Good and bad news to report. I was eating dinner with my wife at a jordanian place ( no think Jordan the country not the basketball player) there was a temporary lull in business and  i decided to share some words with my host Tariq (the hospitality there was so great i dont feel like a customer I feel like a guest  this is why I use the word host.) I didnt inform him on my fasting for ramadan but I inquired  about ramadan the significance and leaerning a lot. While this was going on, some patrons  started sneer or act in an intolerant way. Snickers and sneers of course we had to cut the conversation short. Another customer was sighing heavily, which is onyl right as she had been waiting  30 seconds for  someone to take her order.

When i broughtthe food back to my wife  i was met with very unfriendly looks, the couple next to us didnt stop staring. I guess since I wear dockers and have an afro and mustache and look like I was on the set of Miami vice a few time with don johhnson that i am either a terrorist or a sympathizer.

Did you ever wonder what happpened to thislandis your land thisland is my land ? Our concept of what an american is doesnt depend on having a passport, or a green card. It all depends now on looking like what the media portray americans to be.So that meaens if you are muslim and Americanon paper it doesnt mean you are in practice...... After 9/11 many muslims where beaten up, a friend of mine ahd her head dress forcibly ripped off. I have no solutions for ignorance and a lack of education or common sense. I cant help but think we are missing a lot when we forsake a whole people because of the action of a few, who we in some way helped to create in during earlier administrations.

Its easy to say well we cant worry aboutwhat other adminstration did, its easy to say that not agreeing with the president is grounds for dissent. I think I remember hearing that as americans we have to be united, not behind what we believe in ourheart butbehind our leaders. Every time we dont do so the terrorist win!!!

Am I unpatriotic because i wanted to learn more about the beliefs of my fellow americans? Am I unpatriotic because I dont fully agree with this countries leadership? am i un patriotic because i treat people as people first and never consider their nationality. Looking back on everything since 9/11 i wonder have all the lives that were taken in the building and plains, and if all the pain and grief has been lightened by our actions, by our abuses of powers. All the money we spent is that the best way we could have spent all of it ?

These are all questions we need to sincerely ask ourselves, everyday. Aside from this I ask myself who is the real victor in all of this, the american people, the iraqi and afgani people we 'liberated', the terrorist, or the innocents?

what do you think

If that camp song was written like this, it just wouldn't have the same ring to it in Sunday school. Christians are supposed to be thrilled they are going to heaven, Jesus is alive and all sins are forgiven. You know, basic dogmatic tenet stuff.

So when the crumudgeons of Crown Point, Indiana have been lambasting 911 with calls of noise complaints and demands shut it down... speaking of a tent revival... one of two things happened:

1. Either these Christians are REALLY and unexpectedly happy about those tenets;
2. Or the people of this rural town are really the Children of the Corn and already have their one way ticket to a more balmy climate

Police Chief Pete Land says his department has issued 10 citations to the church between July 31 and Aug. 10. One neighbor told a packed city council meeting Monday night that she has to turn on the air conditioning, the washer, dryer and a fan to drown out the noise.

Well, that's sweet. They got the permit to have a tent revival, but once they got 'revived', all bets were off. Good thing this wasn't a Todd Bentley crusade, they would have called in the National Guard and really got to snapping.

Listen, I can understand some little adolescent kids doing this, because that's the kind of thing they do. But when adults start acting this way, that's just sad.

What I suppose bothers me even more is that the whole point here is to piss people off, and when they do, mission accomplished. You've succeeded in pissing people off and proving to yourself that these people "must" all be morons and fanatics. Congratulations, you've succeeded in acting like a bigot splendidly. For your next challenge, perhaps you could walk up to a group of African Americans wearing "black face" makeup and talk about how much you just love grape soda and watermelon, and when you've offended some people, you can convince yourself of just how "fanatical" those "negroes" are.

Good job, no really, pat yourselves on the back. You've fucking earned it man.

With that said, for any Christians (Catholic or otherwise) who may come across this, here's some advice. Yes, what they are doing is bigoted and juvenile, it's offensive and stupid. But don't degrade yourself by allowing it to bother you into a spitting match. Don't. Don't try to argue, don't debate. Kick the dust off your sandals and just let it go. You can't win this by responding to it. Love your neighbor, and forgive those who spit in your face. You win a greater victory by imitating Christ here than by responding to juvenile vitriol with indignation and anger.

