Hopeful Diarist

Me and God

2010-03-14T12:16:00.001-07:00

In the beginning there was my father, my mother and four rowdy siblings, and I almost had the distinction of being the youngest until two more brothers popped up, three and ten years later, respectively. Unfortunately, our Catholic family carried a special kind of shame; my father had been married before he met Mom, so no Holy Communion for them in the Catholic church.

Our family religiously attended Mass every Sunday; and until seventh grade, I attended parochial school, which often meant daily Mass. Back then, service was in Latin. Of course, I didn’t understand a word that was being said; nevertheless, I developed a close relationship with God. In fact, when I was in middle-school, I once told a friend that I spoke with God. Her biting response was, "Well, it’s a one-way conversation!”

By the time I was in my late teens, my religious attendance was more hit-or-miss than faithful. One Sunday morning, I was super late for service and the church was teeming with people crowding the back of the church. Rather than go home, I opted to go to the empty sanctuary in the basement. During the celebration of Mass, I had rarely experienced a sense of intimacy with the Lord, even if by then Catholics were celebrating in English. But on that day, I felt God’s love and light. I'd poured my heart to Jesus and asked for His guidance and forgiveness. I also asked Him to please always be with me.

With hindsight, I have no doubt that His grace on that day paved the way for my deliverance twenty years later. That Sunday was to be the last time I mindfully attended a worship service until two decades later when the lemmings of sin brought me back to my knees and Him. By then, I had married a tormented soul who was wonderful when sober but wretched when drinking. And in 1991, I needed divine help!

Someone once said that coincidence is simply God choosing to remain anonymous. In my case, my ex-husband’s disease was God’s call for me to repent and return to Him. I can now view my life and discern the holy synchronicities that nudged my spirit this way or that way; and it is this perspective that gives me peace. Yes, I still have moments of darkness filled with fear and doubt, but then the Holy Spirit unmistakably raps me on the shoulder and lets me know that Jesus is real; and they are occasions of sheer bliss and delight that I choose to recall during my flashes of mistrust. The Bible tells us in Luke 23:46 that Jesus with his last breaths "cried out with a loud voice, 'Father into thy hands, I commit my spirit.'” For me, these are the words that lead to salvation on earth.

Obama - The Insensitive Wordsmith

2008-05-09T10:16:00.002-07:00

In today's news, Howling Latina came across an interesting article about McCain decrying Barry's mean-spirited word usage.

Equal to the time when Obama arrogantly dismissed Hillary's sharp attacks on his shameless unity schtick as simply Hillary doing what she periodically does when there is a full moon, claws out like a she-wolf with no sense of temperance, Obama's threw a rhetorical bomb again. This time it was McCain's turn to feel the hope and unity.

ABC reports that McCain's campaign ain't too happy with the little "insulting dig at Sen. John McCain's age" Obama made during one of his "reach-across-the-aisle-and-rally-the country" interview.

In an interview on CNN, Obama accused McCain of trying to "smear" him by saying that the Palestinian militant group Hamas favored his candidacy.
"And so for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his
bearings as he pursues this nomination," Obama said.
The McCain campaign said the "losing his bearings" comment was an underhanded reference to the fact that McCain is 71 years old.
Mark Salter, one of the advisers, said, "Obama's attack today: He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning." "That quote is a not-so-subtle attempt by Obama to insinuate the age issue into the race," another McCain adviser said. " He attacks viciously with subtlety and innuendo. Nobody suggested he supports Hamas. We have said the North American spokesman (for Hamas) has talked about how wonderful it would be if he were president of the United States."

Are we starting to see a pattern here??? Attack your opponent in ambigious doublespeak. Claim total innocence. Keep attacking and ducking. Bully supporters of opponents; force them to quit; clear the field. Claim your crown.

Yep, that's Barry. Like George Bush, he just can't help uniting folks even if it kills your opponent. Don't worry, you can always claim they had it coming for not quitting.

