Raving Black Lunatic

Where You From?

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:52:00 +0000

Man, I stumbled across this article over at Prometheus 6, a great place for links to useful information for those of y'all unaware.

It seems that the cat who won the recent New York Marathon was American, a rare feat. Only, he wasn't American enough for some folks.

Get it.

If you read the article, you'll find that the gentleman who won immigrated to this country from Eritrea when he was 12, so genetically, he's from East Africa. However, he grew up here, learned how to run here and did all of his training here. He's a naturalized citizen and has lived here in America for 22 years.

But, for some folks that still doesn't count.

The article mentions that the United States, and white Americans, used to dominate distance running. Then East Africans showed up on the scene and things changed. As the article notes, this new culture of losing drove white folks crazy, and they decided that the only reason the Africans could be winning is because they have special "running nigger" genes.

Cute.

It's amazing how when white people are good at sports, nobody assumes it's because they have good genes anymore. Maybe back in the day that was the argument, but now all you hear about is the superior work ethic and intelligence of the white athlete. It's funny how when white Americans were dominating distance running nobody thought they had some special genes that gave them an unfair advantage. Nope, they were just good, not genetic freaks.

The sad thing is that the cat who won the marathon has been in this country for two decades and he still doesn't count as an American. Apparently it doesn't matter how long you've lived here, all that matter is that you're the right color for the job you're doing.

It ain't where you from, it's what you look like.

Share

I'm Waiting

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:30:00 +0000

Waiting for the rants to begin.

Waiting for the angry blogs and comments about how certain people just don't have any gratitude.

Waiting to hear about how hypocrisy seems to know no color.

Waiting to see slurs and protests and people throwing up their hands in disgust at "those people."

Basically, I'm waiting to see all the white folks in Maine treated the way black folks in California got treated a few months ago now that gay marriage has been repealed in that state.

I'm waiting.

Good thing I ain't holding my breath.

I wrote about this during the initial backlash regarding the defeat of Prop 8 in Cali. I pointed out that some folks were a tad bit too willing to start slinging around slurs and insults once they didn't get their way. I noted that black people were being scapegoated by gay rights activists, and I wondered why that seemed to come so easily.

So, now I'm still wondering. Gay marriage was repealed by the citizens of a "liberal" state despite overwhelming support by politicians and the media. Yet, I don't see the citizens of this state receiving the same level of hatred and scorn as my colored folks down in Cali. And like a friend of mine noted, I'd be hardpressed to get an all black 5 on 5 run in Maine. Really, really hardpressed.

I see people upset and I see them disappointed, but I don't see the same level of vitriol this time around despite the fact that this is the same sort of defeat. It seems like without the handy-dandy Negro as a convienent scapegoat, people learn how to deal with anger constructively. They avoid widespread generalizations and promises to "hate back."

Seems these folks understand self control, they just decided not to practice it when they were angry at black folks.

I've already made my position on gay marriage clear on this site. I don't think the government should be refusing these people the right to marry. I think the claims that this will be a detriment to hetereosexual marriage are really appeals to people's willingness to selectively apply the word of God. So, while I view homosexuality as a sin and think God intended marriage to be between a man and woman, I don't the United States of America is any position to be trying to enforce the will of God.

That said, I, like many black folks, have always been aware of the undercurrent of racism in the gay community. Black folks may be paranoid, but that often helps us recognize our enemies. And the truth is, most of the gay folks pushing for gay marriage weren't friends of black people. Period.

So, when folks tried to pretend that the backlash from the gay community towards black folks in California was justified and sensible, I knew what was up. When folks were acting as if black people "owed" them something because they helped elect President Obama, well I really saw the truth. I peeped game and named names. And I'm doing it now.

If you chastised all the Negroes and let us have a piece of your mind back then, but now don't see the need to behave the same way now, then I'm guessing you're a racist.

And I'm waiting to hear you admit it.

Share

It's Been a Little Light

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:01:00 +0000

I know postings have been a little sparse around these parts, and I do apologize.

Life and work have intruded on blogging, and often times if I don't have something I really want to say, I just don't say anything. But, I wanted to let y'all know I am working on it, and hope to get a little more regular with my posting again.

That said, I have something new I'm working on. I've been inspired by my blogging buddy Deacon Blue to start thinking about writing a science fiction novel. I figure I've read enough science fiction books in my short life that I should be able to figure out how to write one.

Anyway, I wanted to run some of the core ideas of my book by the blogging world and see if y'all think it sounds too far-fetched or crazy even for the Sci-Fi world. And I'd like to get some feedback from y'all on what you think would happen to the world if this actually happened.

Here goes:

Imagine you go to sleep one night and the world is fine. People tuck their babies in, husbands and wives copulate, things are pretty normal. However, when you and everybody else wake up the next morning, something terrible has happened.

50 percent of the world's population has died overnight.

That's right, there are roughly 3.5 billion dead people in the world. And, the death isn't spread evenly. It appears that women were two times more likely to die than men, and Caucasian folks also had a higher death rate. So, the world is now overwhelmingly male and colored. Previously white stronglholds, like America and much of Europe, have seen massive power shifts overnight. Some Scandanavian countries have become sparsely populated ruins.

I'm planning to write a story roughly 50 to 100 years after this event. For the past few weeks I've been thinking about what those two core changes would do the world. I've playing around with the idea of whether women would see their power increase as they became more rare, or whether they would see their freedoms even more constricted.

I've thought about how minorities across the world would react when white people become an even smaller minority, particularly in areas that have been white dominated. I'm also planning to introduce some more magical elements to The Event, but that's not what I want y'all's help with.

I'd like your feedback on how you think the world would change if 50 percent of the population disappeared overnight. What would things look like?

Thank y'all in advance.

Share

Oh, The Horror!

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:00:00 +0000

Was watching CNN on Thursday.

This dude Jack, don't know his last name, was ranting about that gang rape in Cali. (Which reminds me. Does anybody know when it became cool for anchors to stop being objective? Rick Sanchez is freaking ridiculous. I was just wondering.) You know the incident where a 15-year old girl was raped by nearly a dozen men.

Anyway, Jack was pissed because according to police, folks stood by and watched the girl get raped, and some might have even joined in. Jack tied the actions of bystanders in this case to the failure of witnesses to come forward in the Derrion Albert beating incident in Chicago. He then wondered when we became a nation that watched while people were raped and beaten.

Hmm....

Might I refer CNN to the Lynching era and Civil Rights Era of American history.

From my vantage point, Americans have been pretty good at ignoring rapes and beatings for some time, especially when those rapes and beatings involved black folks getting brutalized by white folks.

For centuries, black people were severely mistreated and abused by a portion of the white population, while the majority stood on the sidelines and said "Not my concern."

