Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Nina
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Adam's Thingy - The day has finally arrived! on Adam's Thing
Oh, boy. I was going to suggest that my husband take our daughter to see a matinee of this either today or tomorrow. Now? Not so much. I don't know. Maybe I'm under estimating her.
1 reply
adamczar
I don't know, all the reviews I've read said it was fun for everyone, kind of like Finding Nemo. And don't *you* want to see it, too? :)
1 year ago
in Adam's Thingy - Battlestar Galactica on Adam's Thing
I was wondering what took you so long to talk about it!
I loved the last few episodes. The fact that we have to wait till next year sucks.
My only complaint: they seemed to come around to the fact that Tori, Tigh, Tyrol, and Anders were Cylons pretty quickly. Adama's reaction was wonderful, but short. It all seemed a little rushed in that final episode.
I loved the last few episodes. The fact that we have to wait till next year sucks.
My only complaint: they seemed to come around to the fact that Tori, Tigh, Tyrol, and Anders were Cylons pretty quickly. Adama's reaction was wonderful, but short. It all seemed a little rushed in that final episode.
1 reply
adamczar
I agree. I loved Adama's reaction... I loved each character's reaction, actually. They were all true to each character. I wished we had gotten to see more, too, but then again I wonder what else they could have done. We get that it's hard to accept, so accepting it and moving on seemed to work, especially since there was so much to do. Having said that, I think they could have started introducing what happened in the final 3 episodes, say, in episode 4 or so, which is about where I lost interest and didn't watch them until this weekend because I felt like nothing was happening.
I can't wait to see what happens now that they're on Earth, and I can't believe we have to wait until 2009.
I can't wait to see what happens now that they're on Earth, and I can't believe we have to wait until 2009.
1 year ago
in http://adamczar.tumblr.com/post/38506040 on Adam's Thing
Don't know if this will work, but I wrote about it yesterday:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=bl...
The Incredible Hulk was pretty good, but I did not enjoy The Happening AT ALL
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=bl...
The Incredible Hulk was pretty good, but I did not enjoy The Happening AT ALL
1 reply
adamczar
I'm hoping to see the Hulk next weekend. I tried to leave a comment on your blog but I got the dreaded error message. I'll try again later but I was going to say:
I agree totally. M. Night is still my favorite film maker, though. Signs, The Village, and Unbreakable are among my favorites and I will continue to see anything he makes, but he's making it harder and harder. This one could have been saved had he gotten better actors and maybe introduced some better drama into the script, but I don't know. It was awful!
I agree totally. M. Night is still my favorite film maker, though. Signs, The Village, and Unbreakable are among my favorites and I will continue to see anything he makes, but he's making it harder and harder. This one could have been saved had he gotten better actors and maybe introduced some better drama into the script, but I don't know. It was awful!
1 year ago
in Adam's Thingy on Adam's Thing
First off, that last part wasn't directed at you. Just an observation of several comments that have been made by the media ever since Tuesday night.
Secondly, I had read the article when it was first posted on CNN's site before Adam linked it. Nowhere in it does the Rev. say people should vote for Obama simply because he is black. What he said was that we should all be proud because symbolically, considering our country's history with race, it's a major thing to witness in our lifetime. It speaks to the possibility that maybe we have come as far as we like to think/hope that we have.
That he can point to his black son and say, with tangible proof, "See, you can do anything." He's not saying, "Be like him and his beliefs though they may differ from our religious beliefs." He's not saying anyone should vote for him, as you put it, clearly on the basis of his skin.
Maybe I missed something.
In fact, what he DOES say, is this, "I hope that we can somehow merge the best ideas of our differences and emerge with a president who epitomizes our highest and best ideals."
Merge the best ideas of our differences.