Obama - The Insensitive Wordsmyth

2008-05-09T10:16:00.001-07:00

wordsmythe.

2008-05-08T17:48:00.001-07:00

Black Agenda Report.

test

2007-07-26T13:30:00.001-07:00

An “F” for the A-Team

2006-09-15T16:06:00.000-07:00

The A-Team has a post about a classified ad from the Webb campaign. That’s right, boys and girls, hot off the press, this non-story has hit the Virginia blogosphere.

Hmmm, isn’t that like writing an entire boring post about how the Washington Zoo pandas took a dump at a nearby tree? In other words, who gives a hoot?!?

Howling Latina supposes that when your candidate has been part of the do-nothing Congress with little to show except for war profiteers, corporate moguls, oil executives, the credit card and insurance industry and the uber rich, what else can you do but talk about your challenger and any sliver of information no matter how ho-hum.

It not like Allen has done anything lately…I mean besides steal a piece of legislation. Oh my dear wingnuts, wonder ye then why Democrats refuse to give you any policy specifics, you band of hatchet thieves?

As to the misnamed A-Team with their fake promise of phone numbers and e-mail addresses; alas, the A-Team was just ‘funning.’ And like a boatload of GOPers, they don't follow through on their implied word.

No phone number. No e-mail. Just as they write, “Did you really think I’d give out the contact information?”

Well, actually I did; henceforth, a big fat “F” for the A-Team on credibility.

Another Gripping Lie

2006-08-25T04:50:00.000-07:00

A death-row inmate at Ohio State Penitentiary will be executed unless a federal court intervenes; once again the condemning evidence is mere testimony from witnesses who were either given immunity or had charges reduced.

In the case of Tyrone Noling of Ohio, three gang-bangers testified against him during trial. Of course, an overly ambitious prosecutor had earlier threatened them with the needle or life in prison unless they told the truth. That is, corroborate evidence which he carefully spelled out by giving them exact details of the crime scene and killings or else...

The only eyewitnesses to the murders were Butch Wolcott, the star witness who received immunity, and Gary St. Clair and Joey Dalesandro. There were no matching fingerprints and DNA evidence at the scene did not square with any of the three men.

In other words, without testimony from the former gang members, the prosecution had nada, zip, zero to tie Mr. Noling to the killing of Bearnhardt Hartig and his wife, Cora, an elderly couple in their 80s.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer recently outlined in a 2755-word article how the prosecution won the capital murder case using unscrupulous antics. "The case against Noling." they write, "is shot through with inconsistencies."

[T]he slain couple wasn't robbed. Noling's guns weren't used to kill the Hartigs. A cigarette butt found in the driveway yielded DNA that didn't belong to Noling or members of his gang. Except for the flawed and conflicting statements of Wolcott and others, no evidence points to Noling as the killer.
[...]
Cora's wedding band was on her finger, Bearnhardt's wallet in his pocket, filled with cash. Watches and other jewelry sat untouched. Deputies found $160 in a vanity beneath the bathroom sink. The killer had opened the doors, but left the money behind.

Another Gripping Lie

2006-08-24T17:31:00.001-07:00

[T]he slain couple wasn't robbed. Noling's guns weren't used to kill the Hartigs. A cigarette butt found in the driveway yielded DNA that didn't belong to Noling or members of his gang. Except for the flawed and conflicting statements of Wolcott and others, no evidence points to Noling as the killer.
[...]
Cora's wedding band was on her finger, Bearnhardt's wallet in his pocket, filled with cash. Watches and other jewelry sat untouched. Deputies found $160 in a vanity beneath the bathroom sink. The killer had opened the doors, but left the money behind.

Mr. Noling was a petty thief; as were his three cohorts; and all three eyewitnesses have recanted; one even as he testified during trial.No matter.

The only concern for the court according to U.S. District Judge Donald Nugent is whether or not Mr. Noling's constitutional rights were "preserved." Guilt, as former Virginia Attorney General Mary Sue Terry once claimed appears to be "irrelevant."

Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr., recently observed in an op-ed column how "another man [was] about to be lied to death" in America.

The death penalty is a crude, vestigial remnant of frontier justice and an embarassment to any sense or pretense of moral authority this nation might claim.
[...]
Prosecutor Victor Vigluicci feels differently. He told the [Plain Dealer] none of this causes him to lose sleep, which is pretty much what you'd expect him to say. Belief in the death penalty requires a facade of certitude. Conscience is an inconvenience. Facts even more so. Don't know what you know. Don't ask; don't tell.

Indeed, the "idea that a man can be sent to death-row based on little more than some guy's word," or for that matter, three punk thieves is not only reprehensible, but lawless and barbarian in a nation of laws.

Another Gripping Lie

2006-08-24T17:31:00.000-07:00

[T]he slain couple wasn't robbed. Noling's guns weren't used to kill the Hartigs. A cigarette butt found in the driveway yielded DNA that didn't belong to Noling or members of his gang. Except for the flawed and conflicting statements of Wolcott and others, no evidence points to Noling as the killer.
[...]
Cora's wedding band was on her finger, Bearnhardt's wallet in his pocket, filled with cash. Watches and other jewelry sat untouched. Deputies found $160 in a vanity beneath the bathroom sink. The killer had opened the doors, but left the money behind.

The death penalty is a crude, vestigial remnant of frontier justice and an embarassment to any sense or pretense of moral authority this nation might claim.
[...]
Prosecutor Victor Vigluicci feels differently. He told the [Plain Dealer] none of this causes him to lose sleep, which is pretty much what you'd expect him to say. Belief in the death penalty requires a facade of certitude. Conscience is an inconvenience. Facts even more so. Don't know what you know. Don't ask; don't tell.

Another Gripping Lie

2006-08-24T13:56:00.000-07:00

A death row inmate at Ohio State Penitentiary will be executed unless a federal court intervenes; once again the condemning evidence is mere testimony from witnesses who were either given immunity or had charges reduced.

In the case of Tyrone Noling of Ohio, three gang-bangers testified against him during trial. Of course, an overly ambitious prosecutor had earlier threatened them with the needle or life in prison unless they told the truth. That is, corroborate evidence which he carefully spelled out by giving them exact details of the crime scene and killings.

Butch Wolcott, the star witness who received immunity, and Gary St. Clair and Joey Dalesandro, were the only eyewitnesses to the murders. There were no matching fingerprints and DNA evidence at the scene did not square with any of the three men.

In other words, without testimony from the former gang members, the prosecution had nada, zip, zero to tie Mr. Noling to the killing of Bearnhardt Hartig and his wife, Cora, an elderly couple in their 80s.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer recently outlined in a 2755-word article how the prosecution won the capital murder case using unscrupulous antics. "The case against Noling." they write, "is shot through with inconsistencies."

[T]he slain couple wasn't robbed. Noling's guns weren't used to kill the Hartigs. A cigarette butt found in the driveway yielded DNA that didn't belong to Noling or members of his gang. Except for the flawed and conflicting statements of Wolcott and others, no evidence points to Noling as the killer.

[...]

Cora's wedding band was on her finger, Bearnhardt's wallet in his pocket, filled with cash. Watches and other jewelry sat untouched. Deputies found $160 in a vanity beneath the bathroom sink. The killer had opened the doors, but left the money behind.

Mr. Noling was a petty thief; as were his three cohorts; and all three witnesses have recanted and said they were coerced to falsely testify against Mr. Noling; one, even as he testified during trial.

No matter.

The only concern for the court according to U.S. District Judge Donald Nugent is whether or not Mr. Noling's constitutional rights were "preserved." Guilt, as former Virginia Attorney General Mary Sue Terry once claimed appears to be "irrelevant."

Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr., recently observed in an op-ed column how "another man [was] about to be lied to death" in America.

The death penalty is a crude, vestigial remnant of frontier justice and an embarassment to any sense or pretense of moral authority this nation might claim.