See, while I believe racism was pervasive in the past, I understand that its most brutal aspects weren't things discussed out in the open. That's why the Klan and other domestic terrorism organization handled much of their business at night, and why they liked to wear disguises. That allowed the general public to pretend they didn't know what was going on, or who was responsible.

But, they did.

They saw the people of this country being mistreated and they turned their heads. They watched women being beaten and raped, men being castrated and lynched and sometimes they even cheered. They cheered and had picnics.

I think what happened to that young girl is horrible. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. But, as I've said before, this rush to pretend that what's happening today has no parallel in history is ridiculous. Humans have been the same savage creatures since we were created.

This ain't nothing new.

Share

What Is That?

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:38:00 +0000

The jeans were so tight.

I wouldn't have been able to walk in them. The pants weren't exactly a second skin, but they looked pretty uncomfortable. They required mincing steps that were almost feminine.

Yeah, I'm talking about the jeans on a man.

It was Sunday morning. The young man wrapped snuggly in denim was walking down the center aisle at my church. To complement his skinny jeans, he'd selected some of those bulky tennis shoes kids favor these days, along with a snug and short jacket. No boxers were actually showing, but it wouldn't take much for them to be exposed. Not much at all.

My first thought was "What the hell is that?"

Next thought was "Is that what's passing for church attire these days?"

Finally I realized, "Why do I even care?"

I'm glad I got to that final thought. I'm not going to say I still didn't think the young man's clothes were a tad improper, I did. Later on in service I gave a side-eye to a young lady rocking a sundress that showed a lot of thigh and cleavage. But, I didn't dwell on those things like I might have in the past. I didn't silently condemn them for their dress. I noted that they had made choices I didn't agree with, but I then forced myself to acknowledge that I don't have to agree with the choices of other people.

Man, that's progress for me.

I think I've mentioned before that I have this urge to impose my view of the world on other people. It's not so much that I have to control their actions, but I feel like even if I can't make them do what I want, I can make them acknowledge that I'm right.

Marriage has shown me the depths of my stupidity.

Now that I am trying to eradicate my idiotic tendencies when it comes to my wife, I've also been attempting to do the same for other folks. I'm trying to walk that tightrope between staying true to my own beliefs, while not using my beliefs to condemn others. It's a very difficult task.

Which brings me back to the clothes. The Lord knows I've worn some pretty shady clothes to church as a youngster, and you would think that would make me more accepting of the stylings of today's youth. But, often I'm not. It seems that I view the young me as this bumbling idiot who should be pitied and avoided, not held up as a some sort of guiding standard. I know this is wrong, yet it's still a challenge to resist this impulse.

I still ask "What is that?"

Share

Bedtime

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:10:00 +0000

Little Big Man was sitting on my lap. It was bedtime and he'd been lotioned up and we'd just finished reading his bedtime story.

The little guy was sad. We'd just had it out earlier because he claimed he wanted cereal for dinner, but when I gave him his bowl, he did more playing than eating. I tolerate a lot of stuff, but I don't tolerate wasting food. It just wasn't allowed in my house growing up, and even today it's like I can see the actual dollars attached to the food being tossed out.

Little Big Man is pouting now, his face is buried in my chest and I can still smell the cereal on his hands. Damn, should have done a better job washing those hands, but I'm tired. It's time for his prayers, but I figure we'd better talk it out.

"What's wrong man, you sad?"

He nods into my chest. I've been trying to break him of this nodding thing and get him to say "Yes sir" every time, but it's a work in progress. Plus, my wife thinks there is something "country" about adding the honorific "sir" and "ma'am" to responses. People these days, I tell you.

"I can't hear you man. Are you sad?"

Another nod, this time while squeezing me tighter.

"Why you sad"

"Ummmm..."

He likes saying "um" now. I didn't teach him that. Just like I didn't teach him to say "tasty" when he likes food, or to say "I love it" when he likes something. I don't know where he's picking this stuff since he's around my wife and I all day. Maybe tv, maybe our passing conversations, but he amazes me all the time with the things he does and says.

"You sad 'cause of Daddy?"

He nods his head.

"Why Daddy made you sad?"

"Um..."

"Daddy was mean to you? That's why you sad?"

"Yes."

"Daddy wasn't trying to be mean, Daddy was trying to teach you something. Daddy has to discipline you so you can grow up right. Daddy has to show you what to do, right?"

Silence.

"Does Daddy love you?"

"No."

"Look at me."

The little boy has amazing eyes. I feel sorry for all you mothers and fathers out there with little girls because I got a feeling my little man is going to break hearts. Expressive eyes, that are so brown it's shocking. He hates to meet my eyes when he's angry, but I force him to anyway. My father taught me that. Look a man in his eyes and he knows you're a man as well.

"Little Big Man, Daddy always loves you, no matter what. But, just 'cause Daddy loves you doesn't mean he's going to let you do what you want. Sometimes Daddy has to be mean."

I kiss him. He giggles, then hugs me.

"You still mad?"

He shakes his head.

"You love Daddy?"

This time I get a nod. It's enough.

"Let's say our prayers."

Share

Heart Warming

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:39:00 +0000

My heart grows cold.

Day after day, minute after minute, the chill creeps in. Slowly stalking me, its patience is feline. The cold need not rush, its prey can never escape.

Why must the world be this way? Like Solomon I look around at the pursuit of knowledge or wealth or even love, and I cry out "Vanity!" It is all vanity, silly flower petals that will only wilt as the seasons change. Wilt and then die.

Who but God can comfort the comfortless? Yet, is God's comfort anything more than a psychosis of the human mind? A chemical imbalance that leads us to believe in an omnipotent being who spends his time caring about insignificant, finite humans? Where is this God, point to him and let the world see...

Those thoughts make me shudder. I shiver now. The cold creeps onward, slowly like floodwaters, drowning passion and hope. Where is my stronghold, where is my safety?

I cling to God. I cannot point to him. I cannot produce his being for the satisfaction of others or even myself. I only have this blind faith, blind like Justice is blind, blind like bats are blind. My sonar is my heart.

Who can offer me more?

Not corrupt officials, consumed by the lusts of their flesh and their eyes, overcome by pride. They offer no succor, they offer no wisdom, they offer no relief. They offer nothing but a high-fructose serving of hope, a Splenda infused helping of faith. Master forgers, they traffic in illusion.

Who but God offers me more?

The cold grows. So cold it's almost warm. My heart burns with the cold, a raging inferno of ice, a glacial bonfire. Slowly, slowly it beats, its rhythm the key to my questions. Yet, I cannot find the beat. I've always lacked rhythm. Instead I stumble then fall. My feet followed the path of my heart and could not support me. I fall, and I hear my heart beat.