Revoyons les faits.  Le 22 avril 2002, la gardienne des enfants du couple composé de Martin Brossard et de Liliane de Montigny, se rend au domicile familial, de la rue Booker, à Brossard.  Elle y voit le corps de Martin, balançant au bout d'une corde, dans le salon.  Les policiers, appelés sur place, découvrent les corps de Liliane, étranglée dans une chambre, et des deux fillettes du couple, Claudia, 4 ans, et Béatrice, 18 mois, noyées dans la baignoire.  L'article révèle que plus tard, des membres de la famille de Liliane, soit son père Marcel, et ses soeurs Karen et Sandra, logeaient une poursuite de 730,000$ contre la succession de Martin Brossard pour dommages, souffrances pour eux et les victimes, et les frais funéraires.  Suite à la décision de la Cour supérieure, de leur octroyer 70,000$, les poursuivants en ont appelé, parce que le jugement ne condamnaient la succession ni à des dommages punitifs, ni pour les souffrances infligées aux victimes, ni au paiement des frais funéraires, selon ce que rapporte l'article.

La seule décision que la Cour d'appel a modifié, par rapport au jugement original de la Cour supérieure, c'est l'allocation d'une somme supplémentaire de 11,102$, pour les frais funéraires.  L'article résume les raisons évoquées par la Cour d'appel, dans son jugement.

Pour ma part, je suis porté à dire qu'il s'agit là d'un jugement dangereux.  À mes yeux, les événements n'impliquaient que Martin Brossard, son épouse et ses enfants.  Compte tenu que Brossard était majeur, et que rien n'indique qu'il n'était pas sain d'esprit, au moment des événements, je ne vois pas en quoi la succession de Brossard aurait à payer quelque somme que ce soit à des membres de la famille de Liliane.  À moins, évidemment, que les membres de la succession de Brossard, visés par la poursuite, aient eu un quelconque lien avec les gestes.  S'il était prouvé, par exemple, que Martin avait subi des pressions, de la part de ces personnes, pressions qui auraient pu déboucher sur les événements tragiques.  Sinon, pourquoi poursuivre la succession de Martin Brossard?

Bien sûr, on ne connaît pas toute l'histoire.  Est-ce que des discussions, entre les deux familles, se seraient soldées par une discorde, au niveau des frais funéraires?  Est-ce que le famille de Martin Brossard a fait preuve de mépris, de suffisance, ou d'autres types de comportements reprochables, envers celle de Liliane de Montigny?  Est-ce à croire, d'un autre côté, que la famille de Brossard n'a subi aucun préjudice, n'a vécu aucune souffrance, suite à ces événements?  Le cas échéant, pourquoi ne poursuivent-ils pas à leur tour?

Malgré mon respect pour les deux familles en cause, ici, je persiste à croire que ce genre de jugement ouvre toute grande la porte à beaucoup d'abus.  Imaginez, vous pourriez être poursuivis parce que votre fils de 18 ans ou plus, ou votre frère, majeur, a commis un geste disgracieux envers quelqu'un.  Il me semble qu'un adulte est le seul responsable de ses propres gestes, et que l'on peut poursuivre les membres de la famille d'un individu jugé coupable dans le seul cas où celui-ci est mineur, ou encore lorsqu'il est prouvé qu'il n'est pas responsable de ses gestes.  Qu'on me corrige si j'ai tort, mais un tel jugement pourrait faire en sorte que toute victime d'un vol, d'une agression sexuelle, ou d'un autre crime, pourrait poursuivre la famille du prévenu, une fois celui-ci trouvé coupable.  Cela fait en sorte que l'on pourrait même être poursuivi en justice, suite à des gestes commis par des membres de sa famille, et ce même si l'on a pas de contacts directs avec ceux-ci.

Un jugement dangereux, à mes yeux.

"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity."(Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)

Regardless if you are old enough to have lived through the tempest of hatred during the 1960s or just young enough to get to read about the Civil Rights Movement in school, the reality of the famed "I Have a Dream" speech is more alive today than it ever has been since it was delivered 45 years ago today in the shadow of the man that freed the slaves.

Today is the anniversary of what happens when determination meets rumination. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a man with a passion to serve the Lord and defend the rights of the voiceless, the helpless, the hopeless. He fought with vigor and determination for equality. He was convinced that men and women were the same despite physical differences, they were identical although their parents were not, they shared much more in common that geography - they shared identity.

Despite those separations and transgressions, the groups of people arguing about issues these days are not divided by color or creed - and that is something to embrace. Whites and blacks stand side-by-side, arm-in-arm debating the same point with another group of folk that look just like them - mixed, diverse yet unified.

What this nation is going to witness tonight is so much more than some political candidate babbling about his 10-year plans, strength of his issues and dancing in circles. That is typical, except this evening has a special impetus.

