iPandora

Professor Henry Louis Gates

Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates is a racist. And an opportunist and publicity hound for the sake of his racist cause.

He brings no resolution or improvement to the cause of race relations.

The Story

Professor Gates had just arrived home with his driver from a long trip, and found his front door damaged and unable to open.

In an affluent neighborhood site of two men, with a backpack over one shoulder, trying to shove their way into an apparently locked door is suspicious, regardless of the race.

A neighbor called the police to report a possible home invasion/robbery taking place.

Apparently it took around 20 minutes for the cops to arrive, by which time Professor Gates had found his way in the back door.

The police officer, responding to the possible home burglary report requested identification of Professor Gates.

Professor Gates commented back to the effect asking if it were now illegal to be black inside ones own house.

The Police officer arrested Professor Gates when he exhibited “loud and tumultuous behavior”.

The Breakdown

Professor Gates' House

If I call the Police reporting a home invasion burglary in progress, the Police responding to the call are required to verify the occupants of the home are there legitimately and that the occupants are safe.

The Police officer responding to this situation was trying to ascertain the nature of the situation cautiously and according to his responsibility before the law and those he served. I don’t doubt some of the Police Officer’s pride was injured in the affront he received from Professor Gates, and this may indeed have contributed to the eventual outcome.

How hard would it have been for Professor Gates to respond peacefully and maturely and with deference to the arm of the Law asking him for identification?

A question I’m certainly not the first to ask: If Gates’ house were robbed while he’d been away and the Police Officer who responded allowed himself to be racially browbeaten into allowing the thief to continue on their way, what hell would the Office have faced?

My Opinion

Professor Gates is led from his house in handcuffs. There are at least three cops visible in the picture.

Professor Gates may be well known, but that doesn’t mean he’s universally known. This ignorance may have come as a shock to the tired Professor as he was winding down from his long flight.

But the obvious problem was the chip he was carrying on his shoulder.

Gates’ reaction to this situation can bring nothing but embarrassment to those he purports to represent in his success, and illustrates a point I made a long time ago:

When any person, regardless of any unchangeable characteristic (such as race, gender, etc), is advanced artificially because some higher “level” of society is not “diverse” enough, that one’s most harmed are: first, the individual or individuals being elevated, and second, those they represent symbolically or actually. Role models are important, there are none who can deny this fact. When a whole generation of black Americans are seeing role models in the form of rap stars who are in and out of jail as frequently as they are on and off the stage. When the women the girls look to dress like whores and sluts, selling and subserviating themselves to men and boys. There is no respect or honor here, there will be precious little in the generation who looks up to them.

Professor Gates heads the W.E.B DuBois Institute for African and African-American Research at Harvard. It is telling that the philosophy of the departments namesake is very likely at play here. W.E.B DuBois championed the idea that the best way to resolve racial inequity in reconstruction America, post Civil War, was to find the top former slaves and other blacks, and advance them to very high positions. My commentary above was in response to this faulty idea.

A man is less a product of his surroundings than he is a product of his ability and character.

General Colin Powell, a military strategist and capable man of unimpeachable reputation and ability, was able to come up from roots in poor and depressed inner city life. And the scientist and inventor George Washington Carver was able to leave the life of servitude he was born into and grown into one of the premier inventors and scientists of all time.

The road to success, for all people no matter their immutable characteristics, should be paved only with the sweat of their own effort, the paths of their own choices, and the foundations of their own character.

Professor Gates apparently believes that the Police Officer, because he was white, was incapable of normal and balanced thought racially, and therefore addressed the REAL root of the problem, as he saw it, by accosting the Police Officer with his own queries upon the request by the officer that he identify himself.

The Bible tells that what we are passionate about will be revealed by what we say. What consumes us cannot be hid because it will show in our words.

It would appear Professor Gates’ heart is filled with extreme racial sensitivity. When I see an Officer of the Law, he sees a racist.

Professor Gates has shown he is not worthy of the respect given him. There are many better people than him, more worth of recognition and respect. And when the need for true role-models for the multitude of children and youth and even adults and anybody else aspiring to true greatness look to him, he fails them in exchange for a few fleeting moments of infamy.

