Logic, History, and Anonymity -- About Your Comments

From now on, if you're going to leave comments:

1. Use sound logic.

2. Use sound history.

3. Do not post anonymously.
I realize that most people don't have a blogspot account, so I'm going to leave the blog open to anonymous comments, but please put your name on your comment and be accountable to your words.

I'm not trying to stifle your comments, as most of them are very good -- even if I disagree with you. I'm simply trying to promote all those good comments out there.

White Man = VIOLENT, Native American = PEACEFUL. Oh really?

If all the "Native Americans" were so peace-loving, as most history books would have us believe, then why do we consistently find archaeological sites like this one throughout the Americas? I mean, didn't this genocide occur long before the evil white man can over from Europe?

Well, I'm sure the evil white man caused it somehow. Let's follow that rabbit trail...

The article did say that the genocide could have been the result of a clash between different tribes that were searching for food because of a drought. But what caused the drought? As everyone knows, droughts are caused by one thing (and one thing only): global warming. But what caused the global warming? It must have been that medieval evil white man and his SUV!

See -- we found our rabbit!

Cuban Healthcare, Sicko, and Truth

Simply a link to some picture-truth...
http://josue.townhall.com/g/4af608f7-8a31-45e7-a6ef-518bf46e67c9

African, American, and African-American

The label "African-American" really bothers me, at least how we use it here in the U.S. Let me share a story from my buddy Thomas that illustrates why the term ought to be radically altered in its meaning and use.

Thomas was in a class at TCU in which the professor kept using the word "African-American." At the end of the lecture, a white student with a foreign accent stood up and asked the professor, "By African-American, do you mean African-American, or do you mean black? I wanted to know because I was actually born in Africa. My parents were driven out of their land in response to the apartheid. We lost our land, everything. So we had to come to the United States, where I am now a citizen. And I bet that in this class of about 250 students, not only am I the only real African-American, I'm probably the only one that could name even 5 African countries. So the next time you want to refer to black people, just say black: don't say African-American, because when you do, you insult the true African-Americans." He sat down and the professor didn't respond.

So here's several reasons I don't like the meaning and usage of "African-American," and why I never put my race on any sort of paperwork or survey that requests it if they have "African-American" as an option:

1. My ancestors are from Germany, Ireland, America (native), and elsewhere, yet I am not referred to as German-Irish-Native-American. We should be consistent across the board. Until that day, I will rebel.
   
2. Some black people are not descended directly from African blacks, but from Caribbean and/or South American blacks. They should not be referred to, then, as African-American. Calling them African-American blatantly ignores their heritage. (Some, I've found, get really irritated at being called African-American.)
   
3. There are many (millions?) of people in the U.S. who were actually born in Africa. They are African-American. Joe Black who was born at Parkland Hospital in Dallas is not African. Consequently, he should not be referred to as African-American.
   
4. African-American has nothing to do with race, as Thomas' story proves, yet we make it entirely about race.
   
5. Special labels help perpetuate a society of victims and separationism.
   
6. Finally, as an aside, do you know how Martin Luther King, Jr., referred to people of his own race? In his "I have a dream" speech in Washington D.C., he refers to them as "negro," "black," "God's children," "sons of former slaves," "judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"...not once does he refer to "African-Americans."

So here's to hoping for a future of equal labels for equal treatment.

Why Gay Matters in Dallas' Upcoming Mayoral Election

Mr. Oakley is gay, Mr. Leppert is straight. Both are runoff candidates in Dallas' upcoming mayoral election.

Today's Dallas Morning News states the following:
"Mr. Leppert, who has won the lucrative support of Dallas' business establishment, said he would not make his opponent's sexuality an issue in the race. 'I want people to focus on what we need to do to make Dallas the finest city in America,' he said in a recent interview. Mr. Oakley's supporters have noticed, however, that Mr. Leppert frequently mentions that he is married and has children and often points out his wife at candidate forums. 'They use all the buzzwords about lifestyle, including references to his family and his children and his wife being in the audience,' noted Mr. Bailey, who has attended recent forums."

So let me get this straight (haha) -- according to Oakley's camp, apparently it's okay for Oakley to mention his sexual orientation, but somehow it's not okay for Leppert to mention he has a family and children? That's ridiculous. But what do you expect from the gay juggernaut?

I'm tired of double-standards plaguing our country. Vote on June 16. Make a difference.

A Nation of Immigrants, Settlers, and Fallacies

I'm tired of hearing this line from pro-illegal immigration folks, including President Bush: "America is a nation of immigrants." America is not a nation of immigrants -- it is a nation of settlers.