I won't even get into the Christian/abortion aspect. I think church and state were separated for a reason and I give major respect to any political leader that can govern on what's best for the country DESPITE their religious beliefs. I don't presume to tell any candidate (or regular Joe for that matter) whether they are truly Christian, Catholic, Muslim, etc. We should expect all political leaders to govern based on what's best for the country and not everyone in the country is Christian or shares Christian beliefs.
Again, my final comments were not specifically directed at you and definitely not the people you know. But, it's important to note that my opinion is based on what I have personally heard white people say. Just because they're not, thankfully, the ones you know, doesn't mean the sentiment doesn't exist or that is hasn't be expressed. It wasn't meant to be an accurate reflection of the white people you know. It was a statement of fact based on what I have heard from SOME white people between Tuesday and today. I write a daily blog with over 3,000 subscribers. Most of them. We have been discussing this campaign to death.
Secondly, I had read the article when it was first posted on CNN's site before Adam linked it. Nowhere in it does the Rev. say people should vote for Obama simply because he is black. What he said was that we should all be proud because symbolically, considering our country's history with race, it's a major thing to witness in our lifetime. It speaks to the possibility that maybe we have come as far as we like to think/hope that we have.
That he can point to his black son and say, with tangible proof, "See, you can do anything." He's not saying, "Be like him and his beliefs though they may differ from our religious beliefs." He's not saying anyone should vote for him, as you put it, clearly on the basis of his skin.
Maybe I missed something.
In fact, what he DOES say, is this, "I hope that we can somehow merge the best ideas of our differences and emerge with a president who epitomizes our highest and best ideals."
Merge the best ideas of our differences.
I won't even get into the Christian/abortion aspect. I think church and state were separated for a reason and I give major respect to any political leader that can govern on what's best for the country DESPITE their religious beliefs. I don't presume to tell any candidate (or regular Joe for that matter) whether they are truly Christian, Catholic, Muslim, etc. We should expect all political leaders to govern based on what's best for the country and not everyone in the country is Christian or shares Christian beliefs.
Again, my final comments were not specifically directed at you and definitely not the people you know. But, it's important to note that my opinion is based on what I have personally heard white people say. Just because they're not, thankfully, the ones you know, doesn't mean the sentiment doesn't exist or that is hasn't be expressed. It wasn't meant to be an accurate reflection of the white people you know. It was a statement of fact based on what I have heard from SOME white people between Tuesday and today. I write a daily blog with over 3,000 subscribers. Most of them. We have been discussing this campaign to death.
2 replies
daddyjason
You are correct, technically, with your assessment of Pastor Jakes' statement. I agree that he does not come out and say that people should vote for Obama simply because he's black. I also agree with your assessment of what the spirit of his statement was meant to be.
However, I think it is disingenuous to claim that anyone in Pastor Jakes' congregation (or very many black people for that matter) would read the pastor's words and not feel that he is tacitly, if not openly, giving his support to Obama. How can you read about the twinkle he saw in his son's eyes or the visible goose bumps he claims to have gotten watching Obama's speech and come away from the article thinking that Pastor Jakes wouldn't support Obama?
He says of Obama:
"I thank him for accepting the torch that was lit by our forefathers and proudly carrying it through the darkness of our struggles, trials and tribulations, bringing light and hope to a new generation, and for facing all those who said "No" and "You can't win," or "It will never happen," and firmly, proudly, defiantly saying, "Yes I can!"
Would the pastor now say to his son that winning the nomination was the actual victory and the Presidency doesn't matter? For as important an achievement Pastor Jakes feels Obama has made in attaining the nomination, how much more important would be the achievement of attaining the Presidency. Logic alone dictates that the Pastor must now wish to see Obama victorious in the election or he would risk crushing the hopes and dreams of an entire race whose torch he has placed on Obama's shoulders.
Pastor Jakes does speak of the hopes of "merging the best ideas of our differences" but almost in the same breath he says:
"The victory cup does not rest on the shoulders of the senator alone, but to all those who have been able to lift the conversation from petty racism, antiquated cut-throat politics, and fear-based campaigns to the larger issues of how we would like to see our country led into the future and ultimately how our country will be remembered."
