Gin and Juice

Victor: It feels so good knowing that a man willing to talk over beer with people of different opinions is also sitting in the White House with the responsibility of managing our relationships with other countries.

McLovin: Sorry Vic, although I do believe that racial issues are absolutely relevant, worthy of debate, and unfortunately still the cause of many problems in our country, I found this to be one of the biggest dog and pony shows in recent memory.
32 minutes ago

Victor: There is a PR side to everything politicians do. With that as a given, I appreciate the message and example being shown with the olive branch being extended as opposed to the contention that characterized the previous administrations various dealings.
24 minutes ago

McLovin: I think the ONLY reason that today's "beer event" happened at all was so the President could put this to bed since it was affecting him negatively. He hadn't intended to be sucked into this sideshow in the first place except for his off-the-cuff remark at the press conference the other day, and this was just damage control. Now I know that you (and many others) aren't fans of the previous administration, but for an apples-to-apples comparison, what was the similar situation that he found himself in, that he handled differently? I ask that as an honest question, not in a 'you're wrong' kind of way

Above is an excerpt from a discussion I was having with one of my Facebook friends (No, his name isn't McLovin. They just REALLY resemble each other). We are of course referring to the president inviting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and arresting officer James Crowley to the White House for a drink to smooth things over after the "drama" of the previous weeks. "McLovin" posed an excellent question with his last comment which happens to speak directly to the number one reason I voted for Barrack Obama: diplomacy.

It's important to have principles. It's even more important that a leader have the courage and testicular fortitude to stand on those principles in the face of criticism. For this, I give the Bush administration the highest kudos. A major fault that I found in Dubya's regime was his diligent refusal to man up and admit when he was wrong coupled with his stubbornness in circumstances where it was not only unnecessary, but counter-productive. I believe the less than stellar response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster was a situation faced by Bush that is parallel to Obama's (where there was (a) a conflict, (b) a misstep by the president, and (c) an opportunity to own up to and correct the misstep). According to Rich Lowry at the New York Post, one of Bush's top mistakes during his presidency was "underestimating the power of explanation. By temperament and ability, Bush was more a "decider" than a "persuader." He's not naturally drawn to public argument, giving his administration its unfortunate (and not entirely fair) "my way or the highway" reputation at home and abroad." Although he eventually owned up to a few mistakes, the fact that he waited until the end of his presidency to do so dilutes his sincerity in my eyes.

Obama obviously spoke out of emotion with his statement regarding the Cambridge police. What came as a shock to me was the fact that he immediately owned up to the negative impact of his word choice. He even went a step further by taking ownership of the strife in holding the "beer summit". Consider the current relationship (or lack thereof) of the United States with countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. Don't you think it's essential to our national security and economic well being that our leader 1. has the character to quickly admit when he's wrong and 2. possesses the ambassadorial skill set to ensure that rational heads prevail?

PS: I have to give credit for the "testicular fortitude" statement to Beezy Photography

PSOA Part 1

I have a "sub-clinical" case of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, better known as OCD (of course this is self-diagnosed). I've had it as far back as I can remember. It was much worse when I was younger. All lines had to be straight; I would starch my clothes until they felt like cardboard; I would shine or clean (with a toothbrush) my shoes on a daily basis. I would even spend extra time on standardized tests erasing my answers because I slightly marked outside of the little circles. I used to think that I outgrew it, but come to find out, it manifests itself in other areas of my life. Perhaps the most glaring area is in my personal technology.

A service oriented architecture (SOA) is a way of thinking/applying loosely coupled technology components (or services) in a way to achieve a cohesive and federated environment that reuses data in such a way as to be consumable by most (if not all) elements of the system. People have different definitions and thoughts on the requirements for an SOA and how to properly implement one. In my opinion, it's a way of getting all of your te

chnology working together in a systematic way to alleviate friction in your processes.

About a year ago, I decided to apply this philosophy to my personal technology. I wanted an environment where heterogenous devices and applications collaborated to provide me with a highly organized and fluid system with the goals of:

1. Redundancy

2. Portability

3. Minimization of swivel chair gaps, and

4. Entertainment

This would include everything from the tools I use at work, to the television I sit in front of at home. Open standards, the introduction of mobile devices such as the iPhone, along with the progress of cloud computing, played key roles in implementing my personal service oriented architecture (PSOA). In a later post, I'll go into detail about how the components work together and the hurdles I'm currently facing with getting all of the pieces to cooperate. Below is a mapping I put together using the web based diagramming app, Gliffy. For some reason I wasn't able to link the image to the larger diagram, so you can view the full size by clicking here.