This year is submerged with political tension dividing most of the nation for one party or another, and tonight is the culmination of that angst - at least for half the country. People insisting on verbal bashing rather than communicating because of partisan blindness. Families divided among political deafness only accepting to hear that which is appeasing to their own preference. We have all seen it and most of us are living it. However, the times truly are a changin'.

45 years ago, Martin Luther King spoke of a dream. Tonight, Barack Obama - a black man - will accept a nomination to become leader of the free world and fulfill that dream.

And who will watch it come to reality?

To use the words of a sage, a prophet, a beacon of light when the world was it bleakest: "...all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, and they will all be able to join hands..."

Wall Watchers, this night is more than great rhetoric, it's a genesis for this country.

Consider there will always be prejudice because some people refuse to be anything less than ignorant of others that aren't just like them. However, because of the strident steps of a few, the countless millions that are here now can walk in their shadows. Because of the missions of King, X, Evers, Kennedy, Barnett, Parks, Robinson, Hamer and many more, we can all sit here in the comfort of our own living rooms - as one family, one country - and see a product of that dream 45 years ago walk into history books as a part of reality.

Now there will be idiots that will use this moment in time and freeze it for ridiculous headlines, ludicrous agendas (like demanding reparations) and capricious stories like "if Obama doesn't win this election, we are still a racist country." Opportunists and terrible journalists aside, nothing could stop this from happening. Believe me, many have tried, failed and gave up. And good riddance for that.

That is a taste of the freedom Dr. King spoke about, fought for and died willingly.

For decades or more, Roma in the former Czechoslovakia and other parts of Europe have often been placed in "special schools" for the disabled, allegedly because they suffer from learning disorders. Many Czechs have claimed and still claim that Roma merely suffer from a higher incidence of such disabilities, but most observers recognize that it's simply a way of segregating Roma children from the non-Roma (i.e., Czech) school population.

There has been progress on this front, but it remains slow -- the Czech government abolished the special schools two years ago, but from at least some appearances, it just means a cosmetic change with no real substance.

A big part of the problem, as the story mentions, is that teachers still believe the stereotypes about Roma being lazy, blaming the parents of Roma children for not doing more to educate them at home in order to prepare them for school. As a consequence, many educators claim they have to spend a lot of time on remedial instruction, which means many Roma children finish their education (however far they advance) with no practical job skills, leaving them qualified only for menial, manual labor ... assuming workplace discrimination doesn't shut them out of those jobs as well.

The Czech Education Minister, Ondrej Liska, says changing attitudes is his greatest challenge.

"We can't say to those who teach like this: you have to go. That would lead to a collapse of the school system."

"I want to see in two years that teachers in schools with a high percentage of Roma children have appropriate training and I want to see a major shift in these schools - but I can't say: tomorrow you have to change the philosophy you've been teaching with for 20 years."

It's sad, but true. There seem to be few social stigmas about voicing such attitudes openly. I still recall our first week in Bratislava last summer, when we went to eat with our landlord, and he warned me as we got on the tram about "Gypsies," since they "organize in groups and steal." A lot of Czechs and Slovaks, educated or not, express similar views.

For instance, Petr Bokuvka, a Czech journalist, seems to echo these views in a recent blog post about Czech Roma seeking asylum in Canada.

The Roma are making a huge mistake and I am afraid the majority society will develop even stronger negative attitude towards them: Czechs who decide to change their lives and live abroad NORMALLY find a job there and THEN they move. Or they just go there and offer their knowledge and experience, or just anything they have to offer.

Nope, many Czech Roma just go to Canada BECAUSE THEY KNOW how much the welfare benefits are. Ten years ago Canada introduced visa, by which its government said Roma had in fact been abusing the system. And now it’s back…

It sounds quite similar to various Americans (generally of a more conservative political persuasion) uttering similar pronouncements about "[insert name of immigrant group] being too lazy and not working."

And it reminds me of something I encountered in an anonymous letter sent to a Slovak Communist official in 1960, complaining about the Slovak rights of self-rule the Czech leader Antonín Novotný "stole like a Gypsy."

Since I profess no real expertise on Roma issues, I recommend learning more from the European Roma Rights Centre.

The WALTHER REPORT

By Tony Walther

If Barack Obama loses this presidential race it may well be due to white voters of all education and economic levels who just can’t get themselves to vote a black man into the White House and even more so due to blue-collar workers my age, 59, and older who have memories of the riots and looting of the 60s.

And if that sounds racist, I’m sorry.

