Sanity Sentinel

      Through most of the 20th century immigrants to America eagerly leapt into the pot and willfully allowed themselves to become part of the mix, revelling in their new-found home and enthusiastically embracing its culture. Then something changed near the end of the century; new additions began to cling to the side of the pot in an attempt to retain some of their original composition by not submerging themselves fully into what I call the stew. This corresponds to the emergence of hyphenated nationality labels. “Whatyouwill-Americans”, e.g.

     The stew began to change with these new ingredients being added, even more so than it should have. The flavor was always in flux, true, but the basic composition of the stew was always about a mixture of components. I am at a loss in explaining this change.

     Yes, the flavor changes with the ingredients of a stew, but the stew remains relatively unchanged in appearance. This is because everyone cooks down to a common broth. There is change, but the change is so gradual as to be nearly imperceptible. That is, so long as one of the ingredients doesn’t thrash about, wailing, as it loses its core identity at the boiling point. One must agree that such an occurrence would be most noticeable to the cook.

     Up until the latter part of the 20th century there were no reluctant ingredients being poured into the pot. Sure, they still hit the plate as either orange carrots or white potatoes, but they all shared the plate without quarrel. It was a stew from the “pot”, and all were equally consumed without prejudice (3-year-old-racist-picky-eaters notwithstanding). Now we have the ingredients demanding special privileges and prominence on the plate.

     To really throw a wrench into the mix, pomegranate has insisted on not only being added to the stew (something which, to my knowledge at least, is unprecedented), but has demanded even further that it be highlighted on the menu. Outrage, I say.

     I think the cook needs to turn up the heat and use the ladle to clear the sides of the pot, stirring frequently. We need a common identity once again in order to survive.

     A barrel of oil today surpassed the mark of $138/bbl. It rose by nearly ten percent, in one day. Gas prices in the next week, if this is a sustainable record, will top $5 per gallon, without question. And yet, we have been led to believe by our elected Congresspersons that this war was a war for oil. Despite the fact that we kicked the virtual shit out of the vaunted Iraqi Republican Guard in record time and are still waging an ongoing battle with a ragtag contingient of well-armed, so-called insurgents (funded and trained by a sovereign neighbor), we have not reaped the spoils of war. Those spoils would ostensibly equate to cheaper oil for the victorious conquerors.

     So one must ask this of their “public servants”, as well as the willing dupes who echo the tripe emanating from the lips of those servants: If this was an evil act perpetrated on the Middle East by a crazed oil man and his cohorts for nothing more than oil…why are we being subjected to the whims of those people who control that oil to this day?

     With the resources America has beneath its own soil, it would stand to reason that the “oil barons” could have exploited their own land without shedding a drop of blood, save for the occassional dropping of an irate and charging female moose or caribou, however unfortunate and even more pertinent, rare, that scenario may have been. The reason this has not happened is not because those “oil barons” didn’t think of it. It’s because our own elected officials care more for their coveted positions than they do for the people.

     The people have been clamoring for cheaper fuel since before anyone can remember. Bureaucrats have used that demand as a leveraging tool for equally as long. Are the lies a new tactic? Probably not, but the acceptance of them as validation for a political stance is relatively new, since people seem more willing in these times to slit their own throats to promote a belief contrary to their own best interests so long as it is fed to them by a lying government.

     The Iraq war was not about oil. The ideological war is, and it may well be our undoing. God bless America.

-Woody

     Like any good attorney can no more prove the innocence of his client to a skeptical jury, neither can one prove either of the theories of God. He cannot be proved nor dis-proved.

     There are many layers of trust that go into both ends of the theological spectrum, both from deep crimson to light purple. One side argues that only a God could have created all that we know while the other claims it all to be some great cosmic accident which we were fortunate enough to stumble upon. What atheists and agnostics fail to comprehend is the question that believers inevitably ask; where did we come from, and how did we “stumble upon anything” if there was once nothing?

     Where we have gone horribly wrong has to do with the day when Men began to feel independent enough to leave God’s nest and fly on their own. Certainly we have always been given that freedom from God, and we have tested the tethers for ages, but now we’ve gotten to the “ungrateful teenager” stage in our history. Suddenly, like rebellious youths, we not only feel that we know better than the Father, but we have made the audacious leap to denial of His existance. He’s become irrelevant, at least to some.

     All I can picture is some self-righteous Liberal standing nose-to-nose with God on his Judgement Day, arguing over his “bed-time” moments before being smitten for his insolence and being denied forever the cozy resting place he once took for granted. I, for one, have never bought into the smug comfort that non-believers have projected. The claim that they know they will languish in a dark hole and yet don’t care. Or the claim that they are just “a-okay” with ceasing to exist, for eternity. There may be some hard-core anti-God people out there who believe that they are totally alone, but I feel nothing but pity for them.

     The rest will seek His forgiveness on their dying days. Of this, I have no doubt. Will they feel remorse for the way they treated God’s believers over the course of their lives? I have no idea, unless God compels them to do so, but the rest of us would never know, anyway. Nevertheless, I’d bet the ranch that they will be grateful for the first, and last, time in their lives.

     Scant moments before they close their physical eyes forever, and before they see for the first time, they will know.

     Case in point: MADD (Mother’s Against Drunk Driving) has a noble platform, however convoluted it may have become with the ether of power, that is dedicated to eradicating the horrors of losing loved ones to drunken motorists. One of the tenets of their charter is the definition of a motor vehicle as a “deadly weapon”. I can understand that; an object somewhere in the vicinity of 3000 pounds that can accelerate to 60 MPH in the span of, say, 10 seconds can be lethal.

     Many liberal-minded people would be enthusiastic about this definition. But…when it’s not convenient, that is another matter.

     Testimony in the trial stated that when police officers identified themselves at the scene, Mr. Bell attempted to either leave the scene in a hurry or tried to run down the officers with his car. Officers felt that their lives were in jeopardy and opened fire on the vehicle.

     My question then is, if a motor vehicle can be classified as a deadly weapon in a DWI case, how can the Reverend Sharpton make the claim that Sean Bell was “un-armed” on the night he was killed by police who, ostensibly, were acting in accordance with police procedure in regards to self preservation? I must also wonder that if the police had crashed a speeding cruiser into Mr. Bell’s car, killing him, whether they would feel the same outrage.