Colder, colder.

Share

Evaluating Your Blessings

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:13:00 +0000

Is a blessing always a good thing?

I'm involved with this group at my church where we talk to young men about life and God. Anyway, during a recent session this young father, who I think is still a teenager, asked me whether he and the mother of his child should stop having sex even if they plan on getting married soon.

I told him that if he wasn't married now, he shouldn't be having sex, period. He didn't like that answer, but then he changed course. He asked me why some folks talk about children as a negative consequence of fornication, but then turn around and call his little girl a blessing. He couldn't figure out how his daughter could be a blessing if the only way she came in to the world was because he was doing something contrary to God's will.

Good question, right?

Is it possible for a blessing, (children are typically seen as a blessing by most most Christians) to be a bad thing?

Calling something a "blessing" implies that your life is positively impacted by it. But, as all parents will tell you, children can both negatively and positively impact your life.

I wouldn't trade my two boys for anything, but that doesn't mean I don't think fondly of my life before parenthood. Being a parent is a massive responsibility, and it's only natural to grow weary of carrying that burden on occasion.

I told the teenage father that sometimes God can bless us, and punish us at the same time. Having a child is a blessing, but the responsibility that goes along with parenting can feel like a punishment at times. When you have to handle the hassles of parenting outside of a marriage, it quickly becomes apparent why God intended for children to be raised inside of marriages.

I've found that like most parents, God doesn't refuse to care for his children, or bless them, just because they misbehave. He has the ability to bless and chastise at the same time. Unfortunately, we as humans often lack the ability to see the duality in our situations, particularly when our situations seem negative.

Black Girl In Maine talked about something related to this topic recently. She discussed the fact that given their economic conditions, some folks really shouldn't be having children. She noted that the idea that all you need to raise children is "love," is ridiculous.

I agree with many of her points, but her post made me think.

Just because something is difficult doesn't make it bad. Conversely, every blessing doesn't come easy. Children are the epitome of this principle, but it applies to most things in our lives. Too often we expect good things to come with no strings attached. Some of us mistakenly believe that when God blesses us, he'll magically do all the work.

Snap out of it.

Share

Eating and Pooping

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:02:00 +0000

If you're angry, disillusioned, disappointed, or just plain unhappy that President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Price recently, I want you to raise your hand.

Lift it a little higher please.

Okay, now that I've got your measure, I want to refer you to two of my favorite Jay-Z lyrics of all time.

"Nigga respect the game, that should be it
What you eat don't make me shit - where's the love?"

"You don't even know me and you mad, how it feel to be a hater.
Now I know exactly how it feel to be a Laker"

And, since I don't really listen to rap like that anymore, and I'm trying to be a better Christian, I'm also going to refer to the parable of The Workers in the Vineyard.

Now, some of y'all might be a little upset at my flippancy. Truth be told, I had planned on avoiding this entire topic cause y'all know I don't do politics like that over here any more. I've got a hands off policy on all this political wrangling, plus I'm more interested in other stuff.

With that said, I felt like I had to speak on this thing. Not because I wasn't surprised that Obama won, I was. In fact, my initial reaction was "Well, what did he do?"

Nah, I felt like speaking now because while my initial reaction was without rancor, it was based in ignorance. It seems that Obama has done more than enough to qualify for the award given the standards set forth by the Nobel committee.

We can debate whether there were other qualified candidates, but I refuse to entertain the idea that Obama was wholly unqualified. And, given this fact, for anyone to still question whether Obama "deserved" what he got, or to be upset that he got it, well that's crossing over into some unsavory territory.

That's Hater Land.

And, when folks cross over into Hater Land, I think of those Jay-Z lyrics and that parable. The lyrics are easily understandable, but everybody might not be familiar with the parable. It's about a master who hires some workers to do a job, and they all agree to get paid the same amount.

However, the master hires each worker at different times of the day, so they all work different periods in the vineyard. So, one worker might have agreed to work 10 hours for $100, while another only worked 1 hour for his $100. At the end of the parable, the owner of the vineyard chastises those workers who are upset that some folks basically got paid $100 an hour. He notes that it's his money and he can do what he wants.

The parable is designed to discuss salvation and the fact that God bestows salvation on whom he chooses, when he chooses. But, it also works in this President Obama issue. The simple truth is that most people in the world are completely unaffected by the president's victory. It has no impact on their lives, and they are still getting everything they were getting before.

Yet, for some folks it's unacceptable that somebody else can get something they think that person doesn't deserve. It's ironic that these feelings seem to be most prevalent among the media and Republicans. Obama's succes irks them to no end. Not because it affects their lives, but because it affects their sense of fair play. Guess what?

Ain't no fair play.

Fairness is a concept created by humans to justify their attempts to make the world work the way they want it to work. Justice is a concept created by God to explain why the world works the way it does. God doesn't care about what you think is fair.

There is no reason for most people to be upset at President Obama's good fortune. None. So I feel justified in labeling those folks who are upset "haters."

What do y'all think?

Share

Oooh, Y'all So Wrong

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:49:00 +0000

Outside of President Barack Obama's recent Nobel Prize, one of the biggest stories floating around the cable news networks and the web has been Harry Connick Jr.'s comments about blackface while guest judging an Australian variety show.

Based on the clip I saw, Connick was serving as a guest judge on an Austrailian variety show when an act called "The Jackson Jive" performed. The group was comprised of several white doctors who reprised their previous performance from 30 years ago mimicking the Jackson Five while wearing blackface.

Yep, blackface.

Connick has become an even bigger star because after the group's performance he awarded them a big fat zero for their score, and later talked to the crowd about the way blackface is viewed in America.

Connick added that if he had known he was going to be asked to judge a blackface act, he wouldn't have even come on the show. His response has been lauded by most folks, who also have been blasting the Aussies for the their insensitivity.

So, I'm going to talk about something else.

First, it was quite interesting to watch the response of the Australian audience to the performance, and look at the attitudes of the other folks on the show. From what I could tell, most of them had no problem with a blackface performance and found it to be a smashing success. Hell, the host of the show was damn near giddy with amusement, and one of the other judges awarded the act a 7 out of 10. However, to be fair, another judge did give the group a score of 1.

It was funny watching Connick try to discuss blackface, while attempting to avoid being "the bad guy." Any one who has discussed racism and bigotry knows that the first thing that happens when you call out people for their idiocy, is that they turn on you. They label you a downer or too sensitive, and generally come up with plenty of reasons why you should be ignored.

Connick worked hard to introduce a serious subject on a show that seems built around silliness. It was a daunting task and one I'm sure he wasn't prepared for when he rolled out of bed. So, given the circumstances, I think he did a decent job.