I definitely am not saying that Obama should not win because of the color of his skin and surely he is not to blame for the 60s.

Right now it looks as if it will be a tight race, perhaps the closest ever, so any little thing can win it or lose it for either Obama or John McCain.

But if you’re my age or older you remember George Wallace and his calls in the 60s for law and order and his rants against hippies and commies and black rioters.

Wallace was a little too much on the fringe (even though he did get a lot of votes) to make it to the White House, but his sentiments helped Richard Nixon get there.

The post Vietnam generations have no way of understanding what it was like in the 60s. We were truly a nation divided, even families were divided.

You had the Vietnam war, which kind of snuck up on everyone and had generally good support at first, but as it dragged on and it became apparent that we were not getting anywhere and that we did not have any clear plan for victory and perhaps not even a definition for victory, and that we were slaughtering many of the people we were supposedly trying to help, that support waned. Sound familiar?

At the same time, while as a whole the nation supported the idea of ensuring civil rights that had been so long denied to black people even after their ancestors were emancipated from slavery a hundred years before, we all were aghast and even scared by the rioting and looting by black mobs in the major urban centers. And of course it is not fair to law-abiding blacks who get blamed for the actions of those who don’t obey the law, but that’s the way it was.

And there’s something else going on here too. Sometimes it helps to read literature. Read a book such as "Accordion Crimes," by Annie Proulx, and you will find that especially in the working class circles throughout our history there has been fierce competition between ethnic and racial groups, not just white vs. black.

And how do you think the landed aristocracy of the South got regular poor down home boys to fight for their, the plantation owners, right to hold black human beings as slaves? And how did the upper class whites get those same folks and their ancestors to support segregation and discrimination after the Civil War? They appealed to the fear of loss of jobs and places to live and even places to farm due to a newly liberated class of people.

Obama, as one news story I read noted, does not even have slave ancestors, and I add, he is only half black, but he is, of course, by appearance simply a black man. So that is something, even though not really fair at all, he has to overcome.

I actually think that with each new generation the remnants of racial prejudice are dying out – well at least the prejudice against blacks. Nowadays we have illegal immigration and even legal immigration and outsourcing and that could be a whole new ball of wax.

Obama has some kind of gift that has brought him to where he is today and with his speech tonight he may be able to overcome. I think he is right not to emphasize his race (and not to run from it, either). He needs to come across with the issues and put out the message that he has better judgment than the crowd that is running things today.

He does seem to think things through, rather than shoot from the hip, and I think that could indeed be refreshing and good for the nation.

We’ll tune in tonight.

I know out technological evolution has far outpaced our ethical evolution but, it still isn't fun to be reminded of just how   W     I     D     E   the gap is.  So, this story is disheartening but, it also makes me feel good, schadenfreude, that Oklahoma isn't the only state plagued by the narrow of mind and small of intellect.

http://racism.suite101.com/article.cfm/dealing_with_everyday_racism

The textbook definition of racism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" or "racial prejudice or discrimination." Now obviously this definition does not explain an everyday remark which may leave someone with a bad feeling or thought. Usually the said offenders are actually stereotyping, which doesn’t necessarily mean they are racist nor does it mean their intention is to offend, most often they simply don’t know what they’re saying is even offensive.

Some examples of stereotyping include a comment such as “Black people love fried chicken!” or “That guy has a big nose, is he Jewish?” Both have connotations of otherness and racism can surely be inferred.

How to Respond to Everyday Racism:

1. Assess the intent. Know that the person may or may not be purposely trying to offend you. Try to figure out if their intention is to offend by judging the situation, context of the comment, the speaker’s background and other factors. It will undoubtedly prove difficult to absolutely determine the intent behind someone’s comment, but it’s best to think about it before responding in any way.
2. Determine if it’s worth confronting. After you’ve determined, to the best of your knowledge, the intent of the person behind the comment, you now have to decide whether or not you should respond. If the person is reasonable and you believe it would actually be worth the effort, go ahead and talk to them, preferably one-on-one. Sometimes, however, it’s not worth confronting a perfect stranger or even a close friend because of timing, importance, etc.
3. Explain why you are offended. Most importantly, try not to confront the person when you are still upset. Wait until you’ve calmed down a bit and explain to them that you found their comment offensive, and then explain why. Avoid accusing them of racism or prejudice. Simply explain why you’re offended and how their comment might be interpreted.
4. Don’t expect them to understand or apologize. This is an important tip to remember. Not everyone has walked in your shoes or been through your experiences, so obviously not everyone will understand or even validate how you are feeling. It’s also foolish to expect an apology from someone. If you decide to confront someone, do it with the aim of simply trying to let him or her know how you feel. No more or no less.