One wonders what he sees in the seats in his classrooms.

The Guardian makes a sage observation: Never a good idea to get angry with the Police.

And a commentor on the WizBang Blog’s article opines that Gates’ didn’t get Daddy’s First Rule Of Power: “Never tickle somebody who can hold your feet off the floor.”

Without equivocation I condemn the murder of Dr. Tiller.

Murder is murder, and one murder never justifies another.

We live in a land of law and justice. No man is above the law or a law to themselves, when such a personal law conflicts with the law of the land.

The only way a person can lose their life legitimately and legally at the hand of man is when that person has been found guilty of some crime worthy of the death penalty by the justice system of that land. In America this means being found guilty by a jury of their peers of certain specific crimes.

In the small way I am aware of Dr. Tiller, I find his career to be revolting and disgusting in the highest sense. I find it difficult to even consider the occupation with which he has spent his life: killing innocent, unborn children late in their term.

If he did not repent, prior to his death, of this heinous sin, God has perfect justice ready for him. But it is not mine to mete out to him.

I grieve for Dr. Tiller in that it is very likely did not accept the salvation of the Lord. Eternal punishment is a fearful thing that I cannot wish on any person, ever. It is not mine to wish.

As a Christian, I take both comfort and warning from God’s claim to perfect justice:  “‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay’ says the Lord.”

Comfort because I know God will do a much better job of justice than any human court ever could. He judges the innermost thoughts and wishes, the heart and the mind. Things a human judge could never see clearly to judge on.

And yet warning, because God reserving, without qualification, all vengeance to Himself leaves none for me. Not even the vengeance of thought or hope.

I should not feel giddy or happy that God may indeed be judging an evil man for his sin. Instead, there is anguish that Satan succeeded in destroying another life entrhalled in deception and pride. Another life is doomed forever to torment and there isn’t another chance to rescue this soul from the depredations of sin and score another victory against the prince of darkness and his failing, faltering, now conquered kingdom.

Dr. Tiller was a sinner, as am I.

And his murderer ought to be brought to justice, as should the murderer of any other sinner.

To the pro-life people: We are against death. It’s the morally superior position and all those who dispute this argue against sense and reason.

When pro-abortion people state that our general position for the death penalty makes our argument false, they only reveal the moral bankruptcy of their own feeble stand.

We are for the life of the innocent and the protection of that life through the rare but possible, lawfully imposed death of the guilty at the hands of the law and the government.

They are for the death of the innocent, damage and destruction of their mothers, freedom from responsibility of the fathers, and protection of those who would kill other innocents.

There really isn’t much comparison.

If we’re tempted to support, in any way, the murder of Dr. Tiller. No matter how we may despise the sin he dug himself so deeply into, we succumb to lawlessness and anarchy. Which leads, without exception, to the death of innocents.

If I ran the world I would tell people:

I’m the government, and the government cannot fix all your problems. The good things I can do are limited to:

• Protecting the entire nation and it’s immediate interests of safety and commerce through foreign war.

• Protecting each individual equally and without preference through the rule of law.

That’s it. That’s all.
Anything else I, the government, tries, I fail at.
I am not efficient or practical.
I am not flexible or creative.
I stifle.
I limit.
I take.
I hurt you.
Limit me. It’s in your best interest.

So . . . I spent some time browsing and have some news to share.

Iran is working on nuclear capabilities and has the neccessary nuclear material.Should we be worried? I honestly do not think we need to be worried about our own safety, but world politics could change. After all, India will be the first target.

We all knew this was comming, but Proposition 8 in California, the ammendment defining marriage as a man and a woman (not directly banning homosexual marriage) is being challenged in courts.Now let me get this right. Prop 8 was a Constitution amendment that passed . . . So, why are courts considering these cases? After all, Prop 8 is now basically the law of the land in California. The California Supreme Court may interpret the Proposition (scarry thought) but may not rule is Unconstitutional (because it is part of the Constitution). So, in light of this logic, what does the California Supreme Court think they can do?