However, it was still galling to watch the contortions he had to make to discuss the topic. I know about Brits and their spoonful of sugar, but it was damn near ridiculous. And his attempts to avoid angering the crowd led to him saying something stupid like "We Americans have worked for years not to make African Americans look like buffoons..."

Like a friend of mine said, it was obvious what he meant. But the way he said it implied that black folks naturally look like buffoons and white people have been carefully working behind the scenes to keep this a secret. As if the problem hasn't been white people selectively portraying black folks, it's really been their inability to hide our egregious faults. Connick's phrasing was just off.

But, what really got me miffed, was how the mainstream media was falling over themselves to congratulate Connick and wag their collective fingers at the British. You would have thought Connick saved a black baby from a burning building, instead of just doing the decent thing. I mean, when you see people making racist jokes it is your job to say something no matter what color you are. It's kind of like that joke Chris Rock said about people wanting congratulations for stuff they're supposed to do. So what if you take care of your kids, you're their damn father, that's your job!

Plus, it was funny how easily the American media could decide that blackface was bad in this instance, but in other instances we get these tepid reports trying to show how the folks in blackface were really trying to make a point. The headlines were like "Connick snuffs out racism" and we know damn sure if he had said the same thing to some college kids in South Carolina, nobody would have thrown around the dreaded "R" word so easily. I guess it's much more comfortable talking about the failures of Australians than discussing our own foibles.

But, I always learned that when you point a finger at someone else, you really point three at yourself.

Share

Storm Season

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:32:00 +0000

Wind blow, tree bend.

Bend, but don't break.

Break, but don't splinter.

Splinter and suffer.

Rain fall, ground drink.

Drink, but don't gulp.

Gulp, but don't drown.

Drown and suffer.

Trouble come, man cry.

Cry, but don't wail.

Wail, but don't despair.

Despair, but don't succumb.

Succumb and suffer forever.

Share

Word Power

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:00:00 +0000

Urban Terrorism.

That catchphrase has been floating around the internet and the mainstream media for a few years now, but it recently gained prominence with the brutal death of Derrion Albert in Chicago last week. I avoided writing about Albert's death partially because I couldn't think of anything profound or worthy to say about this tragedy. I also kept quiet because I felt my opinion on what happened was so far outside of the mainstream opinion that it would only stir up trouble, and I wasn't interested in that path.

But, now I have something to say.

A good friend of mine recently described what happened to Albert as "urban terrorism." In fact, she described most of the black criminals who threaten and harm folks in the hood as terrorists. She said given their actions and the trauma they inflict on their communities she feels perfectly comfortable labeling them as such.

Obviously, we disagree.

First, I want to say that what happened to Albert was a tragedy. He seemed like a young man doing the right thing and trying to make it in a tough situation. It's horrible that his life was cut short. However, I think that the way this incident was categorized, the way the men responsible were labeled and vilified was ridiculous. Yes, they are caught on camera apparently killing Albert. But, this didn't happen in a vacuum, we must consider context.

The beating happened during a massive brawl. I don't know about most of y'all, but I've seen violent brawls with weapons up close, and nobody is really checking to see if the person they are beating is a good kid or a bad kid. Pretty much people are hitting and beating anybody they don't recognize as one of their friends. I'm not saying this is right, just saying it's normal for a brawl.

With that in mind, I'm not surprised that Albert got beaten. I'm not surprised that the men were particularly vicious. I would be surprised if the opposite occurred. This young man stumbled into a very bad situation and he was killed because of that. Not because the men who beat him were soulless humans, but because they viewed him as a potential enemy and threat due to the prevailing circumstances and they responded with force. Unfortunately, they were wrong and an innocent died.

Now, about the terrorism aspect.

I pay attention to words. It's my business and a hobby to understand how people use words and what they convey through their word choice. I have to be familiar with their denotation and connotation. In this case, I'm worried about connotation.

Terrorist and terrorism are loaded terms in today's world. Hell, they've always been loaded terms since mainstream society selectively decides who they get applied to, regardless of actions.

In the Israeli and Palestinian conflict have any of you ever heard of an Israeli group routinely labeled a "terrorist organization?" Hell, for decades the KKK and other groups behaved exactly like so-called "terrorists" but weren't given that label until very recently.

It means something to be called a terrorist. It connotes a certain evilness and unworthiness. There is no nuance to terrorists, they are just people to be feared, then hated and ultimately eliminated.

Is that really what we want the mainstream media calling folks in the hood?

It reminds of how we got such disparate laws regarding crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't some diabolical plot of "The Man." Nope. We got those laws because African Americans lobbied for their creation in response to the crack epidemic that was destroying our communities. That's right, we ASKED the government to treat us unfairly to solve a problem that the government helped to create.

Mindboggling.

I see the same thing with this urban terrorism issue. Clearly violence is a massive problem in black communities. I see it all the time, I know how bad it is. I also understand that most folks outside the hood ignore the ripple effect of that violence, how it damages the minds of young and old.

It's hard to study for a test when you're worried about a drive-by shooting on your street. It's way too easy to view 21 as "old age" when you can't think of a single man on your block who lived too far past it. It's more than the lives lost to death and prison, there are also lives lost to the conditions that violence creates.

The reason why the term "urban terrorism" was created was because black folks were crying out for some attention and assistance for our crime-ridden neighborhoods. The problems are so massive, so ingrained, that we know it's unlikely we can solve them all alone. Hell, we didn't create them all alone. But, in our rush to get assistance I feel we're inviting a response that will only exacerbate things.

Just like the government has used the crack cocaine laws to finance and populate the for-profit prison system, I can see them using "urban terrorism" to justify all manner of evil in black communities. Like I said, terrorists have no rights and neither do their neighborhoods. We see how our government treats "terrorists" in other countries, do we really think they'd hesitate to do that to black folks?

I think the hood needs help. I think it needs attention. I think it needs a lot. But what I don't think it needs is a new label that only invites trouble.

Remember the power of words.

Share

Falling Back

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:30:00 +0000

I got this bad habit.

I've told y'all about it, promised to change, but man I can't shake it. Feels like King Kong is copping a piggyback ride, and that hairy bastard got super glue on his chest.

I, Big Man, am a Debate-a-holic.

Like many folks with a dependency problem, I've long told myself it's no big deal. I could stop arguing with random people at any time. Hell, it was easy for me to cut back, to stop visiting certain sites, to stop checking the comments section. Yeah, I liked the thrill of eviscerating someone's weak argument, and I loved having folks jump on my bandwagon, but I didn't need that stuff. It was just something to pass the time.

But, I'm addicted.

I've only recently been able to acknowledge that I have a compulsion. A near uncontrollable desire to argue with people and their opinions. I'm not saying I can never control this desire because I often can. What I'm saying is that the desire never, ever goes away. It's always lurking in the pit of my stomach, waiting for a chance to force my lips or fingers to do it's bidding.