If you are always looking for an offensive comment or racism, you’ll surely find it and consequently be labeled as hypersensitive or excessively “pulling the race card.” So choose your battles wisely.

Who would think that this one word (feeling)

Could be able to hurt so many people

How can a person be blinded and hate a person

They don’t even know based on

Looks, religion, sexual preference, and/or social status

I know not everyone is open minded

But in order to understand someone you

Must first give them a chance

If you don’t who will…

Think about it

Are they not related in some way? 

As a child, I heard a Pentecostal preacher say “To the innocent all is pure.”

I interpreted those words from the perspective of an innocent. They came in response to a question I had asked about people in the Amazon or other jungles who never got their souls saved by Jesus on account of they never even heard of Jesus. I wondered if they would be sent to Hell by the preacher’s God. (Again, I was an innocent.) 

Though I no longer consider Preachers to be the Ultimate Authority in my personal exploration of Humanity, Other Cultures, Anthropology, or the destiny of souls, I have never forgotten this statement. 

To the innocent all is pure.

When I conjure up images of innocence I think of unicorns and fantasy scenes that correlate with childlike imagination. I see lambs and baby mammals with large eyes, untainted perfection, vulnerable entities—unscathed by mortality and it’s harsh truths.

Innocence has the implication of guiltlessness and lack of guile or cruelty.

Innocence is fragile. It cannot survive a full life.

Ignorance, on the other hand, somehow congers images of creepy guys in overalls with a mason jar full of moonshine and a mouthful of prejudices instead of teeth. Nothing pure about it. (except the alcohol content in the mason jar)

Ignorance is tough, wily, dirty, and full of potential cruelties that stem from a complete lack of information in regard to hygiene and basic social skills. It does not inspire a full life.

I conger these images of innocence and ignorance from a place within myself that is both Innocent and Ignorant.

My innocence, my lack of certain experiences, keeps me believing in magic, idealistic representations of life, and the purity of others. My innocence compels me to seek out the beauty in everything and guard that beauty like it was a wildflower that will never go to seed.

My ignorance, my lack of information, causes me to formulate half truths and limited views about people in overalls with moonshine jars. It makes me angry, afraid of things and people I do not know. It compels me to label and annihilate things that do not fit into the limited scope of my narrow aim of survival.

Maybe the only remedy for my battle between innocence and ignorance is to bring in a mediator that can give me more life experience and information.

Let’s call that mediator Compassion.

Situation #1: Black People's Homes

You are in a different room and you hear your boyfriend's father say, "Black people's homes NEVER look like this!"

The whole room explodes calling your boyfriend's father racist. You are not sure what the context is, but then remember seeing a Country Home magazine in the living room. "Black people don't decorate their homes like this!" Apparently there is a picture of a black family in a very Southern-style country decorated room.

Your boyfriend's mother says, "____, how many black homes have you even been in?"

He answers, "Three." Goes on to name those three. Then he adds (or maybe Uncle adds . . .), "They were not decorated like this. They were very neat and clean, way cleaner and neater than ours, but not decorated like this?"

How would you respond?

Situation #2: Dark Meat

You overhear your boyfriend's young cousins and friends talking about dark soda. Again, you are in another room.

"I don't like dark sodas," one male cousin's girlfriend says.

"Do you like dark meat?" A male cousin's friend asks.

"Ew! No! Um, obviously my boyfriend is right there and he's white!"

"HAHAHAHAHAHA! That doesn't mean anything . . ."

"Well, I don't like dark meat," she reassures him.

How would you respond?

Situation #3: The N Word

A co-worker and you decide to go out to dinner. On the way there, after your co-worker is close to ONE HOUR late, she says, "There was so much traffic up in this n***er!"

The comment is both racist, incoherent and untrue.

How would you respond?

Situation #4: Preferences

The same female co-worker described in the above situation later talks about a black male co-worker who she finds attractive. She says he always flirts with her. You encourage her to try dating him.

"You know, I don't usually like black guys! But he's cute and I bet he has a huge d**k. He's really nice to me. I would work it out, if you know what I mean. But usually, you know, black guys like me because I'm bigger. You know how black guys like big girls, hehehehe, so I mean, usually I'm not interested, but he's cute! I like him!"

How would you respond?

Situation #5: Ebonics

You're twelve and hanging out over your new best friend's house who is white. You and another classmate, who is also black are playing. Her cute older brother comes in. Your other black classmate starts verbally jabbing with him.