Here is a very revealing quote from the article:

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

I am sorry, this just gets my blood up. If voters, the most fundamental part of our governmental system, do not have the authority to enact such legislation (more importantly, a constitutional amendment, than who does? Because, even though the legislature and courts have enacted similar legislation, they have done it outside their authority. All I can do is shake my head.

Change we can believe in has become change that always was.Obama, in a further effort to show his bipartisanship, continues to appoint Clinton and Democrat stalwarts. And the Republican party grows smaller.

Hey, there is some good news though. A disabled man in California who has filed over 400 suits against businesses for not totally complying with the American’s With Disabilities Act (not enough disable parking spaces, no hand rails . . .), has been barred from filing and more suits. The man would sue and ask the courts to fine the businesses $4,000 a day till the changes were implemented. So, your might be thinking, that is a little crooked, but he isn’t making anything off it. Well, it turns out that a lot of businesses were afraid of him and would settle out of court, earning him hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

We all like being generous, right?Well turns out that the people that have managed our money for years . . . and years, are asking for us to be generous again . . . to the tune of $1 Trillion. Yep, we gave them our earning and investments, they screwed us over, and now they want more of our money so that they can somehow “get back” what we initially invested in them. On a side note, there is only $350 Billion left from the $700 Million bail out package. It is good that the money has gone to help . . .  to help . . . to help . . . hmm . . . that is funny, I don’t know what the $350 Billion dollars helped. Probably created another bureaucracy somewhere and is helping pay for salaries. Hey it could be anything seeing as there is no oversight board.

And lastly, Obama is already voting “Present” in high profile public policy.It seems that Obama does not mind changing our anti terror policy by releasing inmates from Guantanamo, but is wary of change when it comes to taking a stand on bailouts for under producing, over paid auto companies. Maybe if they made a better product their revenue might be better. Just a thought.

Michael Medved opened my eyes.

On his radio show he was trying to explain on “Disagreement Day” to disheartened conservatives that trying to “purify” the Republican is not the correct course of action. The root of his argument:

You win by making your group bigger, not smaller.

First: you should not win by selling out. A win bought at so dear a price may not be worthwhile.

Second: you should not compromise your deepest principles either.

But, in my stands and beliefs there is a hierarchy: Abortion is one of my strongest concerns, to not value life is to not value life, there is no grey area. The issue of homosexual privilege is strong, though not as strong as abortion. Abortion is more external and more obviously a violation of laws and human rights and can be dealt with more legislatively than homosexual privilege.

The economy is a matter of principle: free market economics benefit the most people in a way most conducive to supporting Free Will as divised by God. But we can witness to people regardless of thier economic station and a faulty economy is less of a harm to people’s souls than abortion or homosexuality.

By balancing the hierarchy of beliefs and convictions and principles I can find ways to include people who I may have less in common with in reaching my goals.

I have no qualms working with members of the Mormon church to work for significant reinforcement of traditional marriage and the preventing of special privilege for homosexuals beyond the privilege accorded to heterosexuals, despite my serious disagreements with their beliefs.

I have no qualms working with Catholics to further the protection of the innocent unborn despite my belief that most Catholics are decieved and not Christians.

I have no problem working with athiests in pursuit of a libertarian economic policy despite serious disagreements on probably every other issue due to our differences in root beliefs.

The point is: Being wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove, I will work with any I can to achieve the ends which follow my convictions. I will be accepting and friendly to all as people so that none will have reason to say that I’m not for them as they could be for me.

With the devious I will be devious, with the narrow I will be narrow. The goal being that by any and all means, except those which violate my conscience and God’s law, we can advance the cause of physical and economic freedom here on earth for as many as possible, and hope and eternal freedom in the life hereafter for as many as will believe.

Refining this ideal is the fact that people follow a leader with a vision. It does not have to be a clearly defined vision so much as a stirring vision (or at least one spoken of stirringly, see Barack Obama). Reagan was the “Great Communicator” and people followed his visions. Barack Obama has a way with words, a visible empathy that stirs people to want to believe what he says.

Individually, we need to be ready and willing and able to act in concert with all kinds of people, making the “big tent” an actual Big Tent. Seek common ground more than ideological purity within the bounds of our own individual abilities to accept differences. Instead of finding people most like us, find people most able to bring most of us along with them in a path headed towards truth.