I've seen it ruin perfectly good evenings with my wife. Sometimes it forces me to waste hours of my life with strangers on the internet. I'm not saying it's all bad, but honestly, I'm hard-pressed to find a true "good" in it. Sure, I feel like I'm a better "thinker" than most folks, but how does that benefit me in the long run?

So, I've recently committed myself to toning down the arguing and teaching myself how to let people say what they want without feeling compelled to answer them. Currently, I'm failing miserably, but I have hope that I'll have a breakthrough soon enough. What I need to do is channel my ability to think critically and formulate arguments into something that is truly productive, not just entertaining.

Any suggestions?

Share

Make Me Laugh

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:03:00 +0000

Word on the street is that I'm a sourpuss.

Recently, a friend of mine sent me this article, and encouraged me to add the interviewer to the "the list."

For the ignorant, "the list" is the mythical list of racists and bigots black people walk around with in their heads. Well, at least this black person.

Anyway, after I checked out the interview I decided I shared her sentiments. I then passed along the interview to another friend of mine.

Now, this guy and I often disagree on stuff, so when I pass stuff to him it's mainly because I want a different perspective to shake myself up. I like to force myself to defend and consider all my positions so that I can be comfortable explaining why I believe what I believe. I think I told y'all about this compulsion before.

Anyway, this friend tells me that I'm be too sensitive about the article, and I've missed the point. Mainly, the interview is for laughs, and there is nothing sinister about it. He chided me for looking for a reason to be offended.

This ain't a new thing. Those of y'all who have been following the blog for a while know I've discussed sensitivity and humor.

My friend's comments made me think. Have I lost my funny bone? Has my newfound pledge to treat folks the way I want them to treat me, or more importantly, the way they would like to be treated, turned me into a simp? A boring, bland mush of unfunny?

I don't think so.

I like humor, and I can laugh at stuff that's risque. I think Dave Chappelle was a freaking genius.

That said, I'm tired of this new breed of comedy that focuses on demeaning folks for laughs. I'm tired of snarky blogs that poke fun at any and everything and turn away complaints by hiding behind the stock response of "Lighten up." Yes, being intelligent is nice, but why do so many folks need to reaffirm their intelligence by taunting others? Why is that funny?

I wrote a while back about the lack of ass whippings in the world. I stand by that sentiment. While I don't like using violence to solve problems, I cannot deny the fact that violence can be a great deterrent. When I was growing up children talked about each other all the time, but there was always the understanding that things could get physical if you crossed the wrong line.

For some cats that was a momma joke, for other cats it was something else. No matter what, everybody understood that unless we were bosom buddies, you had better be careful with your mouth if you weren't ready to fight.

This interview reminded me that without checks and balances things get out of hand. In my opinion, the interviewer was lazy, and relied on stereotypes and snark instead of actually working for real laughs.

It wasn't funny at all.

Share

Pop Quiz

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:35:00 +0000

So, let's say Big Man is a world famous writer with tons of fans. He writes masterpieces that make men weep and women swoon. He is like crack, hard and potent.

But, Big Man has demons. Particularly, he likes his women a little young. Not May and December young, but "Daddy DayCare" young. One time, Big Man gets a 13-year old girl in his home, gives her a little booze, a few pills and then proceeds to have his way with her despite her objections. Big Man later pleads guilty to having sex with minor, is given a sweetheart deal by prosecutors, but blows town because he's worried that the the judge might not go along with the plan.

Simple question here: Could you still celebrate Big Man's writing career?

Those of y'all who read or watch the news now that today's blog topic is ripped directly from the headlines, as they say. Celebrated director Roman Polankski was recently arrested by the Swiss police, and his apprehension has outraged many in the artistic community. It seems that back in 1978, Polanski participated in a situation similar to the one described above and now it's time to pay the piper.

However, Polanski's supporters think it's time to let bygones be bygones. They argue that the police should stop hounding the 76-year old who has spent the past few decades jetting around the world making movies and banging groupies. (I assume he's banging groupies, don't know this for a fact.) I actually saw where one dude argued that this whole arrest thing is "sinister," and it's been tied to this country's puritanical views about sex, and a quest to get some money from the Swiss.

How about it's tied to the fact that this cat raped a child and then jumped bail?

Come on people, let's call a spade a spade. First and foremost, this cat raped a little girl. According to the girl's account, the sex was in no way consensual. Even if she's lying about that, she was 13-years old and Polanski used alcohol and drugs to coerce her. This is an open and shut case of pedophilia, with the additional bonus of some forcible rape.

Polanski apparently only left town once he realized that a judge wasn't going to let him plead out to a lesser charge, and he decided that he didn't want to hear the other inmates holla "Short Eyes" when he hit the tier. That would have been ugly.

I really can't fathom how folks are defending old boy's actions and arguing that he shouldn't have to deal with what he did. Not only does he need to do some time for the rape, but he needs to do some time for running. If Leroy or Tyrone raped a chick and jumped bail nobody would be questioning whether they deserve to get dealt with by the law. But because this cat is handy with a video camera he's supposed to get special treatment? And Mike Vick just did two years for killing some dogs?

That's crazy talk.

If you as a person are really bothered by the fact that Polanski is catching flak for a child rape he admitted to committing, then you need to reevaluate your life. Bottom line, this ain't the kind of cat you need to be celebrating. He represents something disgusting and nasty about our world. He's the embodiment of a policy that most of us despise.

It ain't what you do, it's who you are.

Share

Pants On Fire

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:30:00 +0000

"Daddy, can I have some of that chocolate?"

"This chocolate right here? Nah, you don't want this chocolate, it's nasty."

"If it's nasty, why you eating it? Why did you eat the whole pack of chocolates?"

"Sometimes grown-ups like to eat nasty stuff, remember how I liked liver and onions and you hated it?"

"Yeah."

"Well, this chocolate tastes kind of like that, like liver and onions. You don't want liver an onions chocolate right?"

"No, I don't want that."

"Good, now go grab the remote for daddy and then go play."

The above conversation is fictional. Despite my online name, I do not eat whole packs of chocolate in a single sitting. Now, if we talking about Cool Ranch Doritos, well I'll admit to making that mistake once or twice. But, I digress.

I wrote the above conversation because it seemed like something that would happen in many American homes. A child starts asking uncomfortable questions or making demands, and a parent responds with a little white lie to smooth things over. Nothing and nobody is really hurt, since the child will probably one day laugh at the fact that he thought chocolate tasted like liver and onions.

Or, he might hate your guts.

According to this study there is an epidemic of dishonesty among parents. It appears that when the going gets tough, parents get to lying.