[...]

Prosecutor Victor Vigluicci feels differently. He told the paper none of this causes him to lose sleep, which is pretty much what you'd expect him to say. Belief in the death penalty requires a facade of certitude. Conscience is an inconvenience. Facts even more so. Don't know what you know. Don't ask; don't tell.

Indeed, the "idea that a man can be sent to death row based on little more than some guy's word," or for that matter, three punk thieves is not only reprehensible but criminal as well.

2006-03-23T11:45:00.000-08:00

In reading Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie, Reverend Mother holds a seminal point of gravity in the patchwork of characters for his fictional tale. Naseem Aziz not only imbues the culture, gender, sex, nation and history of India, but as wife to Aadam, also becomes the symbolic mother of India.
Reverend Mother, like Christian patron saints, holy Hindu gods and sacred Muslim shrines, is exalted above the masses through deeds and words; she lives in “an invisible fortress of her own making, an ironclad citadel of traditions and certainties” (p. 40), where few souls dare challenge her bearing; her name alone commands profound respect; authority and power over her dominion: home, children and by extension, nation.
Her five children, Alia, Mumtaz, Hanif, Mustapha and Emerald are Reverend Mother’s dowry to India; and through fits and starts, the children add their individual footprints to the historical narratives.
Reverend Mother nourishes India according to customs and traditions; and what meals she doles out are exclusively within her domain of power; and when errant children or husband offend her, she can withdraw life-sustaining provisions until the matter is resolved to her satisfaction.
In the novel, readers come to know Reverend Mother through her willful acts of defiance, delusional self-righteousness and petulant self-denial; but in the end, readers also see a Naseem who remains faithful to her initial core; and her fidelity casts a light on her intermittent silence, almost as if to pay homage to periods of time when mere words betray through misstatements; when only “whatitsname” can convey the deepest breadth of her thoughts, the “fortress” of her mind.
For what are readers to make of Reverent Mother’s extemporaneous use of “whatsitsname” with every sentence, as an adjective, noun or verb? Could this “leitmotif,” as Saleem calls it, be much more than a musical recurring passage, but in fact the recurrent failure of words to express the fullness of truth she beholds? (p. 41). After all, Reverend Mother had the power to invade dreams (p. 58-59) and had often foretold future family woes (p. 312). Had she been able to define all the whats that are in a name, would anyone have believed her? Did they believe Saleem?
Rushdie, the expatriate writer flawlessly fits the “intelligentsia ‘intellectual’” constructed by Mira Yuval-Davis in Gender and Nation by “creat[ing] and reproduc[ing] nationalistic ideologies…of oppressed collectivities” (p. 2). Reverend Mother is Rushdie’s symbolic “border guard” who “identif[ies] people as members or non-members of [his] specific collectivity” (p. 23). Moreover, Rushdie “restore[s] the past to [himself]” (p.10) with the “vivid colors” of Reverend Mother’s personality and allegiance to her truth.
Yes, rather than acquiesce, Reverend Mother chooses the sword of silence to “remain immured” against her perceived family follies. By her silence, she speaks her unimpeded truth as keeper of the faith. And yet even when speaking, her razor-sharp tongue also communicates her integrity, such as when the actress wife of her son, Hanif (pp. 277-278), who would later betray her husband, received her wrath; or when the ill-fated wedding of her daughter, Mumtaz, to Nadir Khan disintegrated in futility and she spoke after three years of silence; or when Ahmed refused to address his financial ruin and, Reverend Mother jumps into action and commands, “This is no time to hide in bed…Now he must be a man, whatsitsname, and do a man’s business” (p. 157).
Quite possibly Reverend Mother’s greatest gift to the story and by extension, India, is her relational “extension of kinship” (p. 1) to “undesirables” by way of Saleem. Nazeem, the matriarch, precedes her sex. And her act of kindness to Saleem precedes genealogy (p. 8). With one sublime clutch of the poor boy to her “bosom,” Reverend Mother “legitimized [Saleem]; there was no one to oppose her” (p. 324), even though Saleem did not have one drop of her blood, he had the blood of her nation, which he was rightfully claiming. .