As a group we need to find those people who have strong and principled stands we can agree with mostly who are also strong communicators and vibrant individuals. Vision and passion have few foes who can stand against them working together.

That is my plan for real change.

Continued from part 4

CONSUMPTION: “Golden arrow” “heart of the system, the engine that drives it.
“Protecting this arrow (of consumption) has become the top priority for (government and corporations).”
After 9/11 President Bush told US to shop. – The economy had been hurt. It was not the only thing he said. Bush said many things during that time, among them he dealt with the serious blow to our economy. He was standing well in his position with the bully-pulpit to minimize the effect the attacks had on us. The goal of the terrorists was to cripple our nation in as many ways possible, including economically. To address this specific threat Bush did make statements encouraging us to not sit tight and hunker down. If the economy took a hard hit from people acting in fear, people would have lost their jobs, lost money, experienced much more damage than we actually did. This was not a cold-calculated attempt to shore up his ‘buddies’ in business, this was Bush’s way to keep Americans acting from a position of strength.
Percentage of resources still in use 6 months after purchase: 1% -
99% trashed within 6 months – How much of this is packaging? Terrible packaging, wasteful. Can the government do better? They can’t design a simple tax system. What do you think their packaging would look like? Once again, the private citizen using the resources available to them can change this. In the news just today Amazon.com reports they are redesigning packaging and encouraging other companies to do the same to minimize waste and improve the user experience with packaging in response to one person’s ‘encouragement’. It’s not that this isn’t a problem, it’s just the implied solution is far from the best.
“It didn’t just happen. It was designed.”
“Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption…We need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate.” Victor Lebow, 1955 – This is idolatry to a Christian who participates to the extent people such as Lebow desire or prescribe. That is undeniable. But it is wisdom to participate to the extent God allows us, for in our participation we expand the gifts God has given us (Parable of the Talents), benefit others through the melding and expansion of each others resources, and enable ourselves to support ministries which further His work on this earth.
Purpose of the economy is to create more consumer goods – NOT: Health care, Education, Safe transportation, Sustainability, Justice. Governments have a God-given responsibility to apply Justice. We ourselves, as individuals and together as an independent society have the opportunity to meet all the other needs through the strength of the economy. If there was not this vehicle for spurring innovation and creating wealth, how would any development and growth occur in any of these other categories?
Planned obsolescense: “Planned for the dump” OK for smaller things, packaging. Now bigger stuff too. – Solution? Research and buy more reliable stuff. I purchase a quintessential toss-away technology item, a portable CD player, 10 years ago. I paid $150, which is significantly more than people pay on average for such devices. However, mine is still running. My cost is therefore only $10 per year. A good price. And no extra junk for those 10 years from disposing of cheaper products. It’s not like I’ve not abused the device, it’s followed me to work and school in my pockets, walking, on the bus, bicycling, etc… It’s just better. Armed with the extensive knowledge we have today, we are more able than ever to verify products reliability. All this ability is because of the capitalist system which encourages innovation.
Percieved obsolescence: “Convinces us to throw away stuff that is still perfectly useful”
Not keeping up with the times.
“It’s to keep us buying new shoes” – We are allowing ourselves to be controlled and defined by media. There is nothing which says we must act a certain way as defined by the media, there is just our decision to allow such things control in our lives. If we allow ourselves to be controlled, we are not victims, we are weak but nevertheless guilty independent moral agents.

National happiness peaked in 1950s (post war). Why? – Because we were all working, on a post-war high. Industry was thriving. Poor people 20 years previously were now part of the exploding middle class. More people were going to school and getting college degrees than ever before. All because of the incredible wealth ingenuity and innovation supported by a free-market, capitalist system which had just vanquished a strong enemy in the form of Fascist Nazi Germany.

DISPOSAL: Trash – 4.5 pounds each day per person

Dumped in landfill or burned and dumped – Burning trash was the main power generation method in Woodland, CA. It may not be cleanest, but it does use the the output in a creative and productive manner.