I don't have a lying problem. My momma beat that out of me when she caught me lying about vacuuming her room when I was seven years old. And folks say spanking doesn't work.

It's not that I don't get the urge to spin some tall ones for my little ones. Sometimes when my oldest is asking me questions, it seems much easier to answer with a little lie, then try to break down the truth. Yet, as far as I can remember, I've resisted the urge. I don't know if that means I'm really honesty, or that I have a selective memory.

Anyway, I know it seems cute to tell our kids these little lies to shut them up, but I wonder about the long-term effects of our falsehoods. When the truth is finally revealed, what happens to the parent-child relationship? I guess it's ok when they find out about Santa Claus, but what about when they find about that their "Auntie" Angie, is really the mother of their half-brothers and sisters?

My opposition to lying today is biblical now that the scars from my beating have worn off. I often wonder though if God permits some lies when they serve the greater good, or if they are always a sin. I guess it's one of those questions I'll never get answered definitively. Anyway, what I do know is that if you're one of those parents, or just plain adults, who thinks that lying to kids is no big deal you need to know one thing.

You ain't alone.

Share

The Age of Anger

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:43:00 +0000

Are you mad?

If you're like many folks in this country, you have a whole host of reasons why you're upset, and all of them feel justified. It could be your job, your family, your health or just some nebulous feeling of unease. Whatever, it is, it's making you angry.

American has been an angry place since that guy got in the oval office. You know the guy, purple lips, slim build, peculiar gait. That guy seems to have made everything worse. Civil discourse has completely disappeared, the economy is tanking, racial violence is increasing, and dammit, I can't turn on the news without having to hear about a racial issue.

What happened to my country?

In my America, people knew how to talk around important issues, we knew how to sweep certain discussions under the rug. There was not this incessant push to confront injustice, it was more about going with the flow. Don't make waves and you'll be taken care of, you know.

Look at how this new anger thing has affected the blacks. (By the way, I still don't understand why we can't say Negro. It means "black" in Spanish and it sounds so much more poetic than regular "black.") Back in my day, the blacks knew how to enjoy life. The ones who were poor had their Saturday night fun, and the ones with a little money understood how to keep to themselves.

You could be confident that if you gave a Negro, I mean a black, a hand-up he understood that you were his benefactor. He was eternally grateful to you. The blacks knew that success was a privilege and that it could be snatched from them. Althea Gibson would have never gotten cheeky like Serena Williams, and if you think Bill Russell would have dared give a speech like Michael Jordan's, well you don't know America.

And Kanye? Kanye! First of all his momma would have never named him after a pepper. And, I know he damn sure wouldn't have a career if he did that to an all-American girl in my day. It's like these Negroes have lost their tiny minds.

You know it's all because of him. He made them think they could let their hair down, that we would tolerate this sort of behavior. Sure, he says all the right things, although he showed his black buttocks with that Henry Gates thing, but beneath that placid veneer lurks an angry black man. Do y'all remember how he got all huffy when folks started making some good natured jibes about his wife? Issuing threats like he has the right to impede my free speech, how dare he!

It's like these Negroes think they can say anything now that this guy is running the show. And running it into the ground I might add. How do we go from peace and prosperity to anarchy in ten months? Well, when you start worrying about diversity and not about results, what do you expect? I don't want to sound like a racist, but any time you let certain folks get involved in stuff, well the quality deteriorates. Look at our urban areas.

What really galls me is how angry so many of the blacks are now. You would think that they would be satisfied now that they've got their guy in the White House. But you give a Negro an inch and there's no stopping him. It's like they think that the world should change immediately. Where's the patience, where's their understanding? Folks don't like disruption. Intelligent people can discuss problems without resorting to name-calling or ugliness. I wish these blacks would follow the example of real Americans.

I just want to let all the hardworking, tax-paying Americans know that I get their confusion over all this misplaced anger. Just like you, it makes me mad, and I think I deserve to be mad. It's the folks without legitimate complaints that need to learn some decorum.

Thanks for your time.

Share

Parenting 101

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:48:00 +0000

Unconditional love is a funny concept.

We hear people talking about unconditional love with their spouses or partners. We hear them talk about unconditional love with God. Most often we hear about unconditional love when folks are speaking about their children.

Unfortunately, I firmly believe that the very concept of unconditional love is flawed in our society. Check out this article for a look at how one New York Times writer views unconditional love in families.

As a parent, and a Christian, this article just doesn't sit well with me. Maybe I just don't "get it," but it seems to me that the article is basically telling folks that discipline is overrated.

That doesn't compute.

I get the idea that withholding love and affection from our children can cause serious problems. I believe that children should always understand that their parents love them even when we're doing stuff that they might view as mean. However, what I got from this article was that if you try to dictate to your little ones how they should live their lives, you are doing them a disservice and you probably don't love them unconditionally.

First, I'll say that I believe forcing your children to behave the way you think is best for them is the core job of any parent. It sounds tough, it sounds mean, but the truth is that we owe it to our children to give them the proper blueprint for life. The idea that doing this is wrong, just seems, well wrong.

Yes, children need autonomy. They must be allowed their independence to grow properly. But, that doesn't mean they just get live their lives as they see fit. That is a complete abdication of our God-ordained duties.

But, what I really want to talk about is the world's concept of unconditional love. For many people, unconditional love means that no matter what you do, somebody will love you. But, those people also think that love means being sweet, and kind and nice and wonderful.

Those people are wrong.

Love means spanking your child when he needs a spanking. It means taking away your teenager's car keys when they've shown they're not ready for the responsibility of being a driver. It means pushing your children to excel in school, even if that means they can't go outside and play with their friends. Love isn't about making people feel good, it's about doing what's good for them.

Unconditional love means that no matter what you do, no matter how you fail me or disappoint me or hurt me, I'm still going to care about what's best for you. That's what parents should show their children. That's what God shows all of us. Sometimes doing what's best for others means chastising them, but that's fine when it's done in the spirit of love.

The truth is, most young people have no idea what's best for them. I know I didn't. Young people know what they want and what they like, but beyond that, they are clueless. We adults can love them unconditionally, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't place conditions on their lives.

Class dismissed.

Share

Get It, Got It, Good

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:19:00 +0000

Apparently, I just don't "get it."

I don't get it about women. I don't get it about God. Definitely don't get it about white folks and racism. Man, it seems like on just about every topic in the world, I just don't "get it."

At least, that's what I've been told.

Any of y'all had that experience? You disagree with someone, point out what you feel is a valid and thoughtful critique of their comments, and suddenly you're being brushed off with "You just don't get it."

I call it, "The 'Get It' Complex."