I find it difficult to believe that Pastor Jakes is implying he would like our country to be remembered for nominating but not electing a black man for President.
Your opinions on the divide between the church and state are valid and I respect them. However, in this situation the question isn't about whether or not Obama could set aside whatever religious beliefs he might have and govern the country for the good of all. This particular situation involves a CHRISTIAN pastor whose Biblical duty (if you believe in the Bible) is to lead his church in the ways of God. It has always been my belief that a Christian pastor should lead his congregation to follow the commandments and rules that are laid down by the Bible. To do that, Christians should vote for those candidates who are most likely to govern with the same set of morals that they believe in. Why would a Christian vote for someone who doesn't believe the things they do? I'm not saying the other candidate is a person who should be embraced by Christians either. I'm simply saying that Obama has enough of a platform to know that he doesn't stand for the same things that Pastor Jakes tells his church they should stand for. Therefore, I contend that he has given his tacit approval to a candidate based more on the color of his skin than anything else. Which was precisely my original contention.
I obviously can't speak for ALL white people and I have no doubt that you have heard the things you claim. However, I can say that where I am I have NOT heard the sort of things you're saying you've heard. Nor have I seen the sort of apprehension on the part of black people to embrace Obama's accomplishment. Just last night I witnessed a local news report where they paraded a half dozen grade school children (black children) across the screen so they could all say how they were proud of Obama and how they would vote for him if they were old enough. Unfortunately, this is another example of the sort of attitude I'm against - voting for someone based on the color of his skin.
Although Obama's accomplishment IS something all Americans should look to as a possible turning point in our history, that accomplishment doesn't automatically mean that he's the right person for the job. There are many other factors to consider that have nothing to do with the color of a person's skin.
However, I think it is disingenuous to claim that anyone in Pastor Jakes' congregation (or very many black people for that matter) would read the pastor's words and not feel that he is tacitly, if not openly, giving his support to Obama. How can you read about the twinkle he saw in his son's eyes or the visible goose bumps he claims to have gotten watching Obama's speech and come away from the article thinking that Pastor Jakes wouldn't support Obama?
He says of Obama:
"I thank him for accepting the torch that was lit by our forefathers and proudly carrying it through the darkness of our struggles, trials and tribulations, bringing light and hope to a new generation, and for facing all those who said "No" and "You can't win," or "It will never happen," and firmly, proudly, defiantly saying, "Yes I can!"
Would the pastor now say to his son that winning the nomination was the actual victory and the Presidency doesn't matter? For as important an achievement Pastor Jakes feels Obama has made in attaining the nomination, how much more important would be the achievement of attaining the Presidency. Logic alone dictates that the Pastor must now wish to see Obama victorious in the election or he would risk crushing the hopes and dreams of an entire race whose torch he has placed on Obama's shoulders.
Pastor Jakes does speak of the hopes of "merging the best ideas of our differences" but almost in the same breath he says:
"The victory cup does not rest on the shoulders of the senator alone, but to all those who have been able to lift the conversation from petty racism, antiquated cut-throat politics, and fear-based campaigns to the larger issues of how we would like to see our country led into the future and ultimately how our country will be remembered."
I find it difficult to believe that Pastor Jakes is implying he would like our country to be remembered for nominating but not electing a black man for President.
Your opinions on the divide between the church and state are valid and I respect them. However, in this situation the question isn't about whether or not Obama could set aside whatever religious beliefs he might have and govern the country for the good of all. This particular situation involves a CHRISTIAN pastor whose Biblical duty (if you believe in the Bible) is to lead his church in the ways of God. It has always been my belief that a Christian pastor should lead his congregation to follow the commandments and rules that are laid down by the Bible. To do that, Christians should vote for those candidates who are most likely to govern with the same set of morals that they believe in. Why would a Christian vote for someone who doesn't believe the things they do? I'm not saying the other candidate is a person who should be embraced by Christians either. I'm simply saying that Obama has enough of a platform to know that he doesn't stand for the same things that Pastor Jakes tells his church they should stand for. Therefore, I contend that he has given his tacit approval to a candidate based more on the color of his skin than anything else. Which was precisely my original contention.