Climate change: incineration, super toxins, Dioxin. – Climate change does not enjoy the scientific consensus many would like it to. After the UN report on climate change came out, several scientists sued to have their names removed from its list of endorsers, claiming they’d been misled in the content of the report. The climate change models popularized by Al Gore are suspect at the very best, with causation and correlation confused and data manipulated in ways that ought not be in serious scientific pursuits. Further, the aims and goals of many of those claiming catastrophic global warming are more damaging to society than they are helping to global climate change.

Recycling helps – Recycling is not energy effective. It takes more energy to recycle paper and plastic than it does to make more and new. Not that recycling is bad, it just takes a wealthy society to support an effective recycling system.

Core of the problems? - The solutions proposed in so many of these arguments engaged the government in taking over huge sections of private industry in an attempt to make it all work in some happy circle. Individuals building corporations to provide creative and effective solutions or convincing other corporations to clean up their acts is more effective and do not have the same crippling effect on the economy and devastation on people’s lives as the government intrusion.

Labor rights, blocking landfills and incinerators, taking back government (of the people by the people). - How do labor rights get in here? This is not a list of solutions, it’s a laundry list of the speaker’s favorite pet socio-political projects. Taking back government is an excellent course of action, one I can definitely sign on to. But I think her ideas and my ideas of what that government ought to do are very different and mutually irreconcilable. Instead, make government small and increase the ability of people to convince corporations to act responsibly. At the same time remove the protections from people who do try to convince those corporations so that frivilous suits over pointless and wasteful stupidities will be deterred from their damaging and greedy quests.

“Chuck the throw-away mindset” – Excellent idea. All for this one.
“Local living economies” – Read: “Master-planned communities” Who plans those communities? Allowing communities to grow naturally is better. Zoning laws needlessly restrict the growth of communities along the predetermined lines preferred by city planners.

People created problem, people have to create solution. - But can we? All these problems are symptoms of a single, much larger problem: human sin. And we are unable to resolve it. We do what we can as part of our changed and redeemed natures as Christians to fix problems as we can with the first goal of bringing others in from the dark of sin and into the light of Christ.

Continue reading in part 6

Continued from part 2

PRODUCTION: “Use energy to mix toxic chemicals in with natural resources to make toxic contaminated products” – Very crafty. Immediately we associate the words “toxic” “chemical” “contaminated” and “products” where there is not a necessary link. Chemicals are naturally occurring elements. Sodium Chloride is a chemical, and we use it in food to help our bodies retain water (Table salt). Dihydrogen Oxide is a chemical, and yet we’d die without it (water).
Over 100,000 synthetic chemicals in use in commerce today. – Very little could be made without them.
Only a handful tested for health impacts. – This is true, and a problem. Market pressure from a populace wealthy enough to pay for the extensive and expensive testing is the best way to fix.
None tested for “synergistic” health impacts: impacts when combined with other chemicals accidentally or purposefully. – See above
Toxins in = toxins out – True. Read about Lobsters. Talk to ShatteredChina.
BFR’s = neuro-toxins, flame retardants added to many products. – How many lives are saved because of it? Is there something better right now? There are places people can purchase products free of this.
Food with highest level of “toxic” contaminants: Human Breast Milk – Real gut-wrencher. Likely true, but what does it mean? Here in the most toxic land on the planet we have very low infant mortality rates. Why?
Babies = most vulnerable – What about abortion? Which is the greater moral ill: possible harm from higher toxin rates in their food, or killing them before they even have a chance?
Why are we not protecting “sacred” breast feeding.
Goes back to government: “I thought they were looking out for us” – Is the government morally responsible or is it defined in their limited scope to protect breast feeding? This is a ludicrous assumption. Government policy may indeed have been indirectly responsible for pollution, but if that is true, do you trust them, being part of the problem, to be part of the solution? Further, your rage, as a consumer with a voice, is much more effective in causing change on the part of the corporations which can develop and create and invent actual solutions to problems. Is the government capable of development of creative solutions?