This affliction affects folks of all stripes. Smart folks, dumb folks, rich and poor. People who typically enjoy nuanced conversations can contract the "get it" complex. Folks who only like to deal in the most basic cliches are victims as well. Hell, I've caught the disease myself at times.

There's nothing worse than being told that you don't "get it." It's as succinct a critique of your intelligence as you'll find. When somebody says that you don't "get it," they are basically telling you that you lack the acuity necessary for them to want to engage in any sort of debate or discussion with you. It's the ultimate brush off.

Which is why folks use it erroneously all the damn time.

Look, I'm not saying there is not a time and place for telling folks they don't "get it." Sometimes it's impossible to impart feelings or emotions to others unless they themselves have walked in your proverbial shoes. Unfortunately, too often people say "you don't get it" when they really should say "You're kicking my butt in this argument and I'm tired of losing." Or, when they should say "I just don't agree with you, but don't want to admit any merit in your position."

Honestly, I'm tired of hearing about people not "getting it," and since I hate hypocrisy, I've decided to try to eliminate the phrase from my vocabulary. Even when it's legitimate that phrase shuts down conversation. It is a slick way to belittle people, and, truthfully, I can be more creative when I want to belittle someone.

While some people truly don't "get it" most of the time, they understand our point and choose to ignore us. It's not a lack of understanding, it's a lack of agreement or empathy. The sooner we're all honest about that, the easier it will be to have productive conversations.

Get it?

Share

Perfectly Normal

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:09:00 +0000

This Newsweek story is getting some run on the web.

For some reason, it's caused people to sit up and take notice. I guess the fact that babies identify each other by race, or the idea that really young children are anything but colorblind, surprises some folks. I'm sure people are dismayed by how uncomfortable some parents are with discussing race.

Don't count me in that number.

I can't muster surprise. There is no shock. This story doesn't present me with any startling revelations, nor will it require me to reconsider my worldview. Matter of fact, I only had one reaction when I finished checking it out.

Damn, I was right again.

Now, I can't say that I've spent a lot of time musing about whether little children notice race. I've thought about it, but it hasn't been something that has consumed my attention. But, I've always believed that our attitudes about race are deeply ingrained in us due to a combination of our natural human instincts, and our societal indoctrination.

I call my oldest son my mockingbird. That little dude repeats the darnedest things, and loves to mimic my behavior. If I scold him, it's a given I'm going to catch him giving his younger brother a similar scolding. He loves to repeat random tidbits of conversation back to me and my wife and his ears are always open.

I make that point because almost all children are sponges. Just like my little boy learned to say "Michael Jackson" and bob his head at The King of Pop's music because I started playing a Greatest Hits cd, little kids learn about race and discrimination from watching their parents and the world. It's obvious. Teaching kids how to behave is cool, but they will always learn more from watching our actions.

See, we're not just fighting against the world's influences, we're fighting against human instincts. Discrimination isn't a social construct, it's a genetic mandate. In the face of limited resources, humans have always tried to figure out ways to deny access to others. It's as deeply ingrained in us as the desire to fornicate.

Therefore, the current popular idea of just avoiding race and racial discussions is stupid. It's only inviting a place for the same trite ideas about the world to flourish. Because, while certain bad habits are natural, that doesn't make them right. Often times, we need to buck our natural instincts because they do not serve our higher purpose.

Consequently, we have a responsibility to our children to have uncomfortable discussions. We must move outside of our comfort zones because comfort typically leads to stagnation. Only when we push our children on matters of race will they move beyond our failures.

Share

My Spirit Grieves

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:49:00 +0000

Some of y'all have heard the news.

Caster Semenya, who I wrote about in this post, is now dealing with the news that she may be a hermaphrodite. Semenya learned of this condition not through a discreet meeting with her family doctor, but through the sports pages of newspapers and websites across the world.

The international governing body charged with investigating Semenya's gender has not released its official report, but apparently somebody at the organization decided to leak the personal information to an Australian newspaper. That paper proudly trumpeted its "scoop," and news organizations across the world ran with the news.

And somewhere, I'm sure a young woman cried.

At least, I know I would have cried. Maybe Miss Semenya is stronger than me. Likely she's dealt with taunts and jibes about her physique and "manliness" her entire life. I'm sure those outcries only became worse when she began to dominate the other little fast girls at track and field. After all, nothing brings more hatred than dominance.

Maybe Semenya didn't cry when the news broke of her internal testes. Maybe she just shrugged and took it in ground-eating stride. But, I doubt it. After all, the recent pictures released of the runner all dolled up in makeup and jewelry, an abrupt departure from her typical look, tell me that either she or the people around her are susceptible to public pressure.

This whole thing has been a debacle. There is no other way to describe it. The life of this teenager will never, EVER be the same, and it is completely not her fault. From the initial questioning to this recent leak, it's as if the IAAF had no concern for the feelings of this young runner, and instead was hellbent on destroying her.

It's mind boggling to consider that the sports media was immediately willing to run a story based on anonymous sources that proclaimed a teenager a hermaphrodite, but when confronted with a court filing that accused a famous NFL player of rape, it took days for the news to break. Wait, scratch that, it's not mind boggling, it's perfectly understandable.

Some people's feelings and self image are important. Other people are nothing. This is the way the world has always worked, and likely it's the way it will always work.

And that's why my spirit grieves.

Share

Woodpeckers, Termites and Footstools

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:49:00 +0000

"It is difficult to say who do you the most mischief: enemies with the worst intentions or friends with the best."

Imagine yourself as a mighty oak tree, standing strong against the storms of life. Your roots reach deep into the earth. Your branches provide shade and sustenance. You are impervious to most danger, and your life is measured in centuries.

What scares you more, woodpeckers or termites?

We all have enemies. Sometimes they are people who don't like us, and who let us know they don't like us. Other times they are people who pretend to like us but, who we still know hate our guts. And too often, our enemies are disguised as our friends.

Woodpeckers are those enemies that attack you obviously and consistently. They hammer at your defenses, constantly challenging you to protect yourself. They do not try to hide their attacks because they are secure in your inability to defend yourself. Nor are their attacks malicious, they are simply looking to advance themselves and hurting you provides the best means for accomplishing their goals.

Woodpeckers can be other people, or they can be our own internal shortcomings. Some of our flaws are obvious, even to the most biased of observers. Namely, ourselves. We know where we fall short, we know who or what the enemy is, but yet we can only watch as holes are drilled in our lives.

Then there are termites. These enemies attack us from within. Often they, and the damage they do, are invisible to the naked eye. It's only when we try to take serious stock of our lives, when we truly examine the progress we're making, that we can get a full understanding of how rotten our support truly is.

Just like woodpeckers, termites can be external and internal, yet unlike woodpeckers they are easier to ignore. They are silent, small. They insidiously devour us, all while leaving behind a facade of well being and strength.