I obviously can't speak for ALL white people and I have no doubt that you have heard the things you claim. However, I can say that where I am I have NOT heard the sort of things you're saying you've heard. Nor have I seen the sort of apprehension on the part of black people to embrace Obama's accomplishment. Just last night I witnessed a local news report where they paraded a half dozen grade school children (black children) across the screen so they could all say how they were proud of Obama and how they would vote for him if they were old enough. Unfortunately, this is another example of the sort of attitude I'm against - voting for someone based on the color of his skin.
Although Obama's accomplishment IS something all Americans should look to as a possible turning point in our history, that accomplishment doesn't automatically mean that he's the right person for the job. There are many other factors to consider that have nothing to do with the color of a person's skin.
Nina
That should read that most of my subscribers are white. :-)
1 year ago
in Adam's Thingy on Adam's Thing
Before I even finish reading the rest of Jason's post I just want to point out that you are correct, that wasn't directed at him specifically. Just an observation of MOST of the pundits over the past few days.
1 reply
daddyjason
I clearly misunderstood to whom the last part of your comment was directed. I felt you were directing your statement at me and I responded accordingly. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
1 year ago
in Adam's Thingy on Adam's Thing
Exactly! I read an interesting article by a black political journalist here in Atlanta where he talks about the fact that it seems black people were kind of stifling their joy on Wednesday. And it's true! I had a three hr. doctor's appointment on Wednesday and one of the nurses and one of the doctors (both black) seem to discuss it in hushed tones. Not sure what that's about.
A comedian joked the other night that black people don't want to scare white folks by getting "too happy." They still want them to vote for him in November. :-) So wrong, yet kinda funny.
And I love reading your posts. I'm glad our favorite raven-haired beauty introduced me. (If she EVEN suggests that she's going back to blonde, slap her.
A comedian joked the other night that black people don't want to scare white folks by getting "too happy." They still want them to vote for him in November. :-) So wrong, yet kinda funny.
And I love reading your posts. I'm glad our favorite raven-haired beauty introduced me. (If she EVEN suggests that she's going back to blonde, slap her.
1 reply
adamczar
Ha! I know, I really like the black hair.
1 year ago
in Adam's Thingy on Adam's Thing
He's not a Christian? Then what is he?
And here's the beautiful thing about our country, or at least it's supposed to be: you can disagree with someone's causes and beliefs and still recognize that the historic moment when a black man is elected the Presidential nominee of a major party. Considering this country's ugly history with race, it should be recognized as a huge step in living up to what the founding fathers should have meant in "all men created equal."
No one says that black people should ignore the issues upon which Obama stands that disagrees with their own just because he's black. With ANY politician you're not going to agree with all their stances on the issues. You take the best of what they offer, the matters that affect you the most, and then you vote.
I'm really getting tired of white people trying to diminish the achievement and trying to make black people feel bad for being happy and proud of Tuesday's results. I guess it's easy to not "get it' when in our 400 years of history everyone in power has looked like you.
And here's the beautiful thing about our country, or at least it's supposed to be: you can disagree with someone's causes and beliefs and still recognize that the historic moment when a black man is elected the Presidential nominee of a major party. Considering this country's ugly history with race, it should be recognized as a huge step in living up to what the founding fathers should have meant in "all men created equal."
No one says that black people should ignore the issues upon which Obama stands that disagrees with their own just because he's black. With ANY politician you're not going to agree with all their stances on the issues. You take the best of what they offer, the matters that affect you the most, and then you vote.
