in mind at the onset but sadly they are terribly misguided. The message I seems to center around showing men how to "express" themselves emotionally.

You cannot have a mens movement in the same way there was a women's movement in that men are not victimized in the same way that women were. The women's movement, for the most part, spun out of control, time and history has shown it to be a failure as there are many women today who attempt to take on the role of provider and mother, only to find themselves in serious conflict. In addition, being that the so called sexual revolution became coupled with the women's movement, we as a society are now reaping the wirl-wind in the form of AIDS, on-demand abortion, teenage pregnancy, out of wedlock births, breakdown of the family unit, and increased animosity between the sexes. While I agree that there may have been a great deal of discrimination taking place against females at some point in this nations history, I don't agree that it was something that needed to be politicized in order for justice to have been had. We must keep in mind that there were many women who acheived great success in the home and in business prior to the women's movement. Being that this movement has proven to be more of a failure in that today, women are objectified, over-sexualized, and exploited more than ever before ( I guess it is different since they "choose" to be exploited, right?), dove-tailing and founding a men's movement off of the so called success of the women's movement only spells disaster and proves to be foolish in that, the women based their frustrations on victimhood stemming in large part from men. Yet, by nature alone, men are not victims, we are masculine, for who oppresses men but other men? So a movement that is founded on victimization, for men, only demonstrates weekness and cowardice rather than solidarity or struggle. I believe this is why this movement has been for the most part, unknown and isolated on a local scale. As a man, I would not want to be a part of such a pusillanimous group. Personally, I think this is the lowest form of male cowardice.

Check out the site for yourself and let me know what you think. Then as a counter, check out this site called BOND (Brotherhood Organization Of A New Destiny) You will see a striking difference in their philosophy and approach. One builds up the man while the other seeks to inadvertantly tear him further down, until he will resemble more of a woman rather than a true man. I also recommend reading Doug Giles, he frequently writes about the issue of weak minded men in the church and how the male has become incredibly effeminized in our culture today. I think he hits the nail on the head, especially when talking about today's church experience. Check out his latest column "Dirty Harry Goes To Church".