2006-03-20T12:37:00.001-08:00

In a self-directed online poll by Virginian-Pilot, respondents were split on the idea of lifting a moratorium on oil and gas drilling off the Virginia coastlines.

Should Gov. Kaine veto a bill that supports lifting a federal moratorium on oil and gas drilling off Virginia’s coast?

Yes
47.47%
No50.38% Not sure 2.16%Total: 4359 votes

Poor environmentalists, doesn't look like their campaign to ring the alarm is working.

The Virginian-Pilot reports that Kaine is not committed one way or the other; he indicated he had not read the full bill and could not comment on whether he would support the bill or not.

A Kaine spokeswoman, Delacey Skinner, described Wagner's bill as "very complex" and said the governor will look at it "very closely" before responding.
In the past, Skinner said, Kaine has "indicated a willingness to discuss the possibility" of offshore drilling but with "clear parameters" to protect the coast. Kaine must act by April 10.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach; beach property owners are none too happy with Señor Wagner; tourism, after all, is their number one cash crop.

2006-03-20T12:37:00.000-08:00

In a self-directed online poll by Virginian-Pilot, respondents were split on the idea of lifting a moratorium on oil and gas drilling off the Virginia coastlines.

Should Gov. Kaine veto a bill that supports lifting a federal moratorium on oil and gas drilling off Virginia’s coast?

Yes
47.47%
No50.38% Not sure 2.16%Total: 4359 votes

Poor environmentalists, doesn't look like their campaign to ring the alarm is working.

The Pilot reports that Kaine is not committed one way or the other; he indicated he had not read the full bill and could not comment.

A Kaine spokeswoman, Delacey Skinner, described Wagner's bill as "very complex" and said the governor will look at it "very closely" before responding.
In the past, Skinner said, Kaine has "indicated a willingness to discuss the possibility" of offshore drilling but with "clear parameters" to protect the coast. Kaine must act by April 10.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach; beach property owners are none too happy with Señor Wagner; tourism, after all, is their number one cash crop.

2006-03-20T10:16:00.000-08:00

The Bad Guys are Us

Accustomed to seeing Bond movies and Russians with bad accents as arch villains, or Arab terrorists on Fox's 24 as the updated version of evil, it's alarming to note how pop culture in other countries increasingly portrays Americans as the bad guys.

During any clash between countries and cultures, each sees reality through their nationalistic rose-colored glasses; and true to form, the Washington Post writes this morning about the unfavorable light of our government is depicted in plays, movies and television in the Middle East.

In "The Night Baghdad Fell," a new popular film in Egypt, America comes across as the Ugly American. In the movie, loomings of a US invasion prompt a teacher to recruit his former student to save the nation by building a weapon to stop the intrusion; but alas, the weapon fails as the hash smoking would-be soldier dreams about wild sex with Condoleezza Rice on his wedding night.

Can you think of anything so gross?!? Even Egyptians feel the sentiment goes too far.

It seems during the last couple of years, Americans have started to be depicted as "bullies, rapists and mindless killers." And that's on the light side. In story after story thread, "yanks emerge as [the] bad guys," with one play using ushers dressed as "wild-eyed" Marines, and another one blowing up the Statue of Liberty.

Yes, "We're the heavies," the Post admonishes.

Guess we can't complain too much in light of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, CIA secret renditions, and Lord only knows what else.

2006-03-15T21:42:00.000-08:00

Introspection during the last year has led a few disenchanted Democrats to begin to blog; it certainly guided me to start daily rants at Howling Latina; and to that end, I recently wrote about the pesky question of spirit, chance, war, chaos, Bush and Iraq.

For people of faith, the topic of war and suffering is difficult to reconcile with a loving Higher Power. God allows bad things to happen, even Billy Graham acknowledged as much during an interview with Newsweek.

