Rival Monks Throwdown

Okay, I see more and more why the old folks used to say that the "world is going to hell in a handbasket." I just saw a news report of monks fighting in the church where many people believe was the site of Jesus' tomb. I saw the article on AOL News. They were fighting in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. The fight was between Armenian and Greek orthodox monks over a piece of Jesus' cross in the 4th century AD. I'm amazed. Apparently the Israeli police break up fights among Christian sects in Jerusalem often. And the truth is this one fight is over nothing. First it's debatable where exactly the crucifiction and resurrection took place. The churches built on tradtional locations were set in place 300 years after the events really took place. And some of the best archeology and information we have says that there are other locations that fit what the Bible says. I think its on purpose that we don't know the exact locations to the nearest inch because relics and commemorating locations is not what God wants us to focus on. Jesus told us to go and make disciples of the world, not fight over relics and who has the right to what piece of land. I'm surprised the Muslims weren't in on this fight. But then why would they care about Jesus' tomb or a piece of the cross? Yeah...answered my own question

Suing Christians

The reason why people are concerned that ministers can be sued for not supporting gay marriage is because such things have happened before. You have stated that the Mormon allowed Blacks and outlawed polygamy. These are examples of faith and practice being changed due to government interference. The federal government said to the Mormons that we will jail you if you continue polygamy because you are breaking the laws of the United States. I've studied some history of the Mormon church by looking at apologetic debates and this is a hot topic as to how valid some of the claims of the Mormons (which I will not get into here). For more see the work of Dr.Walter Martin who was excellent at witnessing and talking to Mormons with gentleness and respect. The point is that Mormons did not get rid of polygamy on their own. The top leader at the time "heard" from God and due to that "revelation" they got rid of polygamy after the government made an issue of it. Please research this if you don't believe me.

On top of that black people were barred from the Mormons because they were not considered human or worthy of salvation since the days of their Founder, Joseph Smith. They only started to allow Black people because of the weight of the civil rights movement in the 1960's.

I do not think that its good idea to assume that gay people will not be able to sue churches to make them accept homosexuality because it's already happening in the United Kingdom. I saw a story in the past few month. Look at this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417582/Vicars-sued-refusing-bless-gay-weddings-fears-Church.html

In addition, just recently, Bible Publisher Zondervan is being sued for their translation of the Bible because it hurts the feelings of the homosexual platiff named Bradley Fowler. His complaint is with 1 Corinthians 6:9 and how it lists homosexuality in a list of sins. See http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/zondervan-faces-60m-federal-lawsuit-over-bible-homosexuality/

Fowler said that it's a mistranslation. Here is a list of several translations and how that verse is rendered: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9;&version=31;9;49;50;

Each translation says the same thing but not in the same English words. In the Greek the offending word is "aresenokotes" (Strong's number: 733) and the lexicon I own is "one engaging in homosexual acts, sexual deviant". As far as I know when the 1st Century readers read "aresenokotes" the understood Paul was writing about Homosexuals....what they do as being offensive not who they are or something that God cannot deliver them from. Here is the whole passage,verses 9 and 10 (NIV):

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Star Wars: Clone Wars Comic

Here is the link: http://www.starwars.com/clonewars/comic/index.html

Proposition 8 Passed in California

As you probably know Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, squeaked by in California. I voted for it because I see no reason for re-defining marriage. I thought that homosexuals had almost the same rights as heterosexual married couples, so there was no reason to change what "marriage" means. I found out that I was wrong. In California, homosexual couples in "domestic partnerships" have the same rights as traditional married couples. Look at Domestic Partnerships in California. Here is some information from that article:

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple.