Termites scare me more than woodpeckers.

But, ultimately, at least according to the Bible, both of them will be my footstools.

Life is about perspective. As we walk along the road of life, often we stumble upon pitfalls and danger because we lack the perspective to chart a better path. Strangely enough, our enemies, the internal and external ones, can provide us with that perspective if we use them correctly.

We don't have to see our enemies as obstacles to avoid, but rather footstools to climb upon. Our enemies force us to hone our focus, they train us in how to behave. As we struggle against our enemies we gain strength, we gain courage and ultimately we gain perspective on them and ourselves.

Nobody likes enemies. Very few of us truly enjoy danger. But both things serve a purpose and the sooner we realize that purpose and conduct ourselves accordingly, the better off we will be.

Share

Fantastical Voyage

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:08:00 +0000

A while back, I finished reading Philip Jose Farmar's Riverworld saga.

For all the non-science fiction geeks, Farmar's series is considered one of the definitive works of the genre, kind of like Frank Herbert's "Dune" series, or Issac Asimov's Foundation series. Well, not on that level, but still pretty well known, I think.

Anyway, I had read a couple books in the past, but I always wanted to read the whole thing. The series describes a world where all of humanity, from the beginning of human life until 1983, is resurrected from the dead and placed on a new world alongside a massive river.

The inhabitants are largely left to their own devices in a world where, initially, there are no serious weapons and three meals a day are beamed down to everyone. They later discover that the world was created by either an advanced race of aliens, or super-developed humans.

The series explores a lot of philosophical ideas, but the author's favorite whipping boy is religion. All stripes and kinds get the treatment, but Christianity, Judaism and Islam are singled out for particular scorn.

The general feel is that the idea of the deity described in the Bible, Torah or Qu'ran being real is just too fantastical for anybody to take seriously, and those who do fall for that farce need to be branded with a massive scarlet "I" for idiot.

I thought of the Riverworld series recently while I was watching an interview between Richard Dawkins and Ben Stein. Dawkins is the self-proclaimed God-hater, while Stein likes to sell people stuff on television. Neither of them is one of my favorite people, but I was interested in the discussion.

During the interview, Dawkins explained that he's not against the idea of intelligent design, just against the idea of intelligent design by "God." He even posited that it's an "intriguing" and "plausible" theory that an advanced race of aliens began life here on Earth. But, he scoffed at the idea of a God.

See, that kind of bothered me.

As I explained to my agnostic friend, why would this guy who finds it so ridiculous to believe that there is an omnipotent and omnipresent God be willing to believe that some random aliens created Earth as a science experiment? Why is one idea deemed plausible and the other one evidence of mental instability?

Don't get me wrong, I am guilty of scoffing at other people's beliefs, particularly Scientologists. (I still can't understand how they believe in something created by a dude who said he thought religion was the best scam running. Hell the whole belief system could have been one of his novels.)

But, I've been working on that because I know it's hypocritical of me. After all, Christianity requires some pretty substantial leaps of faith. Rising from the dead? All-powerful deities who still get jealous? Virgin births? I can see why folks reject my religion as being kooky.

What I can't understand is how you can reject Christianity as being crazy, but believe that an alien might have jump-started creation. Hell, I think believing in the concept that inanimate life created animate life is wild as well. It seems like these beliefs require pretty substantial leaps of faith themselves, in my opinion.

I honestly, and truly, do not have care if people don't believe in God. It doesn't bother me. But, as my friend Deacon Blue has said on his blog, don't tell me my beliefs brand me as a retard, while refusing to admit that you've got some pretty outlandish beliefs yourself. This Dawkins guy sneers at folks who believe in something as primitive as religion, but has the audacity to advance the "alien intelligent design" theory. Come on now, man.

That's a fantastical voyage right there.

Share

Pulling the Trigger

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:27:00 +0000

BAM

There is a man lying on the floor of your home. Blood pools around his body, his flesh is visible through the hole in his clothing. His breathing is shallow and then it ceases.

You've just killed a man.

Another human being is dead by your hand.

Most of us will never know what it feels like to kill someone. Our lives have become so civilized that violent death is no longer a regular part of it.

Sure we listen to the news reports about anonymous black men in the ghetto killing and dying, but rarely do we know them. We cannot escape the reports of fresh-faced soldiers in distant lands taking and giving life, but that's not real for many of us. Despite the violence beamed into our homes and brains, most Americans have very little experience with killing.

But, for some folks, that's not the case. Check out this article.

The piece discusses the aftermath of death. The reporter spoke to several business owners who have killed someone in defense of their businesses. From what I read, it appeared that very few people are happy about the price they paid to protect their livelihood.

I've often thought about having to kill someone. I keep a weapon in my home to protect myself, my family and my things. I have no problem with killing to protect the first two items on that list, but the last item, my possessions, well sometimes I wonder about that one.

Would I feel comfortable shooting someone I saw trying to climb out of my window with a television or radio? Would I think that was a fair trade? How would that person's family view me? Would they want revenge?

I remember reading a story once about this guy who shot a man trying to steal the chrome rims from his car. Apparently the man heard his alarm go off, went to the balcony of his apartment, and saw the thief working. The guy yelled for the thief to stop, but the man kept right on stealing the rims. Finally, the man got his handgun and fired several shots killing the thief.

Was it worth it?

Part of me thinks that if a man is brazen enough to take your possessions from you, it's not long before he'll be brazen enough to take your family or your life. Y'all know the old saying "If you lie, you'll steal. And if you steal, you'll kill."

Yet, there is another part of me that knows that rarely do the people who commit property crimes become violent. Most burglars stay burglars their entire career, they don't randomly become armed robbers and rapists unless something drastic happens.

I have sympathy for these shop owners made the choice to defend their businesses and must now live with killing someone. It must be terrible to see the face of the man you killed in your dreams, particularly if you know that that same man would still be alive if he had chosen another path.

Some would say that these business owners brought their misery upon themselves by keeping weapons in their stores, but I can't endorse that worldview. It seems logical that if you're a target for robberies you would take steps to protect yourself and your things. After all, no matter how altruistic you may be, nobody wants to finance the crack and heroin habits of the neighborhood hoodlums. It makes sense that people who service tough neighborhoods would keep weapons and use them.

Still, I'm not totally sure how I would react in the moment of truth.

Recently, I walked through my home, searching for the source of a strange noise during the middle of the night. I carried my weapon with me.

My city is dangerous, and I knew that I might stumble upon someone in my house. Yet, as I crept from room to room, I found myself wondering if I would really have the ability to shoot someone if my life wasn't threatened.

Would I really be able to kill for my ipod?

Would you?

Share

noreply@blogger.com (Big Man) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:55:00 +0000