Yet even the most hardened agnostic cannot deny the sacred synchronicities in their lives – for good or ill – including the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

If they're honest, the cynical nonbeliever must concede that in 2000 the universe aligned her planets against Gore. I mean, with a third party, left/center candidate, butterfly ballots, hanging chads, bad Gore press, what else could have gone wrong except a loss in spite of win?

Equal to task for John Kerry, 2004 had an ill-wind union with a frightened nation, supine media, baseless swiftboating and bin Laden's improviso right before election. A little bit of this and a little bit of that, a Gore or Kerry win, and the whole war business might’ve have been avoided or already concluded.

So what are we to make of this mess called the Bush presidency and his bastard child, Iraq? How will thousands of lost lives in Iraq bring about a greater good, if one believes that goodness ultimately prevails? And how will a Republican Congress, White House and now Supreme Court work together towards greater equality and social justice for all?

When I first wrote about the subject, I had no answer, only questions. Yet after reading Graham's words and writing about the soon-to-come third anniversary of the Iraqi War, I found my answer in both the sacred and secular.

First the sacred: “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God. You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives (Genesis 50:20).

And now the secular, accepted scientific theory:

In perfect symmetry, the universe incorporates atoms in time and space made of negative charges in the electron, which are then held together with positive charges in their nucleus.

Both schools of thought promise balance in the end; and so it stands to reason that everything we now decry in the Middle East and the Bush presidency will come to pass; and be offset by its dual beneficence.

Yes, the shock and awe we felt when we watched America march to war as if it were a Fourth of July procession with spectacular fireworks as a backdrop will eventually be neutralized by equally dazzling forces.

And along the way, we use our passion to the cause; fellow travelers in time and space, working to restore the universal equilibrium: PEACE.

2006-03-09T12:03:00.000-08:00

Ahlam Mosteghanemi, the author of Memory in the Flesh, writes her work of fiction with a distinct male voice, using male mental processes to frame her drama; and with the blood-soaked voice of Khalid, the male conscience of Constantine and Algeria remembers the “innumerable offensives” and offenses suffered at the hands of the French during the struggle for independence and what followed afterwards. .

Khalid’s words pay tribute to personal sacrifices by the sons of the movement, his loss of one arm, the loss of life for others; and with his narrative, Khalid also tells the cost of Pyrrhic victories for both colonizer and liberated; for not only does Mosteghanemi show how in spite of winning daily skirmishes France ultimately lost her colony, but how along the way to self-determination, far too many Algerians disremembered their history, their inner-voice and self-destructed.

Indeed, throughout Mosteghanemi’s narrative, the words of Fanon are visible at every turn. Liberation means the right to make mistakes; and as the new nation blunders her way through fits and starts, rife with corruption and poor choices, from Ahlam’s choice of marriage partner to the sad obsession of Hassan to find an administrative job, (when teaching – an honest profession was his authentic design), the blood of Algeria gave her sons and daughters “the right to govern themselves badly” and make folly.

Mosteghanemi tells readers in her novel that every artist comes to “understand the world” through the eyes of one precise linear point. With Hemingway, the locus was the sea; with Moravia the spot was desire; with Al-Hallj the moment was God; with Miller the mark was sex; with Baudelaire the pin-point was sin and damnation; and with Khalid, the summit was a bridge from which to leap over or fall, fight or surrender, love or hate; live or die, in the wretched dichotomous realm of nations and people’s souls.

From the beginning, the activist artist searched for a way to resolve the triadic conflict that raged within the walls of his mind: the guilt of initial leave-taking, the sorrow of present circumstances, and the angst to return home; and with colors and shadows, Khalid worked out his deliverance in an artistic rendition of a bridge that first took him to the mountains—a representation that would forever span time and space, and visually render his spirit free to come and go.