Factory workers, many women, of reproductive age – This is a bloated claim. Quick to tug the heart strings, but without serious validity. The number of safety precautions in modern manufacturing are mind blowing. Further, this is reminiscent of the tales told in Sociology classes of the hideous conditions of the common man over the years of industry. They are sensationalist and disproven. The photographers famous for their cataloging of the ills of modern commerce were out to make a buck. “If it bleeds, it leads” is a truism and has led to many a distortion. Not that there are not cases of real damage, they just are not nearly as common or egregious as is commonly believe based on the narrative sold us by the purveyors of doom.
No other option – What about the better lives they are able to give their children because they have a more stable job with better wages? A good parent will do what is necessary to give their children every advantage they can. If that includes taking risks, that is a judgment made by each individual. Certain jobs carry risk. Do we ban jobs which entail risk? Would such a ban be truly beneficial?
Erosion of local economies and resources push people to leave previously self-sustaining local economies live in cities - If they were self-sustaining why did people leave? The agrarian economy is subject to a boom/bust cycle which is one reason the push to a industrial/commercial economy has been so embraced by so many. We tend to glamorize the agrarian life-style to a dangerous degree, philosophically. And while there are many good people who survive and thrive in that life-style, many choose to leave it, and have chose to leave it, due to it’s many hardships.
“many to live in slums” – Should we outlaw slums?
“looking for work no matter how toxic that work may be” – And now we are to outlaw work? As a husband and potential/hopeful father, I make a judgment call when I take a job whether the potential risk outweighs the potential benefit. Watch the Discovery Channel’s shows Dangerous Jobs, Ice Road, and other shows which highlight people performing hard work under extreme conditions. Often they enjoy the jobs. They fill serious needs and sometimes ‘frivolous’ desires of
“Not just resources wasted along this system, people are wasted, whole communities” – There is never a waste where people choose to apply themselves to a system which produces. This is loaded language with the intent of causing us to be increasingly against the heart of personal enrichment: the ability to create and earn wealth from that creation.
Environmental impact of production: toxic byproducts, pollution. – This is incontrovertible, but incomplete. Therefore it is misleading.
4 billion pounds US industry “admits” to releasing each year. – Spread that across the volume of the atmosphere, water, subtract for the processing ability of the green on the earth. Now how much is left?
“It’s probably a lot more because that’s only what they admit” – Leading language, assumes they are all crooks.
“So what do they do? Move the dirty factories overseas. Pollute someone elses land.” – Why is it that the Kyoto Accord and other such environmental pacts exempt third-world countries and their corporations and factories from any accountability? Because without the ability to produce “more than their fair share” of garbage until their populace gained enough general wealth they will not be able to afford the production standards and technology necessary to make cleaner factories and production environments.
Pollution “comes right back at us carried by wind currents” – This has been true for a long time. Early mariners sailing outside the Los Angeles bay and basin noted the smog in the areas. It’s not worth panicing over.

Continue reading in part 4

Is it just me, or are people really not listening to our political candidates. I can understand people not listening to John McCain. He has nothing to say and has been using the same lame attacks for about three weeks now. However, why aren’t people listening to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden. They have a ton to say. In fact, the more they talk, the more they reveal themselves. Here is one example and here is another example.

Some general talking points from these audio clips include:

• The Constitution doesn’t say what the federal government must do on my behalf. (Actually it does. It says that the federal government is to protect me and create an environment for me to prosper in. However, it condones little else.)
• The Supreme Court is wrong for not addressing the redistribution of wealth or the economic injustice in this society (My goodness, keep the courts out of this. If they courts [especially the Supreme Court] are supposed to interpret the Constitution, why would they even touch this issue seeing as it is not addressed in the Constitution.)
• Civil Rights movements didn’t break free from the constraints of the Constitution. (No, it redefined the Constitution to protect all citizens of the United States. It was not supposed to give give people the liberty to steal the money of hard working Americans.)
• The Constitution is actually a list of negative liberties. (Darn right it is. The Constitution was supposed to be a restraint on Government and all its dealings, not on the citizens. Remember where the founding fathers came from? Yah, they didn’t want an oppressive government.)
• The civil Rights movement didn’t do enough to bring about a “redistribution of uh, um, uh change” (you wanted to say wealth, right?)
• Redistribution of wealth is an administrative responsibility. ( Keep your butter finger government hands out of my pocket. You are supposed to do a good enough job for us to want to give you money, or at least not mind paying our taxes. That is the administrative role. Do a good job, earn our respect. Earn our dollar. Then manage the money to OUR advantage. But, since you can’t properly manage the redistribute halfway legitimate taxes [anyone remember Social Security], why would I want to trust you with the stealing and redistribution of my money.)
• The Constitution reflects “The” fundamental flaw that continues to this day. (What, the lack of a redistribution of wealth to the lazy or the down right racism that is rampant in all parts of the United States? Guess what, I have news for you, the majority of the U. S. is color blind now. Take a trip to California. It is hard to find racism there, unless it is directed at Mexican-Americans [and the African-Americans are the primary proponents of that racism]. However, Mr. Obama, you will find racism if you look for it. I mean, just look at the fact that estimates say that 95% of African-Americans will be voting for you.)