As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). Among these:

• Making health care decisions for each other in certain circumstances
• Hospital and jail visitation rights that were previously reserved for family members related by blood, adoption or marriage to the sick, injured or incarcerated person.
• Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
• Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..), this applies to all forms of insurance through the California Insurance Equality Act (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
• Sick care and similar family leave
• Stepparent adoption procedures
• Presumption that both members of the partnership are the parents of a child born into the partnership
• Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
• Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
• The same property tax provisions otherwise available only to married couples (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
• Access to some survivor pension benefits
• Supervision of the Superior Court of California over dissolution and nullity proceedings
• The obligation to file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) commencing with the 2007 tax year (Cal R&T Code §18521d)
• The right for either partner to take the other partner's surname after registration
• Community property rights and responsibilities previously only available to married spouses
• The right to request partner support (alimony) upon dissolution of the partnership (divorce)
• The same parental rights and responsibilities granted to and imposed upon spouses in a marriage

Eligibility

Currently, a couple that wishes to register must meet the following requirements:

1. Both persons have a common residence.
2. Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
3. The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in California.
4. Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
5. Either of the following:
   • Both persons are members of the same sex.
   • The partners are of the opposite sex, one or both of whom is above the age of 62, and one or both of whom meet specified eligibility requirements under the Social Security Act.
6. Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic partnership.

Update: Robert Downey Jr's Comments on ReCast

I saw an article today at ReelComix.com that contained what Robert Downey, Jr thinks about the casting fiasco on Iron Man 2. As I have blogged earlier, Terrence Howard has been replaced by Don Cheadle to play James Rhodes/War Machine in Iron Man 2 and Avengers. Robert Downey Jr. plays Tony Stark/Iron Man. Here is what Robert Downey Jr said about the casting problem:

“It’s one of those situations where I still don’t quite know what
happened or why. Here’s what happens too: things happen and you wind up
commenting on them before you’ve actually talked to the people and it’s
in poor taste.”

I was glad to see him take the high road...not burning any bridges. Smart! You never know you will have to work with...or for....again. However, it does not answer any questions. I mean was Terrence Howard screwed or not? The story still isn't clear, but to summarize how I understand it from the article I have read:

The Studio is saying that Howard was paid more than anyone else on the first Iron Man because he signed on first (No idea how). They say that he was horrible to work with. They say that they weren't happy with his performance and had to cut and re-shoot a lot. They paired down his role in Iron Man 2 and offered him 50-80% less than what he earned in the first film and Howard said no. So they offered the role to Don Cheadle in Iron Man 2 and Avengers.

The problem is that no interview I have read can confirm that Howard did badly or that the Rhodes role was ever paired down. He got glowing reviews from nearly everyone connected to making Iron Man. Still sounds fishy. Howard himself said that he read about his firing in the trades like everyone else. I've not heard Jon Favreau weigh in on this at all. I know he is prepping the next movie so he is busy but I wanna know what happened because I was looking forward to seeing War Machine on the screen and I think Terrence can pull it off. The reason why the first movie worked was because Robert Downey Jr made Tony Stark believable as a genius who plays be his own rules and a man crazy enough to strap himself into a suit like that, fly around, and force people to not misuse his creations. In order for War Machine to work, you have to believe that James Rhodes is the kind of man who is so loyal and dedicated to protecting others that he is willing to risk putting that thing on. I believe Terrence Howard would....I'm not sure if Don Cheadle can sell it.

Obama Through the Lens of Superman

I found a couple of video on YouTube that Celebrate Obama's historic election as President and mixes in scenes from the very first 2 Superman movies and 2006's Superman Returns.

SuperBarack


"Obama Returns" DNC '08 Nomination Trailer (Superman Remix)

Canonicity Part 3: The Book of Enoch

In 2001 and 2002 I explored the notion that there were books missing from the Bible by way of studying Genesis 6:4 which says:

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

I was intrigued by who the "Nephilim" were/are. The King James Version translates the word as "Giants". In Hebrew "Nephilim" mean "fallen one" or "to fall". The Bible connects the Nephilim to men who are described as nearly monstrously tall and large, also called . Men like Goliath (1 Samuel 17:4) - whom David slew, the man described in 2 Samuel 21:20 and 1 Chronicles 20:6, men who were sometimes referred to as Anakites (Numbers 13:33, Joshua 11:22; Deuteronomy 1:28), Og king of Bashan (who was an Rephaites - Deuteronomy 3:11), and others. Using this information, 2 separate explanations as to who the Nephilim are have been proposed...both are Orthodox...and they hinge on the identities of the "son of God".

Some people use Job 1:6 which in the KJV refers to angels as "sons of God". this would mean that angels fathered children by human women. Then it doesn't take much imagination that children of angels would be bigger and stronger then pure humans. This idea is bolstered by the Book of Enoch which emphatically states that this is what happened. However, not everyone agrees that this is the correct understanding of who the Nephilim are because of two reasons. First, "sons of God" elsewhere in the Old Testament refers to human beings and second, because Jesus said angels do no marry (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25) and therefore we conclude that angels cannot have sex or procreate.

I am not leaning toward the interpretation that "sons of God in Genesis 6 is not referring to angles because it cannot be corroborated with the rest of the 65 books that I know are scripture. However when I was flirting with the idea that the Book of Enoch was truly inspired, I researched how we go the copy we have today and looked at if the 1st Century church used the Book of Enoch as scripture. What I found out was that the oldest copies we have are more than 2000 years old, dating back to the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We don't have any Hebrew copies nor do we know what original language it was written in. The copy I have is translated from a Coptic copy. If it was really written by the real Enoch, it would have to be extremely old. Enoch was first mentioned in Genesis 5:19 - seven generations from Adam. This make me doubt that he wrote it. However the rub is that the Book of Enoch is quoted in Jude 1:14,15 which we know the book of Jude is divinely inspired. The passage says:

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

The question I was asking was: If a book is quoted in scripture, does that mean the book is also scripture? Going back to the first canonicity post I wrote, I have to apply the criteria scripture gives. Under that criteria I have to conclude that no the Book of Enoch is not scripture. Don't believe me? Read it yourself:

Get your own - Open publication

Okay, I know what you're asking. The same question I asked upon reaching this conclusion: Does this mean that Jude is not inspired either? Jude is inspired according to the criteria scripture sets up. Obviously, first century Jews and Christians had access to the Book of Enoch but we know it was not part of the Jewish canon. I think that the fact that Jude quotes the Book of Enoch because it was a common piece of literature his readers were familiar with and illustrated the points he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to make. Here is an illustration: if a preacher quotes a movie or a book...does that make the movie or book scripture, even if the point being made is true? No. I often wonder if there be a confusion 2000 years from now about what Christians today consider scripture with all the different texts and denominations floating around today. I wonder because some of us are more familiar with the Left Behind books than we are with scripture.

“IN TEARS" OBAMA OFFICE TELEPHONE BANK CALLERS

Check this Out. Mrs. Scelestine Langston is a mother in the Church of God in Christ. Her first son, Bishop James L. Langston, Jr is a bishop in the church of God in Christ.

Contact: Dr. Louis C. Langston
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Cell Phone: (510) 582-3461
Email: "Sandra Langston"

“IN TEARS" OBAMA OFFICE TELEPHONE BANK CALLERS
"Volunteer Caller, 100 years of age Matriarch"




Photo L to R.- Ms. Diskowski, Bishop James Langston, Mrs. Sandra Langston, Armand Burns, Dr. Louis Langston, Mrs. LaJuanah Lunceford, Mrs. Scelestine on Telephone
==============<><><>==============
Berkeley, California, October 28, 2008 – Obama Headquarters Office welcomed the unexpected 100 year old, Mrs. Scelestine Langston. She was accompanied by her forth generation son, a first time voter, Armand Burns; her first son, Bishop James L. Langston, Jr.; her seventh son and his wife, Dr. Louis C. and Sandra M. Langston; and her second daughter, LaJuanah R. Langston-Lunceford. The staff and volunteers in the crowded office were aggressive in calling and working the telephone banks to Get-Out-The-Vote.

Ms. Dawn Diskowski, Phone Bank Captain, and Bishop Langston, assisted Mrs. Scelestine Langston in making her first call to Jonathan Christman of Norwalk, Ohio. Christman was very surprised to receive an out-of-state, get-out-the-vote call from the 100 year old great-great grandmother but happily promised her he would go out and vote for Obama.

Mrs. Langston’s fourth generation son, Armand Burns, said he was encouraged to register to vote after listening to his great-grandmother. She told him and the others listening that her life has come full circle and is now complete. Her faith in God is unyielding; her family is intact; and with the real possibility of Obama’s becoming the nations forty-fourth president, her belief in change makes more sense now than it ever has. To use Obama's words, she is now embued with hope.

The 100-year old matriarch, Mrs. Langston, the oldest of three children, was born to Louis and Orelia Jenkins on March 8, 1908 in Jeanerette, Louisiana. She gave birth to 11 children.

Two Glimpses Into the Future

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 gave us 2 glimpses into the future. First, we found out who the next President is: Barack H. Obama Jr! Second, we saw the next iteration of remote conferencing technology: Holographic News Correspondents! I was blown away to see Anderson Cooper of CNN interviewing Will.I.AM. Anderson was in New York. Will.I.Am. was in Chicago. It was a Full, free-standing hologram, interacting in real-time! They even showed the hologram from the rear. Will.I.Am even did a little dance at the beginning and ending of the interview. It was like the hologram of Princess Leia projected by R2D2 in Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope (1977,1997), only it wasn't blue. I thought it was a trick. But it seems that it was real. Also it turns out that they had used the technology earlier that day, when Wolf Blitzer interviewed Jessica Yellin. G4TV also reports that the very first time the technology has been used was in Australia:

This however, is not the first time this technology has been utilized. In May, Australian company Telstra "beamed" a hologram of its Chief Technology Officer from Melbourne to 460 miles away in Adelaide.

I scoured the Internet for about how the technology works. Gizmodo had the answer:

CNN's holographic election coverage is fancy pantsy, but how did they manage to send 3D 360 degree footage of virtual correspondent Jessica Yellin from Chicago all the way to the station's election center in NY? As Arthur C. Clarke says, Magic. A magic made possible from technology Vizrt and SportVu with the help of forty-four HD cameras and twenty computers. Here are the details.

On the subject's side:
• 35 HD cameras pointed at the subject in a ring
• Different cameras shoot at different angles (like the matrix), to transmit the entire body image
• The cameras are hooked up to the cameras in home base in NY, synchronizing the angles so perspective is right
• The system is set up in trailers outside Obama and McCain HQ
• Not only is it mechanical tracking via camera communication, there's infrared as well
• Correspondents see a 37-inch plasma where the return feed of the combined images are fed back to them. Useful for a misplaced hair or an unseemly boogar
• Twenty "computers" are crunching this data in order to make it usable

On the HQ side:
• Only used on two out of 40-something total camera feeds that CNN has
• Wolf Blitzer really loves it (or loves Jessica Yellin):

It's still Jessica Yellin and you look like Jessica Yellin and we know you are Jessica Yellin. I think a lot of people are nervous out there. All right, Jessica. You were a terrific hologram.

• The delay is either minimal, or we've gotten used to satellite delay that we don't even notice now
• An array of computers takes the crunched info feed from the subject's side in order to mesh it with the video from Wolf's side.
• Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the images are actually "projected" onto the floor of the CNN studio so that Wolf can actually talk to the person, you know, in a face to face. So it's not quite Star Wars just yet. Only after computers merge the video feeds together do you get a coherent hologram + person scenario

Here is a video of the system in action!!!

CNN debuts hologram @ Yahoo! Video

I want one of these!!!!

Obama Wins! November 4, 2008

I am almost speechless. I don't even know what to say. Barack Obama has actually succeeded in becoming President of the United States Of America. I heard McCain's concession speech. I was really good, classy, kind, amazingly honorable. I regained respect for John McCain in that speech. As for Obama's victory speech, it was perfect. Obama did not seem to let the success go to his head but allowed him to ask Americans to think and not just be all emotional. He told it like it is: This is not going to be easy, there are tough times and choices ahead. He said that this is just the beginning and not the end that he and his supporters have been fighting for. I was really, really impressed.

Here is Barack Obama's Victory Speech



Here is John McCain's Concession Speech

Updated: To Sean Hannity: Don't Drink the "Haterade"

If you haven't watched Sean Hannity on Fox News, you have missed some of the most biased journalism I have ever witnessed. He seems to hate Barack Obama and seems personally insulted. I think that it is good that people should scrutinize Obama, but it should be truth. Hannity seems to be trying to find anything at all to disqualify Obama from being President, and he can't do any better than the lies, falsehoods, and fact-manipulation that we have witnessed throughout the campaign from Fox News. This list was broadcasted last week and by now you probably realize that most Americans ignored Hannity, but I think its worth looking at why his list doesn't make sense. If this is his reasons why he would not vote for Barack Obama, this list represents why I did.



I made some notes on his points, I have to ask "Is that all you got?" His points are in bold my comments are in bold red

10. Judgement - Questionable Associations
a. Jeremiah Wright
b. Father Flagger - connected to Farrakan
c. William Ayers
d. Frank Marshall - Poet, Communist
e. Tony Resco - felon
f. Rashid Kalide -Palenstenian who says that it is ok to resist Israel
g. Percy Sutton - Dr. Kahlid Almon Sur (Black Panther Party mentor; Black
Nationalist; hates Israel;
Asserts Obama's associations would not allow him to be an FBI Agent

Well I guess its good then that Obama is not trying to be an FBI agent huh? I agree that who you choose to hang around with does speak to who you are, but each of these people have either been misrepresented or the attempt to connect them to Obama is tenuous at best. C'mon, you know people who are not exactly law-abiding too. Does that make you a bad person? No!

9. Media Darling - appoints him a celebrity, supported by hollywood, no critical
view or analysis on him or positions.
a. His associations
b. Redistribution of wealth


Did you hear one of the criticisms that Hannity uses in the clip: 9. Media Darling. Hanniyt's problem with Obama is that the media has made him a media darling. So was John F. Kennedy. So was Ronald Reagan. So what? Hannity claimed that the media has not scrutinized Obama enough. Hannity is part of the media. He might as well say he hasn't done his job. His argument is that we should not vote for Obama because liberal Hollywood and the media like him. Can't he do better than that? He also insinuates that Obama has been linked with radical and terrorist men and the media has done nothing to call him on it. What does he want the media to do? Round up a posse and lynch Obama? What I saw was that Obama knows a lot of people, some of whom he disagree with. none of them are less American than you or me. With each of the people he brings up you can't say any of them are un-American or criminals. If you do, then so are Bush, Cheney, and many others. Can't he do better than that? I think the mainstream media did not pursue these stories because they are non-issues. Everyone has associations with some people that other's don't like. Hannity seems to think that Obama should shun people that Hannity do not like or disagrees with. What is this? High school?

8. Joe Biden - was a bad VP pick. I don't see Biden putting his foot in his mouth all
the time, Just Hannity twisting his words

I've posted on this point before, but I want to re-iterate that I think Biden is correct that some of enemies may decide to see how far they can push us because they want to test Obama. So. I don't think they would not test McCain. Our enemies think we are weak, decadent, immoral, and about to collapse at any time. They think god is on their side. Why wouldn't they hit us regardless of who is President?

7. Consistency -flip flops too much
a. October 2007 - no flag Lapel
b. Accepty public financing
c. Immediately withdraw troops
d. FISA Bill
e. Jerusalem must be undivided, next day changed
f. Withdraw from NAFTA

When is changing your mind or opinion flip flopping? According to Sean Hannity, there is no difference. Makes no sense. It's like he has already decided not to vote for Obama and now is trying to rationalize that choice.

6. Out of the Mainstream - Elite, clinging to education
a. Looks down on average Americans
b. Against Abortion
c. Sex education to kindergarteners
d. Too much gun control
e. Provide amnesty to illegal immigrants

Here, Hannity's jealousy really comes through. His tone seems to dismiss Obama as if to say, "How dare he be black and intelligent and educated, challenging all of my pre-conceived thoughts and prejudices about what Black men are like!"

5. Too many democrats - no check and balance on liberal agendas
a. Universal health care
b. New Supreme Court
c. Compromised National Security

Hannity paints a nightmare scenario where Democrats will have the power to pass any liberal laws and ideas they want without restraint if they have the Presidency and control of Congress. I think that he may be unable to sleep tonight. We will still have the Supreme Court to act as a check and balance. Ordinary citizens made their influence felt in this election using the Internet, I doubt that this influence will not play a role in an Obama administration.

4. Divisive Politics
a. Farakahan calls him a "messiah"
b. John Louis compared McCain to George Wallace

Asserts racially tinged rhetoric but with no examples

3. Taxes and Spending
a. People who don't pay taxes will get a check for the government.
b. Scaring other countries from doing business for us

With the economic brain trust advising him, I think Obama has more an idea of what to do about the economy more than Hannity.

2. Foreign Policy
a. Inexperienced
b. Will draw our enemies to attack us
c. Sitting down with enemy nations without pre-conditions.

1. Lack of Experience
a. Used the rhetoric from the Democratic Primaries campaign where Clinton
and Biden said Obama was not ready.



Sean Hannity remarked that Obama has done nothing major or important to be where he is. My question is what has Sean Hannity done to deserve his won television show? I have never heard of him before Fox News. What makes his opionions so important that he should be on the air waves? Not even enough. At least as a community organizer, Obama did touch people's lives. And as a Senator, you touch lives just by going to work, not to mention the legislation and other duties Obama has performed. What has Hannity done that touched any lives? Sean Hannity, stop hating. You seem very jealous that you have not had the same level of success in life as Barack Obama. In addition, John Kennedy, Carter, Truman, and several other Presidents had very little Foriegn Policy experience but made a great Presidents. Also I am amazed at how nasty the compaigns was and now that it's over, I wonder how can they just put aside all the spilled blood and work together. After the things Biden and Hillary Clinton said, Obama has seemed to let all that go and work with them. This is something else that I think will make him a great President.

Theololgy and Biology

Here is a video from GodTube discussing on how God has designed our bodies. It may explain the reasons behind the soaring divorce rates and infertility in countries where the pill and other chemical contraceptives are prevalent.

Facts about the Koran

Here is a short video explaining the "Doctrine of Abrogation". In it, Muslim reconcile contradictory passages in the Koran by annulling the older passage. We have no such issue when it comes to the Bible because there is no example of passages blatantly contradicting one another no matter how you look at the context and culture of the time in which they were written.

Obama and History

The following was sent to me today:

Crispus Attucks fell so that Rosa Parks could sit, Rosa Parks sat so that Dr. Martin Luther King could march, Dr. Martin Luther King marched so that Barack Obama could run, and Barack Obama is running so that our children and grandchildren can fly."

I have ambivalent feelings about this. I am ecstatic that a Black family has gotten this close to the White House without being maids, butlers, day-laborers, or slaves. As long as we keep realistic expectations on who Obama is and what he can do, we will be okay. Although there are some misguided attempts to paint him in messianic terms, I have never heard Obama make any such claims. We must be careful to not put him on a pedestal that he, nor anyone else but Jesus Christ, can stand on.

Update: Terrence Howard and Iron Man 2

I just read on ReelComics.com and /Film more information about why Terrence Howard was not recast (read fired) as James Rhodes in Iron man 2. Marvel is saying that because Terrence was the first to sign on, he ended up being paid more than anyone else, but there is no explanation as to how this could happen. It was also reported that the director and producers were not satisfied with Howard's work on the first Iron Man. That does not make sense because I heard them say that all the actors were great. There was talk about scaling back the Rhodes role in the sequel and offering Howard 50%-80% less money than what he signed up for. No wonder he said "No." Even before the first movie came out they promised that if there was going to be sequel James Rhodes as War Machine would play a major role. It all sounds fishy to me. Apparently with Don Cheadle signed on, War Machine's back in a major way. Mr. Cheadle needs to watch his back because apparently Marvel Film execs did not get the memo that the civil rights legislation passed. It's not right to break contracts and just treat people that way. I think they could have worked harder to work something out with Terrence Howard. I'm not sure who to believe, but we are not getting the whole truth.

Sarah Palin Tricked

Sarah Palin was recently tricked into thinking that she was on a phone call with the President of France, named Nicolas Sarkozy. I've attached a YouTube video to this post that records that calls. The prank was on the radio by 2 Canadian "shock jocks". Palin seemed incredibly clueless. Even when the call got outlandished. I think Palin should have known something was up when "President Sakozy" referred to Hustler magazine's porno, called "Who's Nailin Paylin", as a biographical film about her that he liked. At best it is a filthy parody and at worst real porno. I would have thought that she would have known about it and would have been outraged. She reminded me of women in film or rap videos who don't realize that they are being exploited.



I really thought that is was a hoax and that nothing like that could every really happen, but now that other sources have confirmed this I'm really worried that McCain gave Sarah Palin too much credit as a running mate. I, under any circumstances, do not want to see someone that clueless in power.

Importance of Voting

I just received e-mail that points to a video created by Color of Change.org and it is well-done. It gives a historical background summary of election frauds in 2000 and 2004. Please share it and view it.

A Letter That Should Be Read

October 31, 2008 I recieved a forwarded e-mail from a White man who was a member of Jeremiah Wright's congregation longer than Obama. What he has to say about Rev. Wright as a Pastor is very telling about who he is and how much of a distortion that the media has done in an effort to Obama. You can find the original letter at: Trinity United Church of Christ Celebrates Diversity: One man shares his experience with Rev. Wright.

Trinity United Church of Christ celebrates diversity. One man shares his experiences with Rev. Wright

Rev. Wright in a different light
By William A. Von Hoene Jr. **click to read the entire article**
March 26, 2008

I have been a member of Trinity, a church with an almost entirely African-American congregation, for more than 25 years. I am, however, a white male. From a decidedly different perspective than most Trinitarians, I have heard Wright preach about racial inequality many times, in unvarnished and passionate terms.

In Obama's recent speech in Philadelphia on racial issues confronting our nation, the senator eloquently observed that Rev. Wright's sermons reflect the difficult experiences and frustrations of a generation.

It is important that we understand the dynamic Obama spoke about.

It also is important that we not let media coverage and political gamesmanship isolate selected remarks by Wright to the exclusion of anything else that might define him more accurately and completely.

I find it very troubling that we have distilled Wright's 35-year ministry to a few phrases; no context whatsoever has been offered or explored.

I do have a bit of personal context. About 26 years ago, I became engaged to my wife, an African-American. She was at that time and remains a member of Trinity. Somewhere between the ring and the altar, my wife had second thoughts and broke off the engagement. Her decision was grounded in race: So committed to black causes, the daughter of parents subjected to unthinkable prejudice over the years, an "up-and-coming" leader in the young black community, how could she marry a white man?