A House Divided is Better than None.

“I am for truth, no matter who tells it. I am for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I am a human being first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.”

– Malcolm X

Over the past couple of weeks, I've watched and read some very disturbing/depressing news on "race based injustice". (Note: I use that phrase instead of "racism" due to the fact that the literal definition of racism doesn't accurately and fully describe the inequitable, negative externalities experienced by a person (or group) as the result of their race.) Renowned scholar and professor, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested in his own home after being suspected of burglarizing "himself". A black EMT in the midst of escorting a patient to the hospital was choked by an Oklahoma Highway Patrolman. A Philadelphia swim club revokes access to black and latino daycare children. Black policemen (also in Philadelphia) reveal the racist message board used by their fellow officers. You know, the typical stuff.

I grew up in Birmingham, AL and have lived in the south all of my life. Being a black man, the south (or the United States for that matter) hasn't always been very hospitable. I've been called names, spit on, and accosted by whites because of my skin color. I've been stopped by the police for DWB (driving while black). I get the dirty looks when I'm on the "wrong side of town". Women clutch their purses when they see me. For some reason though, the clothing and electronics store employees are always overly helpful. They follow me all around the store and compulsively ask if I need any "assistance". I guess this being black thing isn't a total bane :|

That being said, I'm convinced of two things:

1. If the socioeconomic positions of blacks and whites were reversed, blacks would be just as unfair and abusive.

2. Bigotry (although not in and of itself) speaks volumes to how much we (as human beings) value capitalism and democracy.

The discriminatory and hateful practices of some whites isn't a result of the condition of their skin. Rather, it's an expression of the depravity of the human heart. That heart condition is by no means restricted to caucasians. This is more than evident in much of the bigotry tinged rhetoric concerning the influx of Mexican immigrants. Sadly, too much of the vitriol hypocritically comes from those that are best positioned (by reason of their own experiences with prejudice) to convey empathy. Take a look at the violence in countries where everyone has the same skin color but may differ on religion or geographical origin. Hate and bigotry based on ethnicity are just as (and in many cases even more) rampant there. The fact of life is that the low man on the totem pole is most likely to be the object of animosity and less likely in a position to equally demonstrate his own. When given the ability (through power or money) people are "free" to be more expressive with their hate.

My second point is also illustrated by the flow of immigrants from Mexico (or Haiti, and any other country for that matter). In most cases, minority immigrants come here and have a supremely heavier burden to carry than just their pigmentation. I consider the dangerous and often deadly voyage taken to come to the US. I think about the crippling inability to read, write, or speak the native language. I think about experiencing the refusal of employers to pay a just wage (if they pay at all); the inability to fully access the social safety net that average citizens are entitled to. When coupled with the inescapable handicap of skin color, it is a wonder that anyone would even entertain the thought of crossing the border or ocean. Yet, the opportunities and rewards presented by the principles and philosophies upon which the United States was founded provide an overwhelming incentive to brave the comparatively insignificant atmosphere of hate. In what country will I (whether black, white, or purple) have a better chance at accumulating wealth than in the United States? I may not always get my way but I can actually participate in the decision making process of the government. I can own land. I can worship my God.

I wish racism didn't exist. I wish race-based injustice wasn't as prevalent in the US as it is. However, I understand that, like poverty and war, there are some things that will always exist as a result of the sullied human soul. There are numerous countries that I could live in and never have to experience the race-based injustice that I experience here. Nevertheless, the quality of life afforded by a relatively "free" market system and relatively democratic system of government greatly outweighs the hate and injustice I endure. This is of course coming from a guy that was never tarred & feathered, lynched, whipped, raped, burned alive, dragged to death, bludgeoned with a police baton, sodomized with a broomstick, shot 41 times, or sitting on death row for a crime I didn't commit... but you get my point..... Right? :\

The Dog, the Fly, and the Construction Worker

"A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel."

-Proverbs 12:10 (NIV)

I like animals. I think they're cool. I even have an animal friend. A couple of events this week got me thinking though.

I read about the plea deal, NFL WR, Donte' Stallworth received. Basically, he hit and kills a construction worker with his car while driving drunk. He is then sentenced to 30 days (that's right, DAYS) in jail, 2 years on house arrest, and 8 years on probation, along with having his driving license taken away for life. Now unlike many others, I'm not really that concerned about how light the punishment was that Donte' received. I think he made a foolish mistake and is going to pay for it the rest of his life. However, what I do find disturbing is the fact that former Atlanta Falcon, Michael Vick, was sentenced to: 23 months in federal prison with 3 years probation following release and a 3 year state prison sentence, which was suspended upon condition of good behavior. In comparing the two crimes and their relative punishments, I'm confused by the huge discrepancy. This is of course ignoring the fact that had these been the average "Joe", they'd both be playing hot potato with the soap even as we speak.... but I digress.

Michael Vick was convicted and incarcerated for his crime of....um....well....

What exactly did Michael Vick do? He was "cruel" to animals. Oh, and he killed a few as well.

Now I'm going to need a little bit of help because I'm beginning to lose track of the reasoning used to differentiate the "Vick crimes" from game hunting, bull fighting, etc. What's the difference? The animal suffers. The animal dies. What about exterminators killing the pesky rats and roaches in our households? Do the lives of those animals hold less value than the domesticated, cute and cuddly cats and dogs we love so much? How about the leader of the free world, Barrack Obama, snuffing out an innocent and defenseless fly? Do I hear "impeachment"?

I believe that it is the responsibility of mankind to protect and take care of God's gift of creation. I think it's important to have laws in place to protect animals from the cruelty of those so reprobate that they derive pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering on the very things we were commissioned to safeguard. However, I also believe it's important for us to be consistent with our beliefs as a society. If torturing and killing animals for sport and without "cause" is wrong, where is this imaginary (and fluctuating) line of demarcation as it relates to the varying worth of animal life. Moreover, if we are to be vigilant about protecting animal life, shouldn't we be all the more passionate to keep and preserve that of our own species? I mean, let's face it, all life is important. Even if it happens to be resting peacefully in the womb from which it was conceived...but I digress. Not.

Fasting and Twitter

technophile: a person who is enthusiastic about technology

I'm a technophile.  There.  I said it.  I love technology.  I'm addicted to it.  Me being the techie I am, I began using Twitter.  Now I must admit, as a regular Facebook user, I thought Twitter was unnecessarily redundant.  I didn't understand how an altogether worthless tool had become so popular.  Until I tried it.  I think the simplicity of Twitter is what makes it so great.  It's like a mini-blog that doesn't take much effort to update.  It also serves as a great arena for idea exchange.  I have started to use it as my personal journal of sorts.  Which is why I began "tweeting" (sounds cool yet effeminate doesn't it?) during my fast the yesterday.  However, I received a note from a buddy of mine pointing out the admonishment of Jesus in Matthew 6:16 that a fast is supposed to be a secret that isn't to be shared.  While the point that he makes is a very valid one, I thought it would be a good idea to make my first blog entry a response to his advice.

So that I keep this short and sweet, I'm not going to get the details of fasting (purpose, types, when to, etc.).  I'll save that for another post.  In the sixth chapter of Matthew, Jesus addresses a few issues: spiritual disciplines - prayer, fasting alms giving; worrying - about food, clothing, etc.  However, I believe that the main takeaway from this chapter is that Jesus is attacking vanity.  When you look at every topic throughout the text, the common thread is a warning against allowing superficial motives take away from the genuine spiritual experience of living a holy life.  

When you give to the needy, don't do it in front of others to look good.  

When you pray, don't do it in front of others to look good.  

When you pray, don't try to make the prettiest, longest prayer to impress people.  

When you fast, don't try to "look like" you're suffering, so others can see how pious you are.

Don't be so focused on money in the here and now to the detriment of the more important after life.  

Don't spend your time worrying about yourself, but have faith that your Heavenly Father will provide all your needs.

Moreover, in John 11:41-42, Jesus is shown praying out loud in front of others.  Does this mean that he was being hypocritical?  Of course not.  He gave the very reason for his prayer - "that they may believe".  What must be understood is the fact that it was customary for people to alter their outside appearance when they were fasting in order to make themselves look as though they were "super" holy.  In fact, God addresses the vanity of fasting in the Old Testament as well, so this isn't anything new.  Check out the 58th chapter of Isaiah.  In verse five, God tells us that He wasn't pleased with the superficial humility of head bowing, and spreading ashes and sackcloth.  That's why Jesus made it a point in Matt 6:17 to tell us to "anoint thine head and wash thy face".  He was making it clear that fasting outwardly means nothing.  It's the change that occurs inwardly that counts.

So, should we pray in the open or in secret?  Should we fast and let others know or keep it to ourselves.  The answer to that of course depends on your intentions.  Are you sharing your spiritual disciplines for the edification of others or for the praise of men?  For future tweets and posts, let it be known that it isn't done to display an outward appearance of holiness.  Like Jesus said in John 11, I do it that they may believe.