And here are a couple gems from this article.

People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama’s words. Earlier, after a long, tortured discussion about whether it was better to be called “black” or “African-American,” . . . According to Mr. Ogletree, students on each side of the debate thought he was endorsing their side. “Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me,” he said.

[In a Robotic Tone] Yes Master . . . Lead on oh Great One . . . The world will bow before your superior rhetoric . . .

But mainly, Mr. Obama stayed away from the extremes of campus debate, often choosing safe topics for his speeches. At the black law students’ annual conference, he exhorted students to remember the obligations that came with their privileged education. His speeches, delivered in the oratorical manner of a Baptist minister, were more memorable for style than substance, Mr. Mack said. “It’s the inspiration of the speech rather than the specific content,” he said.

Yes Great One . . . another great showing . . . your superior speaking ability sent shivers down my spine . . .

a mouse infestation at the review office provoked a long exchange about rodent rights — as well as some uncertainty about what Mr. Obama himself thought about the issue at hand.

In dozens of interviews, his friends said they could not remember his specific views from that era, beyond a general emphasis on diversity and social and economic justice.

Yes master . . . you listen to my needs . . . you know who I am and what I want . . . you will give me my deepest desire . . . All will see you as our Savior from . . . um, uh, um  . . . What can you save us from, I didn’t hear that part?

In interviews, Mr. Obama was modest and careful. (In a rare slip, he told The Associated Press: “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.”)

Andree Seu, a favorite author of mine in World Magazine, encountered what we might at first blush call a freak accident or narrow escape but which God considers another chance to glorify Him:

Lawrence and Nancy’s 3-year-old son fell out of his second-story bedroom window

I’ve been dealing with the loss of a good friend and did not immediately connect the significance of God’s work reaching across these two incidents because Lawrence and Nancy’s son, Sammy, lived. But God did. And speaking through Andree to me He revealed even the smallest and most indirect part of His plan is so very perfect:

…(Y)ou might ask why, if God is so amazing, He didn’t stop Sammy from falling out in the first place. There you got me. All I know is that people were mobilized to pray and cook and watch Matty, and so it seems that God was giving lots of folks an opportunity to love in ways they wouldn’t have otherwise. And that’s the best I can do with that.

…come believe it with us.

Spotted on the website of a  “church” hightlighted on QueerVisalia.com: Spiritual Awareness Center.

A thriving community of joyous people celebrating
the spiritual magnificence of everyone!

What more painfully pointless existence than one that has to actually choose to believe something as inane and obviously meaningless as “the spiritual magificence of everyone”?

Something I am extremely grateful to God for is the meaning and purpose completely inherent in every pursuit of Him.

I don’t have to celebrate my own spiritual magnificence, because my spiritual significance is trash. Pure and unadulterated rubbish. Paul felt the same way: filthy rags he labeled his own best effort.

Instead, I sign my name on the line that says I serve the God of gods, the Lord of lords, the King of kings, the Maker and Author, the Completer and Finisher of all things that ever have been and ever will be, and all things beyond that. He takes my garbage and tosses it. And I live in the righteousness of His Son.

Forget “spiritual magnificence”, I’ve got Jesus.

He’ll whip your “spiritual magificence” into the deepest part of hell twice a day and three times on Sunday.