Rev. Wright, whom I had met only in passing at the time and who was equally if not more outspoken about "black" issues than he is today, somehow found out about my wife's decision. He called and asked her to "drop everything" and meet with him at Trinity. He spent four hours explaining his reaction to her decision. Racial divisions were unacceptable, he said, no matter how great or prolonged the pain that caused them. God would not want us to assess or make decisions about people based on race. The world could make progress on issues of race only if people were prepared to break down barriers that were much easier to let stand.

Rev. Wright was pretty persuasive; he presided over our wedding a few months later. In the years since, I have watched in utter awe as Wright has overseen and constructed a support system for thousands in need on the South Side that is far more impressive and effective than any governmental program possibly could approach. And never in my life have I been welcomed more warmly and sincerely than at Trinity. Never.

I hope that as a nation, we take advantage of the opportunity the recent focus on Rev. Wright presents—to advance our dialogue on race in a meaningful and unprecedented way. To do so, however, we need to appreciate that passion born of difficulty does not always manifest itself in the kind of words with which we are most comfortable. We also need to recognize that the basic goodness of people like Jeremiah Wright is not always packaged conventionally.

Obama on the Bible Redux

With Election Day immediately upon us, there has been several videos posted on GodTube and YouTube accusing Obama of mocking the Bible. I blogged on this months ago, but since its rearing it's ugly head, I've got to comment on it. The most divisive part of the speech is the part that is being clipped out and distributed around the internet. Here it is:



I must say first I disagree with Obama's assertions. The Bible is just as relevant today as it ever was and will always be relevant. This is the truth. As a Christian, I believe this and know that its more true and more relevant than any religious text that has or ever will be written. That being said many of us Christians are under the delusion that America is a "christian" nation that follows the Bible and loves God. It could be argued that it never was. This is not an indictment or criticism against the country I love, just an observation, that I will develop into a more extensive article, and not the point of this post. The only way for Obama to be elected is to appeal to all Americans not just Christians. I believe him when he says (if you watch the whole speech) that he believes America is now more than a just a Christian nation. Buddism. Mormonism. Jehovah Witness. The Occult. And so many other religions are in American society and jockeying for postion in the American heart and mind. In recognizing this, Obama was saying that the state could not use the Bible, or Koran, or any other religion to set policy - separation of church and state. This was the soul of his message in that speech. I think it's unfortunate what he said about the Bible because I disagree. I reject the notion that all religions can co-exist and play nice. Uneasy tolerance is the best we can hope for. The basis of who we are, as Christians, is that Jesus died for the sins of mankind and rose again in power and reality. Every other religion denies this fact. We can all be wrong...but we can't all be right.

Unfortunately, many people who claim to be Christian today do not hold a high view of scripture and erroneous views the Bible as literature, but not God-given or inspired by him. That's unfortunate. You may even be able to argue that these people are not truly Christians. Even if you apply this logic to Obama, you have to apply the same logic to McCain. He, nor his staff, have behaved any better in this campaign than Obama and his staff have. Bearing false witness against some one is a sin and God does not like it. The McCain campaign has repeated labeled Obama as a socialist. He is not. If you think Obama is a socialist, then you don't know what a socialist is. That is just as anti-Christ as Abortions, same-sex unions, and not honoring scripture enough to obey it. For this reason, I don't think that this excludes me from voting for Obama. In my opinion, McCain is just as off theologically as Obama. And Obama is the lesser of the two evils.

If you have not seen the whole speech, please check out my previous post: Obama's View on Bible.

McCain Spokesman Mike Goldfarb Gets Owned by CNN's Rick Sanchez

You have got to see this. I can't believe how dramatic the "news" has become. I was glad to see a journalist call the person he is interviewing to the carpet. People who talk in public should be held accountable for whatever they say!



It was later reported by this same reporter that Mike Goldfarb was insinuating that Rev Jeremiah Wright is an anti-semite like Rashid Khalidi. CNN also said that they checked with the Anti-Defamation League and the League said that they do not, nor have they ever, counted Wright as an anti-semite.