I'm really getting tired of white people trying to diminish the achievement and trying to make black people feel bad for being happy and proud of Tuesday's results. I guess it's easy to not "get it' when in our 400 years of history everyone in power has looked like you.
2 replies
adamczar
I'm happy and proud of this achievement, and I'm not black. Your last paragraph stuck with me because it does seem that a lot of people are trying to downplay it. Some are even thinking they are being P.C. by ignoring race all together.
I love your comments. =)
I love your comments. =)
daddyjason
Nina, I find YOUR comment to be a tad racist considering you don't know what I look like or anything about my heritage.
I didn't say anything at all about it not being a proud or quantifiable accomplishment for a black (even half black) man to achieve the nomination for President of the United States from one of the major political parties. I never said anything one way or another concerning that issue.
My issue was exactly what you said when you said "You take the best of what they offer, the matters that affect you the most, and then you vote." That's exactly the point I was making.
A black pastor was basically saying that the thing that mattered the most to him, and by extension his congregation, was the color of Obama's skin. Now I wouldn't have a problem with Pastor Jakes pointing out the historical achievement that Obama has attained, but he took it much further in what he said and made statements that were supportive of Obama as a candidate that people should vote for - clearly on the basis of the color of his skin.
My point is that we should all be looking past the color of a man's skin to determine who should be President of the United States. It's an accomplishment for sure for a black man to be nominated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's the right person for the job. As a man of God, I would expect Pastor Jakes to uphold his religious beliefs and God's laws above his feelings of racial pride. It's his duty as a leader of a Christian congregation.
I say Obama is not a Christian because he supports policies which are in clear violation of what the Bible says a Christian should believe. I personally do not believe you can support abortion if you are a Christian. Obama supports abortion on demand. There are other issues which I feel conflict with the generally accepted belief's of mainstream Christians. I am not the only one who feels this way.
Generically labeling me a "white person" then saying you are "getting tired of white people trying to diminish the achievement and trying to make black people feel bad for being happy and proud of Tuesday's results" is both insulting and ignorant. I was doing no such thing. I have not heard any white people doing what you accuse me of doing. Perhaps there are some people who are - there are racist people for sure - but I don't feel that your statement is an accurate reflection of the white people I know.
I didn't say anything at all about it not being a proud or quantifiable accomplishment for a black (even half black) man to achieve the nomination for President of the United States from one of the major political parties. I never said anything one way or another concerning that issue.
My issue was exactly what you said when you said "You take the best of what they offer, the matters that affect you the most, and then you vote." That's exactly the point I was making.
A black pastor was basically saying that the thing that mattered the most to him, and by extension his congregation, was the color of Obama's skin. Now I wouldn't have a problem with Pastor Jakes pointing out the historical achievement that Obama has attained, but he took it much further in what he said and made statements that were supportive of Obama as a candidate that people should vote for - clearly on the basis of the color of his skin.
My point is that we should all be looking past the color of a man's skin to determine who should be President of the United States. It's an accomplishment for sure for a black man to be nominated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's the right person for the job. As a man of God, I would expect Pastor Jakes to uphold his religious beliefs and God's laws above his feelings of racial pride. It's his duty as a leader of a Christian congregation.
I say Obama is not a Christian because he supports policies which are in clear violation of what the Bible says a Christian should believe. I personally do not believe you can support abortion if you are a Christian. Obama supports abortion on demand. There are other issues which I feel conflict with the generally accepted belief's of mainstream Christians. I am not the only one who feels this way.
Generically labeling me a "white person" then saying you are "getting tired of white people trying to diminish the achievement and trying to make black people feel bad for being happy and proud of Tuesday's results" is both insulting and ignorant. I was doing no such thing. I have not heard any white people doing what you accuse me of doing. Perhaps there are some people who are - there are racist people for sure - but I don't feel that your statement is an accurate reflection of the white people I know.