She says, "I asked you a question!"

He replies, "You AXED me a question? Sorry, I don't speak Ebonics! I thought it smelled like burnt hair in here . . ."

How would you respond?

There is a tall club which has expanded across the globe. Why can't there be a short club, i mean women are jumping all over me...but only 'cause they can't help it.  They feel awkward dancing with me because of my height. Wouldn't it be better if there were short clubs for us height-disadvantaged people to meet??

"Were you in it just for me or for [the issues I championed] ?"

Even so, I caught the tail-end of an interview with a Hillary supporter shortly after the convention adjourned for the evening. The supporter was saying that she just couldn't bring herself to support and vote for Obama. When asked if she would vote for McCain, she stated that she would probably stay home and not bother to vote at all.

How ignorant is that? To abstain from voting is the same as voting for McCain. Is this person and those like her so caught up in feminism that they would rather have four more years of the last eight years?

I will agree that it is very unfortunate that both a woman of substance and a charismatic man of color both chose to run for office in the same year and on the same political ticket. Selecting one over the other - based on merit alone - is not an easy task. But if the crux of Hillary's support was based mainly upon  her gender, than this country is in very big trouble. The same holds true if the crux of Obama's support is based upon the color of his skin.

Emotional support is fine when it comes to athletic teams and members of our family. But when it comes down to selecting who we want to represent us in the halls of our government, our decision should be based upon good, solid information about the respective candidates' positions and how well or poorly they align with our own.

Perhaps it really is not so surprising after all that people voted to keep "dubaya" around for a second term. Perhaps the Muslim extremists are correct in their assessment of America. Perhaps we truly are a nation of infidels.

But what I find truly surprising is that people make their choices and then whine about the results. What did you expect? You got what you asked for! As my mother and her mother before her used to say, "You made your bed, now lie in it."

If you engage in unprotected sex, you risk getting pregnant and/or getting an STD.

If you consume alcohol and get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, you run the risk of getting a DUI - or worse!

If you vote someone into office based simply upon fickle emotion, you run the risk of being misrepresented!

DUH!

Once Abraham Lincoln was walking from one meeting to the next. He was accosted by people from every walk of life with an endless list of problems. In a quiet moment one of his young aids asked him how he was able to discern so well and address people's requests with such effectiveness.

Lincoln responded with a story. He told this young aid, "If a man comes to you with a lamb in his arms and says to you that the tail is a leg, how many legs does it have?"
The young aid thought for a moment. He shrugged his shoulders and offered, "Five."
"No," Lincoln smiled, "the answer is four. Just because he called the tail a leg doesn't make it one."

The Chicago Tribune reported that Spain's Men's Olympic Basketball team explained that their team picture, where they slanted their eyes with their fingers, was a harmless act.   Their national team stalwart Jose Calderon defended his team saying that they had "great respect for the East and its people."  Calderon further explained, "One of our sponsors asked us to make, as a 'wink' to our participation in Beijing, an expression of Eastern eyes," he wrote. "We felt it was something appropriate and that it would always be interpreted as an affectionate gesture. ..."

I decided not to use that picture with this blog.  It is too offensive.  The explanation to dismiss the gesture not only as not offensive but affectionate is unbelievably naive.  It smacks of a desperate attempt to cover up a stupid act that did express prejudice, very much like calling a tail a leg.

It is stunning that the offenders would have the gaul to interpret how an inflamatory act should be interpreted and received by the people who were mocked.  Certainly the deluge of world criticism ought to give these offenders a clue that defensive words can't change the meaning of their act.

Redefining a hate-act with a fabricated explanation doesn't pass any smell test.  Most educated and civilized people in any culture recognize excuses for hurting people under the guise of doing good as arrogance.      

My inscrutible ethnic cousins will not likely speak much of this.  I understand that cultural tendency.  It is worthy of great regard.  However, I did find it satisfying when the USA men's basketball team beat Spain's men's basketball team and won the gold medal.  I'm sure Lincoln would have smiled.

            Doctrine & Covenants 121:39

      Few things in life distort the relationship of communities and society more than power and politics.  The American revolution and the revolution in France introduced democracy to both America and Europe in roughly the same time period.  The French revolution ended up much more violent and tumultuous than the former, described by Charles Dickens as "the best of times" and "the worst of times" simultaneously.  The French revolution was an extremely violent and intolerant uprising.  It led to mass beheading and guillotining of the aristocracy.  It led to the rise of the first of the modern despots in Napoleon, who enthralled the recently empowered majority, was voted into power which he refused to release and unleashed upon the rest of Europe, as the revolution ran off its rails.

  America on the other hand,  was more peaceful.  They maintained their democracy and developed a burgeoning middle class.  They became the rising power of the 19th century.  Alexis de Toqueville carefully examined the difference between the two in his book Democracy in America.  He reached the conclusion that in France, the revolution in its anger and retribution created a new "tyranny of the majority."  Their rule was every bit as despotic and oppressive as any tyrant to those in the minority who did not stand with them.  Terror and the guillotine reigned.  These new democrats so opposed the old order that they violently opposed every auspice of what they stood for.  Among other things, this led to a violent disdain for religion, as the Catholic church had been key to power in France.  Indeed, disdain for religion distinguishes France to this day. 

    America, on the other hand, maintained a robust religious life without sacrificing religious liberty through a separation of church and state, removing formal church hierarchy from political power, but allowing, even encouraging religious practice freely among all citizens.  At the same time, which religion and practice became a matter of conscience.  It seems America found a way to protect the minority from majority rule through its respect for the individual.  This inspired many Frenchmen.  Like minded thinker Edouard Rene de Laboulaye actually comissioned the Statue of Liberty as a gift to the Nation he saw as the one that would bring democracy to the world.

Certainly it was not perfect.  Tyranny remained the rule for African slaves and Native Americans.  However, this culture is what eventually enabled the overthrow of slavery, and further down the line, the civil rights movement.   In essence, a dedication to individual rights and freedoms and the lack of an entrenched aristocracy allowing movement up the socioeconomic ladder to an unprecedented degree allowed a republic representative democracy to flourish in America.   De Toqueville did warn of the ever present threat of a "soft despotism" as democracy could be subtly subverted by an elite group with amassed wealth and power.  The story is not all roses and rainbows for the USA. 

   There is a natural tension in any democracy between the minority and majority.  The USA is no different.  This is why in this land of religious freedom, my ancestors were expelled from their home and driven from this country to the Rocky Mountains.   This is why the civil rights movement was necessary.   This is in large part responsible for movements such as political correctness and feminism.  Those who sit in the position of power, have the tendency to abuse that power.  The prophet Joseph Smith said it was the nature and disposition of almost all men. 

   It is an unpleasant realization to sit in the seat of privilege and realize that things aren't quite the same for others living in the same country where equality is an ideal.  Feminism, Civil Rights, the Anti-defamation league, and all similar movements draw power from this shared ideal.  The fact that we have not achieved equality causes guilt.  This guilt is the key to the power of the disenfranchised.  Their power and political influence rise from it. 

    I wonder sometimes if this power is not just as prone to abuse.  When your power comes from the inequities, how do you accept victory.  To do so is to lay down your power.  I wonder if it is possible to wield guilt like a club until you create a soft tyranny of the minority.  I think these feelings are responsible for the backlash political correctness has received.  I think these revolutions and movements, just as the French, are always in danger of running off the rails.  These wise words were shared by Maya Angelou in her book I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, "The sadness of the women's movement is that they don't allow the necessity of love. See, I don't personally trust any revolution where love is not allowed."

    I think the point stands for all political movements.  I with Ms. Angelou.  I don't trust any revolution where love is not allowed.   My problem with power and politics in general is that it always seems to lead to manipulation or oppression of the opposition.  In its most simplistic and vulgar form it is bullying, violence and war.  I think the more subtle forms remain damaging and corrosive to the soul as well. 

     I have referred before to the story of the end of Apartheid in South Africa, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.    I never tire of the power of this story.  I am still in awe of the hearts of those who found to forgive the very worst atrocities imaginable.  This is revolution done right.  This is what politics can be, even in the worst of situations when girded about with love.  I strongly encourage everyone to give it a listen.

    We need to better understand one another.  To survive as a society we need empathy, for the majority, the minority, for whichever group we are not.  We need better communication and less rhetoric.  We need a committment to listen to one another and work out differences peaceably.   We need to forgive our opponents of the wrongs that have hurt us.  More than anything what we need is love.

www.NoOnProp8.com

I can't wrap my head around this kind of thinking. I understand (although I don't agree with them) that there are many people who believe homosexuality is wrong. I understand that these same people often believe that children raised by gay couples, or gay singles, will not get the benefits of those raised in a "traditional" home (despite studies showing that children raised by gay parents are just as well-adjusted and sometimes better-adjusted than those raised by straight parents). What I can't understand, though, is how these people can believe that denying gays the right to adopt will improve circumstances for children. This measure, if passed, will shrink the pool of hopeful adoptive parents, decreasing the odds that any given orphan or foster child in Arkansas will be adopted. Even if you believe that gay parents are not as good as straight parents, how can you believe that gay parents are worse than no parents at all?

Sir Random, perhaps you have some insight into this. As the grandfather of a child being raised by two women, have you encountered people who would argue that RG would be better off in foster care than being raised by her mommies? What kind of arguments do they give?

Honestly, this programme is killing me, we're only two episodes in and a part of me has allready died inside.

The reason being is because i actually find myself enjoying the auditions. How can that be, surely the only people that enjoy the X-Factor are teenage girls and daily mail, express and sun readers.

Its the realization that whilst i view the mental contestants singing away my mind triggers to the fact that the above mentioned persons are watching the same programme. And lo and behold the odd time laughing at the same things they're probably laughing at.

I'm not being funny but as soon as the auditions are over i am not interested, it is only the utterly shit people i take pleasure in silently saying delusioned wanker to my self lots of times throughout the hour installment.

To be honest as soon as the 10 or however many people they select for the live shows are chosen. You know the top 3 are a forgon conclusion. You simply apply these filters

• Remove everyone over 25 perhaps 30 years old. (7 Remain)
• Remove everyone remotely unnatractive (5 Remain)

You are now left with, Good looking Boys who can sing and can't.

Good looking girls who can or can't sing.

Good looking groups who can can't sing.

• Now remove the girl who cannot sing ( 4 Acts Remain)

• Now remove the groups (3 possibly 2 acts remain)

You are now left with Lion (or whoever he was called) a male who can't really sing compared to the really good male or female singer, but somehow every girl in britain votes for as soon as the lines are open.

My sister is a perfect stereotype of this, coming out with incredible phrases like "He's really good actually" her fake expression only topped by me walking straight faced out of the room.

You see my sisters clever, she knows that the singer is bad, but her companions at school usher her into thinking the wrong.

She'll deny it.

the longest post yet for shit show.

My favorite of my grandparents friends, sensing my slight discomfort with the situation, told me a story about a tennis player who was transgendered, and around the age of 40 had a sex change operation (male to female). The people at my grandparents' beach club (which is very old and exclusive and takes 8-10 years to get into) thought that this tennis player had changed her sex because she wanted to be able to keep playing tennis at a high level, which she could do as a woman but not as a man.

I have no words to respond to a story like that. Who are these people, and what are they thinking? Are they thinking at all?

Later in the evening, which was marked by much political back-and-forth between the Obama fans and the Republicans (started up again anytime someone asked me what I am doing right now), the Olympics came up. Someone said they don't like watching beach volleyball, and then a woman sitting across the table from me said "They're like lesbians, all over each other! Ugh!" She gave a delicate shudder. Another woman beside her said, "The paper was full of homosexuals today!" I felt sick, the way I did years ago when I went to a Baptist church and the minister preached tolerance, except for gays and people who had abortions. But I didn't say anything.

These are my grandparents' friends, and we were in a public place - a place where probably lots of people hold the same views. It was certainly polite to sit there and stay silent, and several people noted my bitten tongue, which I suppose is a form of protest, to not laugh, to sit and stare in shock and horror. Or maybe it was just the coward's way. I am so used to being around people who think like me that I don't know how to talk to people who shudder at the thought of gay people. I don't know where the line is; what is condoning bigotry by staying silent, and what is just getting along and picking my battles?

It's all well and good to go to the tennis club, and the beach club, and take a boat ride, and stay out all night with rich pretty young things from elite colleges, drinking and talking and flirting, as long as you remember that's not all there is. This is a fantasy world, and like any fantasy it has its dark side: prejudice, willful ignorance, high walls that protect it by keeping out people who, unlike me, would have the courage to say something.

ANYWAY . . .

Barack Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate. The same guy who said this when asked about Obama:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

There's obvious racist implications and stereotypes in that sentence. Obama STILL chose him as his running mate for political and personal reasons.

Is Obama selling out? Is he out of touch with the black community because he chooses to look past Biden's obviously misconceived and narrow view of black people? I was accused of both by readers of this blog by not really confronting the ambiguously racist comments I've heard from those around me. Is Obama guilty of the same thing

The problem is not with the Muslims, but the hatred of those who use religion, or lack thereof, as an excuse for their hatred.  While there should be a difference placed on the value of one's convictions - there shouldn't be an issue, as long as one doesn't hijack the Constitution based on his religious beliefs.  No matter what is said about Muslims, the are the only major group from the People of the Book who has not hijacked U.S. Constitution to date.