Is there a difference?

Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington thinks so:
"Settlers and immigrants differ fundamentally. Settlers leave an existing society, usually in a group, in order to create a new community. ... Immigrants, in contrast, do not create a new society. They move from one society to a different society. ... [Settlers] came in order to create societies that embodied and would reinforce the culture and values they brought with them from their origin country. Immigrants came later because they wanted to become part of the society the settlers had created. ... Before immigrants could come to America, settlers had to found America" (Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004; p. 39-40).

In our situation, illegal immigrants are leaving their poor, corrupt governments in order to participate in a society and government not established by Spanish & Portuguese Catholics, but by British Protestants. The former created the unenviable countries to our south, from Mexico to Chile. The latter created the United States, arguably the world's envy for 150 years now. Huntington writes, "Would America be the America it is today if in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish, or Portuguese Catholics? The answer is no. It would not be America; it would be Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil" (p. 59).

I don't know what the numbers are, but I highly doubt that U.S. citizens are emigrating in droves to South American countries. To be sure, though, citizens from countries to our south are coming to the U.S. by the millions. They are coming to a country they had no part in creating. They are immigrants, coming to a country founded by settlers.

So do your part: stop the uneducated babel. America is not a nation of immigrants -- it is a nation of settlers.

John Edwards, Poverty, and 55,000 Small Frosties

I found something interesting in the San Francisco Chronicle...

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards recently charged a speaking fee of $55,000 to speak at UC-Davis about "Poverty, The Great Moral Issue Facing America." That's right, $55,000...to speak about poverty.

Need I say any more?

Soccer Owners, Corruption, and the Russian Oligarchy

Anyone heard of Roman Abramovich?

He's the Russian super-multi billionaire who owns the Chelsea Football Club of England's Premier League. (That's soccer, people.) How did he get so rich? Broadcast.com? No, that was Mark Cuban. Oil and gas exploration? No, that was Jerry Jones.

No, Roman Abramovich got his money through the creation of the Russian oligarchy in the devious loans-for-shares program. He and several others bought oil-rich government land for pennies on the dollar with loans backed by state-controlled banks. He then turned and sold the land back to the government for what it was really worth, making a multi-billion dollar profit.

Apparently, the Premier League has no problem letting this guy buy one of their teams (and a top one at that). So root on, you Chelsea fans. You have a great owner.

Hate Crime, Channon Christian, and Christopher Newsom

I emailed this story to some of you. For those who haven't heard of this, brace yourselves: it's quite shocking. (Read about it here.)

So you probably never heard of this story. Wonder why? Well, it wasn't because the great civil rights defenders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were raising a ruckus to make this case known. Oh no. These two were up in arms about Don Imus calling some young ladies "nappy-headed hoes," a comment that actually hurt no one. But two white people get raped, tortured, murdered, and mutilated by five black people and these two shysters disappear. Civil rights? Not for Channon and Christopher.

Because there was no public outcry, it seems that "hate crime" charges will not be filed in this case.

"Hate crime" itself is a dangerous concept. Why? Because it is quite speculative. Case one: a black man murders a white man. Case two: a black man murders a white man. What makes one a hate crime and the other a love crime? Exactly -- you laugh because it's ridiculous. The reason you commit a crime is because you don't love. So then, by definition, isn't every crime a hate crime? I understand the intent of the "hate crime" laws -- to protect the minority and persecuted in society, and to prevent retaliation. But when the "hate crime" label fails to be applied evenly across the board -- as in the case of Channon and Christopher -- then we ought to question either 1) the nature of "hate crime" itself, or 2) how we determine "hate crime." I hope that neither is ever determined by the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world.

Blog Numero Uno

Enjoy that title...it'll be the last time I use Spanish in my blog.

So after much prodding, I've decided to start a blog. While I'm not quite coffeehouse goonish to be diagnosed with what the PDR refers to as "chronic blog," I wanted to write to get my opinion out...as if my friends didn't hear enough of it already. My hope is that it will be a sounding board for the few who read it, and that it will cut down on the amount of emails I send you.

While I am in seminary, and while I am a Christian, most of my posts will have nothing to do with that directly. No "Jesus is great" here. (Although he truly is.) If you want that, how about this -- read your Bible. So I guess I’ll just write about politics and law, which I love to discuss (and which Jesus is lord over). Well, that or the cookie I had at lunch.

And so begins the journey...or some other cliché.