Nationalism in the novel travels the promise of release from oppression and slavery to ultimate disillusionment. As told by the words of a former warrior, his countrymen are in a self-indulgent stupor of “petty daily concerns” and fail to pay tribute to history. Forgotten are the revolution heroes, men who sacrificed sight, limb and life for liberty; and this loss of memory gashes the collective nucleus of nation; and the original mental splendor as conceived by her founding martyrs.

The hopes of a nation lie on the shoulders of a former warrior, a warrior’s son and his daughter, and the consciousness of city and country. Khalid’s call to life is truth, free of shadows; and it is embodied in Khalid’s only commandment to nation and daughter, “Consider only your conscience, because in the end, it’s the only thing you live with.” The shadows are the “uniformity” of thought, as symbolically expressed by his countrymen’s garment; for uniformity ran counter to Si Taher’s highest hope, a “dream…to see Algeria freed from the superstition and worn-out tradition that had oppressed and destroyed…” Indeed, Algeria forgot to ask, “What did our revolutionary martyrs die for? And instead wore “the same sad and gloomy colors” of life as their coat of honor.

In post-colonialism, women “wrapped in their black veils” no longer symbolized “a mechanism of resistance,” but rather a society that lacked color of imagination. The “dragged…lost steps” did not lead to a “deepening [of] consciousness” but rather to “ill-tempered customs officials” with petty dreams of a morally worthless higher government post.

The narrative of nationalism as told by Mosteghanemi is an ongoing tale with past heroes who return home; and through fate and death, Khalid replaced his brother’s corpse; he would now instruct his brother’s children, provide for his brother’s wife, and record his account of history. The shadows of his former self stayed behind with his paintings, no longer needed, for Khalid not only returned to a location, but his homecoming also hailed the return of spirit to his initial call. ““Don’t love bridges anymore,” he says, for history has called him home.

2006-03-03T19:29:00.000-08:00

Reconciling God’s Will with the ’00 and ’04 election and the Iraqi War

For the last few months, a dry spirit has set over my soul; and as usual, when I seek the voice of my maker, menacing thoughts crop up. But as always, by pressing forward during quiet moments, sweet revelations follow; and in a moment of receptiveness, I came across a news blurb from BBC. It talks about how Prime Minister Tony Blair “prayed to God over Iraq,” before going to war.

"When you're faced with a decision like that, some of those decisions have been very, very difficult, most of all because you know these are people's lives and, in some case, their deaths.
The only way you can take a decision like that is to do the right thing according to your conscience."
Anti-war campaigner Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon died in Basra in 2004, said: "A good Christian wouldn't be for this war. "I'm actually quite disgusted by the comments. It's a joke."

Yes, skeptical folks might think Blair is nothing more than a “spiffing” liar; yet any leader with a scintilla of spirit had to weigh the heavy moral costs before committing his nation to war. And no, that does not include you, Karl Rove.

If they're honest, Democrats must also concede that in 2000, the universe appears to have aligned the planets against Gore. I mean, with a third party, left/center candidate, butterfly ballots, hanging chads, bad Gore press, what else could have gone wrong except a loss, in spite of a win?!?

And equal to the task in 2004, the campaign season had an ill-wind union with a frightened nation, endless accusations, a docile media and the ultimate bin Laden’s postscriptive blow only hours before election, sepulchering Kerry’s loss.

Yet for believers and followers of the Good Book, the ultimate end is foretold; and what at first glance may appear evil, God promises to use it for His ever-greater glory. “

You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20).

So what are we to make of the mess called the Bush presidency? How will the thousands upon thousands of lives lost in Iraq bring a greater good? And how is a Republican Congress, White House and now even Supreme Court supposed to work together for greater equity and social justice for all?

Like the young’s boy’s father filled with an evil spirit in the New Testament, “I do believe;[I just need some] help me [in] overcom[ing] my unbelief!"

Yet even without the dim light at the end of the tunnel, there are still too many sacred synchronicities for this old soul to ignore.

There's something happening here

What it is ain't exactly clear

There's a man with a gun over there

Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound