When I was younger, my parents would take me to church. I didn't really have a choice in the matter, it was just what was done. We didn't go every week or anything, but whenever my parents went, I and my younger brothers would end up going as well. Once I reached High School, my parents told me that it would be my decision if I went or not. And so I stopped going, for two reasons.

1. I was incredibly bored by the whole thing. It was always amazing to me how there were some really interesting stories in the Bible, and yet whenever I was reading about them or hearing people speak of them, I was overcome with just out and out boredom and I would often sit in church and just count down the time til I could get out and do ...well, anything else.

2. I often hear people talk about being moved by the Holy Spirit. I hear people speak of this and I often felt strange, because I had never felt ANYTHING. NOTHING. In fact, while I considered myself "Saved" and then later rededicated my life to Christ, I never once felt anything. The closest I came would be just the overall wonderful feeling that came from knowing that others that were with me in Church were proud of my decision. Aside from that, nothing.

I have been to many churches in my lifetime, of various denominations. I've been to a Wesleyan Church, I've been to Evangelical churches, I've been to a Catholic service, I've been to "White Churches" and "Black Churches" and I have yet to feel anything at all even remotely resembling The Holy Spirit.

I don't know if I'm expecting too much, but I often see people in church when singing, they'll have their eyes closed and their arms outstretched, or even on their knees, with their arms outstretched, and I just look at them and think, "what phonies!"

And perhaps that's a bit harsh, but even though I've struggled with my faith over the years, and felt a bit put off from the fact that everyone around me supposedly felt the presence of the Lord, and I haven't, I've always treated prayer and things of that nature as a private thing. Not something to "show off". Even though I don't really believe that prayer is doing anything, I tend to do it nonetheless just out of habit.

That's why I don't wear crosses around my neck, I don't wear these ridiculous commercialized shirts with (in my opinion) abhorrently offensive slogans, one of which depicts Jesus' pierced hands, with blood on them, and the phrase "Body Piercing Saved My Life".

I see things like that and it makes me angry, because I considered myself a Christian, and that type of thing is patently offensive to me. I've long despised the crass commercialization of Christianity.

And while I've sat back and watched as all around me seemingly were filled with God's love, I sat alone. Empty. I was a paper Christian, for all intents and purposes.

I don't know what I expected. Whether I expected it to be something subtle. Some cliched "sign" that everything was going to be alright, or if it would be like a sledgehammmer between the eyes, in the form of Jake Blues standing in the back of the church screaming "YES, I SEE THE LIGHT!"



I waited, and waited, and it never came. The light never came, the subtle cliched "sign" never came. In all my years trying to be the best Christian I could be, while simultaneously accepting that I would never live up to that due to my sinful ways, I would help people who needed it, often to my detriment. I'd help people out with anything they needed, even if I needed it too.

For years I had been homeless without anything of my own, without any money, without anyone giving a damn about me, or so it seemed. So when I see people who need something I gave it to them, not out of some Christian desire, but just out of a HUMAN desire. I'd been in their place, and remembered what it was like.

And often, people would come to me and they'd have issues with their own faith. Why they would think I would be someone to rely on, I have no idea, but they would. And I would tell them things like "God has a plan" and "Things will work out" and "Well, the Bible says..." and the entire time I was speaking hollow words. Because I didn't believe them myself, I don't think. Looking back it is clear to me that, when I say these things, it's more of a fact of me repeating what I've been told.

I've long had a hard time accepting the idea of "prayer works" because common sense would say otherwise. It opens the door to realizing that Prayer worked for this person but not THAT person.



We're all supposed to pray for those in Haiti. Why? Why does MY Prayer mean ANYTHING? As if God is going to sit up there and say "well, I was going to help out in Haiti, but that guy in Spokane didn't pray, and well...we're a couple hundred short of the goal, so Haiti's shit out of luck." This isn't Oral Roberts, and God isn't going to bring you home if you don't get the right number of prayers donated.

And the go-to response to that line of thinking, that common sense dictates that the idea of praying for help brings up some very dicey logistical and ethical quandaries, is to quote the Bible that says "Lean not on your own understanding".

Although to me, that sounds like the perfect cop-out when you want to convince others of what to do. "Don't worry about what makes sense to you, do what I say. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

I don't even know anymore. All my life I've spent trying to live up to some impossible standard, and have suffered for it. I've gone through bouts of depression, suicidal thoughts, and a half assed attempt or two and all because of my shame and frustration at not being able to be good enough.

I'm told that God forgives all, and yet based in this world where everything I've ever done in my fucking life is held over my head and used to somehow symbolize who I am, not who I WAS, I can't grasp that anyway.

I've proclaimed myself a Christian numerous times, and yet I'm not really. How can I be a Christian when I don't believe in Prayer? How can I be a Christian when I can't accept the things I'm told my faith requires?

I refuse to discriminate against homosexuals and refuse to support their lack of equal rights. I refuse to support the Death Penalty, I refuse to support the Pro-Life side of things.

These are all fairly important issues that directly tie in to the Christian faith as far as specific passages in the Bible.

So how can I be a Christian when I don't believe anymore? I've struggled with writing this for the past week or so, and it's gotten heavier and heavier on my heart the last few days. I'm so frustrated and conflicted on how to go about the rest of my life, however long I'm here.

I remember Comedian Bill Maher, who's an atheist, saying that he felt that most people believed in God "just in case", meaning that they figured "hey, I better go along just in case this Christianity thing is right, because who wants the alternative?"

And all my life that's exactly what I've done. Virtually nothing in the Bible has resonated with me. Virtually nothing has had any impact on me whatsoever. When people ask me about my faith, and I say that I'm a Christian, I feel like the phonies that are genuflecting in front of everyone, and trying to put on the "Super Christian" identity for everyone, to somehow make themselves look better.

I'm no better than they are, those people I despise. I've been a paper Christian. And I don't want to be a Paper Christian anymore. I just want to be me, whatever that is.

I happen to live above a Church, and I remember telling someone a few weeks back that I have zero doubt in my mind that if I died right now, I'd not go to Heaven. I've done things in my life that I'm deeply ashamed of, and there are things I've done that I will never speak of, and for which I don't view as being forgivable. Whether I'm right on that, I don't know.

And I really don't know much of anything right now. I feel broken inside, I feel .... like nothing. A body filled with nothing. And I feel more alone than I think I've ever been in my life.

I'm writing this "stream of consciousness" style, because I think for this it's best. I've gone over the last several days of how to write this, and I didn't really know what to say or how to express it. I tend to ramble, and in my mind things are all jumbled and thrown together, much like my life, I suppose.

So if this doesn't make sense, or if this kinda jumps all over, I apologize for that. It's kinda the way I am. lol

And I don't really know why I'm writing this, or what the purpose is. I'm just at a very low point in my life right now, and I just don't want to deal with that shit anymore. Perhaps at some people I'll re-evaluate things, or perhaps God will somehow finally deem me worthy of hearing what he has to say, and everything will be clear. I dunno. And at this point, I don't care anymore. As of now, if it happens, it happens. Whatever.

So Lost is back, and just as crazy as ever!

I only have a couple thoughts, but here goes:

1. Nice to see John Hawkes here now as one of the Others at the Temple. He was really good in the few things I've seen him in, such as East Bound & Down, where he played Kenny Powers' brother, and the liquor store clerk in From Dusk Til Dawn.

2. I realize that this being the final season, ANYONE can die at any moment. That sure ratchets up the suspense, as we no longer have that "well, there's no way they'll kill off Sawyer or Kate".

3. And am I alone in wondering whether or not Sayid is now Jacob? Could Jacob have had Hurley get Sayid to the temple, so Jacob could come back in Sayid's body, in a place that is protected from the Man in Black aka Esau?

4. What do you think about the whole parallel universe thing? Do you think that Sun really doesn't understand English, or was she lying? I mean, normally I'd think she was lying, but remember that Hurley apparantly was talking about how he's the luckiest guy on earth and only good things happen to him. He was the owner of the Mr. Cluck's corporation, and apparantly it went well because Arzt recognized him on the plane. So I suppose that in this alt. Timeline, a few things changed.

And what was with Charlie's "I was supposed to die" comment?

This show is gonna rock the rest of the way, I just know it.

Post up your thoughts on the Sayid/Jacob angle, and anything else.

This past week at the State of the Union address, President Obama took his first real step towards the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, the policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military, and defend their country as long as they keep secret their sexual preferences and lifestyle. However, a year has passed since Obama was inaugurated, and we're just now getting him to vocalize his support for an issue that he campaigned on, and no doubt garned a lot of support from those in the gay and lesbian community.

Why so long? I realize that the cliche "easier said than done" applies here, and it's way easier to speak about what you want to do, and changes you want to make, then it is to actually implement them. And I think a lot of the criticism that Obama gets for his inaction on this subject, is because he seems to not even give a damn about it. That's all well and good, but when you campaign on an issue, you're expected to give a damn about it.

The main roadblock to repealing this, is the fact that many in the military are uncomfortable with the idea of being in close living quarters with an openly gay soldier, which I don't understand. The only reason I can come up with for why soldiers would be uncomfortable with this, is a very cliched and ignorant one: That they're afraid that the other soldier would develop feelings for one of them, and/or make sexual advances.

Stop and think about that for a minute. Do you realize what they are saying? They're saying that their opinions of homosexuals are that they are such sexual deviants with such an uncontrollable sexual appetite, that if they happened to like another soldier, who was straight, that they wouldn't be able to help themselves, and that they would try to force themselves on the straight soldier.

Or at the very least, they would make their feelings known, and the straight soldier would be uncomfortable being around someone who they felt were "checking them out".

Is this not the very definition of "homophobic"? When the phrase "homophobic" is thrown around to describe the anti-gay movement, many people, particularly those Christian Evangelicals who are against gay marriage or gay rights get offended. They say that there not being homophobic, they just don't like it. The whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing.

However that's not true. They are AFRAID. They're AFRAID that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, that somehow that will destroy the "Sanctity" of marriage, that we obviously have now. However, that's kinda strange to feel that way, considering how many straight marriages end in divorce every year, how many straight couples are marrying and then getting divorced several months later, or how many straight people have multiple marriages and divorces.

Or they're AFRAID of the supposed detriment to society that giving gay couples the same rights afforded to straight couples would cause.

Or they are AFRAID that letting gay and lesbian soldiers in the military would lead to these obvious horndogs to be unable to control themselves, and force themselves onto the straight soldiers.

Or maybe they are AFRAID that the gay soldiers will not be able to bring themselves to shoot a cute terrorist?




Bottom line, the general consensus by many of the anti-gay crowd is that homosexuality is no different than pedophilia, incest and child molestations. Which is extremely offensive and flat out ignorant. There's no data to suggest this, although those on the anti-gay bandwagon have no problems pretending that there is.

Eventually DADT will be repealed, and supporters of the repeal are being told that it could be a few years before it's being implemented. Right now is the feeling out stage, so to speak, where they go about trying to figure out just how to do this, while we're in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hopefully this can be done in a way that the next Republican President and Congress, doesn't come along and just undo everything that Obama does.

It's interesting that the Pledge of Allegience that children recite at the beginning of each day contains the words "...and liberty and justice for all", and yet this country does NOT have liberty and justice for all. If it's not separate rules and guidelines for homosexuals, then it's laws that are used to arrest and prosecute them, such as the sodomy laws that were designed to go after prostitutes. If it's not that, it's seemingly different laws for white people than there is for black people. Different rules for rich people and poor people.

Will we ever truly be a country that embodies those six words that we hear so much that we take for granted? Even the optimist in me has a hard time believing that we will. I think people's prejudices are too deeply ingrained for this to be something that will change overnight.

My wish is that someday in the future, our future generations will be able to look back and wonder at the time that everyone didn't get treated equally, and wonder just how that ever happened.

Farnell Newton, who I consider a friend, is a jazz musician, a producer and oh.. did I mention, that he's a Professor at Portland State University? This past Wednesday, January 27th 2010, Farnell was given the privilige of playing the National Anthem at the Portland Trailblazers basketball game, where they played the Utah Jazz (how fitting).

My man just kills it here. Check it out, and you can also check out Farnell's website by clicking HERE, and see just what he's all about.

WOW! All I can say is FREAKING WOW! I think I need to start this off by saying the below video, (before I even see what the screencap will be) is EXTREMELY not safe for work. No nudity (besides a few see-through shirt shots) but this video is simply AWESOME!

I have no idea what ANY of the lyrics mean, and the guy, who looks like a guy I know (yeah, Riste, I'm talking about YOU) only says "Chica Boom" the entire video (although he DOES say it about 1,000 times, but I think every single man who views this will agree....that this is the single greatest music video ever made.

Behold the wonder that is Chica Boom, and remember folks...eye muff the kids, and keep the "boss button" at hand.

Tim Tebow, the former Heisman winning quarterback for the Florida Gators, is a very religious and spiritual man. That much, pretty much anyone who knows ANYTHING about him is well aware of. He's been on the record as saying that he hopes that his abilities in the sports world, which he attributes to God, enables him to further his message for Christianity to more and more people.

And now he's taking that step by filming a pro-life commercial to be aired during the Super Bowl in a few weeks. He's teamed up with James Dobson's Focus on the Family to produce this commercial which has many people upset.

We all have the right to voice our opinions, and Tebow has the right to voice his opinions, even those that I am fundamentally opposed to. However, now Tebow is putting himself out there front and center by taking part in a commercial for "Focus on the Family" to be aired during the Super Bowl, in which he talks about his mother's troubled pregnancy with him, where she was sick in the Phillipines. She was urged to have an abortion, and instead she had him, and he went on to greatness on the College Football stage.

As a Christian, I don't really have a problem with this. He comes off as a very positive man, someone who walks the walk, so to speak. He doesn't seem to be a hypocritical person.

This isn't the case of a politician who is vehemently anti-gay rights, and is a closeted homosexual. Tim Tebow is someone who is strong in his convictions, and so I don't really have a problem with it, because he's sincere.

There are many, however, who are opposed to this. While I'm not someone who believes that politics and the sports world should mingle, I don't have as BIG a problem with it, considering who it is.



Tim Tebow is a genuine person. He's not a "Pat Robertson" type character who preaches on hate and evil, while pretending to be a Christian. From all reports, Tebow is one of those "too good to be true" type stories, only it appears it's true. He does missionary work in third world countries, and is made out to be the second coming, or something. And that irritates many people.

I listen to sports talk radio, and one thing that I hear a lot is people who are tired of hearing about how great Tebow is. They openly root for him to fail so they can laugh and point and say "see, I thought you said he was good?". They openly tout how they think he's going to fail in the NFL and never amount to anything.

And so to see him getting so much more attention now, and being put in the limelight even more, is irritating to many people. Throw in the fact that the commercial involves a lightning rod subject such as Abortion, and well, you can see why there's some controversy here.

However, as I said I don't really see the reason to be up in arms. So he's preaching a message you don't agree with. So what? Isn't that what's so great about this country? That we have free speech to be able to voice our opinions, to be able to support any candidate we want, endorse any political message, any doctrine that we so choose?

People who are opposed to his message, have every right to disagree and make their opinions known. However, when you cross the line between simply disagreeing and voicing your disapproval into the area where you are trying to force the commercial to not even air, and to silence any opposing view that you find offensive or even reprehensible, then that's going into territory that should not be breached.

And the irony here, is that many people on the liberal side of things, who tend to be of the "there is no God" and "Christianity is the most evil thing ever" crowd, are up in arms about this, and are protesting and want CBS to refuse to show the commercial. Meanwhile, they are also the ones who get upset when those on the conservative side want to ban books that display things they don't like.

Why is it not okay for Conservatives to ridiculously try to ban "Heather Has Two Mommies" because it portrays homosexuality in a "positive light", or Stephen King books when they feel the books present ideas and situations that they are fundamentally opposed to, and yet it's okay for Liberals to condemn and try to get Tebow's pro-life commercial off the air before it even runs?

I don't get it. I've gotten so disillusioned with the whole political process that I don't even know what to refer to myself as. I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, however there are issues that I believe in, that would land on that side. And even though there are issues that I'm fairly liberal on, particularly social issues, I don't claim to be a Liberal despite many people who know me believing I am.

John Amato, over at Crooks and Liars, who I usually agree with on many issues, said something in his piece HERE that I kind of disagreed with and took issue with. He believes that Dobson and Focus on the Family are using Tebow as a "pawn" in this situation. I find it kind of offensive that people would say that, only because that lends to the idea that Tebow doesn't know what he's doing. He's not some dumb hick that just got to the big city and is being hijacked by some street hustler who's conning him into doing something he doesn't wanna do.

Tebow knows EXACTLY what he's doing, this is exactly what he wants to do. He has spoken of using his platform of sports to speak his message of Christianity to the world, and that's what he's doing. If anyone's using anyone, I would think people would suggest Tebow is using Dobson's influential reach to get his message out via the Super Bowl. Would there be a commercial without such an influential group like Focus on the Family? I don't like them, and think Dobson's a joke, but let's not deny the obvious that there's many many people out there, both influential and not that respect him.

And speaking of the Tebow commercial, let's face it: the reason that so many people are probably up in arms is because Tebow's got a helluva story. I mean, his mother was sick in the phillipines and told she was going to die or the Tim would die if she gave birth, and was urged to have an abortion. She refused, and carried him to term, not only surviving the birth, but her son goes on to be one of the most celebrated college football athletes the country has ever seen.

I think many who are for the right to choose, are intimidated by that, and are afraid that it will cause people to perhaps think about that and say "well, she gave birth and she's okay and look at what her son did", and unfortunately I think that was a, to be honest, miracle situation.




Everyone that is facing a life threatening birth is not going to end up like Tim's mother and him. In many cases like this, the mother and child would both die, or one of them would. That's why we NEED to have the option of abortion to at least be there in situations where the mother's life is in danger.

I personally am not for abortion, although I don't know ANYONE who wants babies to die, no matter what that vile creature Ann Coulter would tell you. However, in my view, despite my unwillingness to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body, it should only be, excuse the pun, on the table for situations where the mother's life is at risk, or the baby will be born dead. Also in cases of rape or incest. That's it. I don't view abortion as a "get out of sex consequences free" card, even though technically abortion IS a form of birth control.

Hopefully the ad will run. I don't necessarily agree 100% with it airing during the Super Bowl, but CBS has stated that they will accept opposing view ads as long as they are "responsibly done". So one of the pro-choice groups can pony up the cash and present an "opposing view" ad to run on CBS.

Then if CBS balks at that, then we can discuss whether or not CBS should be running only one side of political issue such as this. Especially in light of CBS refusing to run an ad supporting gay rights in the past.

Last night was Conan O'Brien's final night doing the Tonight Show. Ever the classy individual, he thanked NBC for the past twenty plus years he'd worked there, and was very gracious to his many fans that took to the internet and defended him, and those who stood out in the pouring rain to get to see his final show.

Wrapping up the show (and his too short seven months as Tonight Show's host) he brought on some of his friends to jam. Will Ferrell (and his pregnant wife who he called "Dawn" for some reason lol), Billy Gibbons (ZZ Top), Beck, and Ben Harper (with Conan playing guitar as well) performed Free Bird.

Not a bad performance all around, although of course Will Ferrell's not the best singer around. Although him breaking out the Cowbell made it all worthwhile.

Earlier today while doing his show, Mike Greenberg, one half of the Mike & Mike show that he does with Mike Golic on ESPNRADIO, made an unfortunate (and horrible) flub of words when referring to Martin Luther King Jr. day. Now, the word he used, which I don't believe was intentional, was and is a racial slur. And when it happened, the crappy video that was recorded from their television set with a digital camera rocketed around the internet.

Accusations of racism, which was to be expected, I suppose, were accompanied by the video. And when you see the video, you hear him make the unfortunate slipup, and he immediately corrects himself and keeps on going.

Later in the day he released a statement apologizing for his slipup, saying in part: "I'm sorry that my talking too fast - and slurring my words - might have given people who don't know our show the wrong impression about us, and about me."


Couple things to think about here.

1. Mike Greenberg has, to my knowledge, never had any instances in the past dealing with racist comments, or anything of the sort. He's not one of these "shock jock" type people such as Don Imus, or Rush Limbaugh who say outrageous things all the time, and where you could at least believe that he would say something along those lines because of what he's said in the past.

Greenberg doesn't do that type of show. He's a sports guy, doing a sports show with pop culture mixed in. So for people to jump on him and automatically brand him a racist, and dismiss the very notion that this could well have been an inadvertant slip, that's a bit much, in my opinion.

2. This brings to mind the recent back and forth between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao over the blood testing. Fans of Floyd Mayweather would taunt Manny and tell him "if you have nothing to hide, then take the test", ignoring the fact that the testing was not dictated by the sanctioning bodies, or the Nevada Athletic Commission, it was dictated by another fighter, one who's father has been slandering him in the press for weeks leading up to that.

Manny refused to take the tests, saying that he wasn't going to follow orders from another fighter. And yet the common consensus from many fight fans is that Manny should take the test to prove he's not dirty.

Why? He's never failed a drug test, and with the exception of a couple fighters, and Floyd's father, there wasn't any suspicion of Manny doping.

However, in this country we seem to have embraced the idea of "guilty until proven innocent". Manny needs to prove that he's not doping, instead of someone else having to prove that he is.

Likewise, Greenberg seems to be getting labeled a racist based on this one instance, without any consideration towards his past actions that could perhaps show that this is a one time slip up.

Greenberg tends to talk very quickly, and as anyone who talks a lot (myself included) can tell you, it's very easy to get words mixed up. Remember as a kid, if you were like me, and would talk a mile a minute when trying to say something, and you get words mixed up, or only say half a word, or as in this case seems to be, combining parts of two words (King and Junior) and your parents say "slow down".

I honestly think Greenberg made an unfortunate mistake, one that will live with him for the rest of his life thanks to youtube and the internet. I just hope people can allow his apology to be accepted and he can move on.

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves was awarded IGN's "Game of the Year", and anyone who has ever played it can certainly agree that it was warranted. With all the accolades going out to this game, it was a given that Uncharted 3 would be made.

Nolan North, who voices Nathan Drake, confirmed that Uncharted 3 would be going into production this year. Whether we'll get the game by Christmas, or early 2011, remains to be seen.

This is a funny video someone made to celebrate Uncharted 2. ha ha ha.

This is an excellent piece written by Jim Wallis over at Huffington Post, and it made me want to jump up and cry out "AMEN, BROTHER!"

So many times we see people who misappropriate Christianity. People who for whatever reason have developed a following, and become synonymous with a faith that they come to represent the very antithesis of.

I've been so angry over Pat Robertson's comments, not because they're shocking or outrageous, which they are, but because of what he represents, and how he affects the mass view of my faith.

I struggle not to hate any man. I struggle to overcome my feelings of anger and rage against people who either wrong me, or cause harm to what I hold dear, such as my faith. I'm not a perfect man, nor am I a perfect Christian, but I AM a Christian, and to see people like Pat Robertson pervert and distort the true essence of Christ, eats away at my very being. And I eventually fail at my struggle.

Because at this moment, I very much have a burning hatred for the likes of Pat Robertson, and find myself wishing things that I am not particularly proud of.

And for that, I definitely am sorry, although my feelings of remorse somehow doesn't change how I feel.

Here is the piece copied in full from the Huffington Post, and I encourage everyone to go over there and read it and find more writings from Jim Wallis.

Pat Robertson said yesterday that Haiti's earthquake was a result of the country's "pact with the devil." I don't even know what he means, nor does it matter much to me. As I reflected on Robertson's comments, I was reminded of how many times he has embarrassed so many fellow Christians with his intemperate comments. As a Christian leader, I have had to spend too much of my time trying to overcome an image of Christianity that was created by the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. When people thought of Christians, these far-right leaders and their ideas are all they knew. But truthfully, Pat Robertson is increasingly irrelevant, except for weird soundbites in the media.

Even though Robertson has become marginal, his extreme comments can still shape people's views of Christianity and God. So, I thought I'd take Robertson's comment as an opportunity to set the record straight. The God I serve, the God of the Bible, does not cause evil. God is not a vengeful and retributive being, waiting to strike us down. Evil happens, whether at the hands of corrupt people or because the earth shifts along a fault line and the world rumbles.

When evil strikes, it's easy to ask, where is God. The answer: God is suffering in the midst of the evil with those who are suffering. Throughout the Scripture, we find a picture of a God who is with the people, even in their darkest hours. Today, in Haiti, God is suffering with those who are suffering. My prayers go out to the families who are suffering.

Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street--A Moral Compass for the New Economy, Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Wow this is a shock. One of the all time great soul singers, Teddy Pendergrass has passed away. Such a big loss for the music world.

via CNN:

(CNN) -- R&B legend Teddy Pendergrass died Wednesday evening, his former publicist said. He was 59.

Pendergrass, known for smash love ballads such as "Turn Off the Lights" and "Love TKO," died after a long illness, according to Lisa Barbaris, who described herself as a close friend and his last publicist.

He died at a hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he was born.

His family did not reveal details about his illness, but said it was related to complications from a 1982 car accident, Barbaris said.

UPDATE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE POST:

It seems that every day I look online, there's something to anger me. It's not that I actively go looking for things to anger me, but it seems there is always something out there that does the trick. And as long as Pat Robertson is alive, then well....I'll not run out of things to be angry about, anytime soon.

Pat Robertson, he of the "9/11 was caused by the gays..." and feminists among others, and that Katrina and the South Asian Tsunami back in '05 was a sign of the end times (shockingly, we're still here five years later), has come back with another hit. No one hit wonder, this guy.

In the wake of the devastating earthquake that hit Haiti yesterday, Pat Robertson, the compassionate "Christian" that he claims to be, had this to say:

Courtesy of Raw Story:

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal.

And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other. Desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It is cut down the middle on the one side is Haiti the other is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we meed to pray for them a great turning to god and out of this tragedy I'm optimistic something good may come.

And I shouldn't be surprised. No one should. This man has perverted Christianity and totally twisted it to fit his own warped and demented viewpoints. People like himself do true Christianity a great harm by continuing to put on this facade that he is a true representative of Christ's love and in the process cause people to have a negative viewpoint of Christianity.

I have never, and will never wish death on anyone. That's not my bag. And when people die, I don't jump in with both feet and start slamming them and bringing up every negative thing they've ever done, like people on both sides of the political aisle do.

Saying that, though, Robertson needs to be out of the spotlight. He needs to be marginalized and set aside. Anyone that is a true Christian who supports that man, is following a false prophet, and there's really not much more to say to that. I don't understand how anyone could possibly see otherwise, unless they're card carrying members of the 700 club.

UPDATE: 7:16pm PST - Keith Olbermann fires back at Limbaugh and Robertson

The Raw Story has a piece up about Keith Olbermann's "scathing attack" against fearmongers Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.

"Mr. Robertson, Mr. Limbaugh, your lives are not worth those of the lowest, meanest, poorest of those victims still lying under that rubble in Haiti tonight. You serve no good, you serve no God. You inspire only stupidity and hatred, and I would wish you to hell. But knowing how empty your souls must be for you to be able to say such things in a time of such pain, I suspect the vacant, purposeless lives you both live now are hell enough already."

UPDATE #2: 10:20pm PST - Haitian Ambassador Shames Pat Robertson on The Rachel Maddow Show

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I've been looking forward to the Playstation 3 Exclusive title "Hustle Kings" since it was announced at E3 last summer. I've always loved billiards games, and snooker games. And I've tried quite a few in my life, but none even remotely compare to the beauty of this game.

The HD graphics are simply amazing, and there's so much stuff in this game that will keep you playing for awhile, whether it's the offline modes, or the trophy support, or the various unlockables you can get including special chalks that will help you in the games, or cues or a really cool set of balls. (sorry, I had to go there).

Below is the trailer for the game, which really lets the graphics shine!



and below is a video I uploaded of my gameplay, where I made a helluva comeback from near defeat.

Dale Murphy was a guest of Dino Costa on XM Radio, and was asked to speak on the Mark McGwire situation, with him confessing to using steroids.

courtesy of TalkingChop:

Last night (Jan. 11) on ‘Mad Dog Radio on SIRIUS XM’, host Dino Costa spoke with two-time NL MVP Dale Murphy, a noted steroid critic and founder of the "I Won’t Cheat" foundation (www.iwontcheat.com), about yesterday’s admission by Mark McGwire.

Dale Murphy: "I don’t think anybody can argue with the fact that it would have been a lot better [if McGwire confessed] earlier. I agree with that. A couple of things come to mind. The Congress thing irritated me a lot because to me that was a lot of publicity for congressmen, that we weren’t really trying to solve the problem. To me, you grant all those guys immunity. You don’t sit there and hang jail time over Mark McGwire or anybody’s head and have the lawyers say, ‘Look, you can’t talk about this because they’re going to put you in jail if you do.’ That’s ridiculous."

Murphy: "Yeah, it would have been great to have Mark say something a long time ago. I kinda understand why he didn’t. I think Congress made some serious mistakes in a publicity grab to try to humiliate guys instead of solve the problem. If you want to solve the problem you give these guys immunity. People will be shocked, maybe, that I’m saying that but I’m like, ok, look, we know they took them, let’s try to solve the problem instead of going back and punishing guys. Having said that, yeah, it would have been good to hear it a long time ago. I’m glad that he said it now, though."

Murphy: "I have read most of his statement and if a guy says he’s sorry he did it and wishes he hadn’t done it, I’ve got to take him at that. You know, he is the first one to come out with such a detailed admission and maybe it’ll get the ball rolling. To me, I’ve got to respect him for it. Obviously, yeah, it would have been better earlier but at least it’s out now."

********

Host/Dino Costa: "Anyone who has been exposed as a steroid cheat, do they deserve entrance into the Hall of Fame?"

Dale Murphy: "Well, I don’t think so and I think the voters have been pretty clear on that. My point about Mark McGwire coming clean is my respect for him and just how you feel about him as a person, regardless of the Hall of Fame. This isn’t really going to help him get in. Some voters probably voted for him because it was never proven [saying], ‘Yeah, I heard what I heard but you’ve got to prove it to me.’ … Now’s he’s admitted it so how do you vote for him now?"

Murphy: "I don’t think this is a Hall of Fame PR thing because it’s not going to help him. What I’m saying is I want to be able to look at Mark McGwire and say, ‘I respect the guy.’ Yeah, ok, I agree with you it could have been earlier but the point is he’s come out and said it. And to me there’s got to be a level of respect for anybody that says, ‘I messed up.’ I don’t think any of those guys are going to get in because, well, how could you vote them in?"

Man, I just can't wait til the new Sade album hits the stores next month. I've had it pre-ordered for a few weeks now.

Here's the official video for the first single, "Soldier of Love". Sade is back, folks!

Man, I just can't wait til the new Sade album hits the stores next month. I've had it pre-ordered for a few weeks now.

Here's the official video for the first single, "Soldier of Love". Sade is back, folks!

I swear, sometimes I have to just sit back and shake my head at the blatant idiocy and fearmongering that goes on in today's Republican Party. In yet another brilliant news story from representatives of South Carolina, GOP Rep J. Gresham Barrett has introduced an updated legislation (originally submitted in 2003) in which all Iranians are deported from the United States. Legal, illegal, it doesn't matter. Gresham basically wants all Iranian citizens to get the hell out within six months of the passage of this legislation. However to be honest, this has not a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

First let's look at what the legislation calls for, and then my thoughts on it:

Via RawStory:

The Stop Terrorists Entry Program Act (STEP) was first introduced by Rep. J. Gresham Barrett (R-SC) in 2003 [PDF link]. The updated version, he explained in a media advisory, would bar citizens of Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Yemen and Syria from entry into the United States. It would further require citizens of those nations who are legally visiting or residing in the United States to be deported within 60 days.

Now, look. I understand that in times like these, in the aftermath of an attempted bombing like what happened on Christmas Day, people will be overwhelmed with emotions. We'll tend to overreact and say things that perhaps were said in anger or frustration.

However, let's look at this logically. What sense does this really make? SERIOUSLY? I mean just think about it. You're going to bar citizens of Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Yemen and Syria from entering the country, and if they are already here, then they have to leave within 2 months.

Does Barrett not see the obvious hole in this theory? Nadal Hassan, the Fort Hood Shooter, and Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the Christmas Day would-be bomber, who were the inspiration for this genius piece of legislation, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE LEGISLATION.

Do you see how crazy this is? You're going to introduce legislation in response to these two acts, and yet if this had been implemented BEFORE they did what they did, it wouldn't have mattered.

Nassan was an American, and Abdul Mutallab was a Nigerian.

In the words of the internet, "you're doing it wrong".

That seems to be a fairly straight forward question, does it not? Now, depending on who you ask, I suppose, you'll get a myriad of responses, and regrettably everyone doesn't settle on the obvious answer. If you ask Republicans they'll have a very different response than if you ask Democrats, and vice versa.

Over the years, since September 11th 2001, that has been a question that has lied at the heart of many of our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The whole "hit them there, so they can't hit us here" mentality.

However I think that an aspect of the "why do they hate us/why do they attack us" question is looked at in the wrong way by many people. President Bush once responded that the reason that the terrorists of the world hate us is because "they hate us for our freedoms". Meaning that the terrorists somehow look at us and despise us because we are free to do whatever we want. We don't suppress our women to where they can't drive a car, or go out in public with a man who's not their husband, and what not.

Or it's the "they hate us for our decadence" excuse that we've heard over the years. That the "Godless Liberals in Hollywood" and the decaying morals of the United States offended them, so they.... want to kill us or something. Or there's the one that Security Chief John Brennan used in response to Helen Thomas' honest question of what motivates terrorists to keep trying to attack us, in which it's simply that terrorists are evil sonsabitches.

Now I paraphrased there, here was the actual response:



Brennan keeps dancing around the issues throwing out phrases such as "religion" and whatnot, and I'm sure that plays to the base of people who believe that it's all about killing "infidels" and that the Islamic Terorrists are simply wanting to kill Christians, but that's not what it's about.

The motivation has been laid out repeatedly by not only various terrorists, but also by Osama Bin Laden himself, in which it's been pointed out that our meddling in the Middle East, our setting up bases in their countries, our killing their civilians (whether accidentally or not) is all the reasons for us being attacked. Not to mention Abu Graib and Guantanamo.

They don't want us in their countries, and we're too stupid to figure that out, even when they FLAT OUT TELL US!

I was thinking about this today and I have a perfect analogy for this:

Say you walk to work everyday. Now you can take the road, which will cost you about a half hour longer, or you can cut across the farmland next door to you which will get you there quicker. Now everyday you walk through the neighbor's land without permission, and every day the farmer comes out and smacks you across the face with a two by four.

This goes on for weeks, and months. Every day, it's the same thing. Finally one day you say "why are you doing this? Why do you keep hitting me in the face with this two by four?"

And the farmer responds, "I don't like you walking across my land, trampling my grass and plants."

And yet everyday you keep on walking through there, and everyday the farmer walks out and smacks you in the face with a two by four.

At work people ask you "what happened to your face? It's all red on the side." And you respond "oh my neighbor hit me"

When they ask why he hit you, you respond "oh he's just jealous of how I live my life. He's petty and hates that he doesn't have what I have."

Now, that's obviously an exaggerated scenario, and obviously this wouldn't have gone on for so long, but hopefully my point is made. The reasons they attack us have been given, and instead of acknowledging that, we just ignore it, and make up our own ridiculous reasons for why shit goes down the way it does.

Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com has a great piece on this in which he pretty much sums it up:

The evidence of what motivates Terrorism when directed at the U.S. is so overwhelming and undeniable that it takes an extreme propagandist to pretend it doesn't exist. What is Brennan so afraid of? It's true that religious fanaticism is a part of their collective motivation, but why can't he just say what's so obviously true: "they claim that the U.S. is interfering in, occupying and bringing violence to their part of the world, they cite things like civilian deaths and our support for Israel and Guantanamo and torture, and claim that their terrorism is in retaliation"?

Indeed, Brennan's boss, the President, has often claimed that things like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib help Al Qaeda recruitment (and it seems clear it was part of Abdulmutallab's hatred for the U.S.), so clearly U.S. actions are part of the motivation. Yet Brennan is afraid to acknowledge that not just past actions, but current ones, fuel the desire to target the U.S. for attacks.

When are we going to wise up to this? And by "we" I mean the government? What's that quote? "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different response?"

We are acting insanely and it's costing the United States thousands of American lives fighting overseas, trillions of dollars wasted on this so-called "war on terror", and our own country is crumbling from within under the weight of two wars that are wastes of our time.

But the United States has always had an overwhelming compulsion to engage in these dick measuring contests with the world, and to back down would mean failure and weakness. Much better to just stick with it and continue to hemmorhage money and lives, right? Better that than to accept and admit that you've been going at it the wrong way.

As I mentioned the other day, I've been a long time Dallas Mavericks fan. One of my all time favorite Mavs, Eduardo Najera got traded away several years ago which didn't make me very happy.

Well just a few minutes ago it came across the wire that Eduardo is coming back to the Mavericks via a trade with the New Jersey Nets. I always liked the defense that Najera brought to the team, a team much in need of defense over the years. So much so, that they were nicknamed the 'Allas Mavericks (No "D").

Via ESPN:

The Dallas Mavericks and New Jersey Nets have reached a verbal agreement on a trade that will send reserve forward Kris Humphries and exiled swingman Shawne Williams to the Nets and bring forward Eduardo Najera back to Dallas for a second stint after the Mavericks acquired him in the 2000 draft.

NBA front-office sources told ESPN.com on Friday night that the Nets agreed to use a trade exception to absorb the $2.4 million expiring contract of Williams, which clinched the deal. Dallas sent Williams away from the team last season over concerns about his professionalism and did not let him return this season.

Ever since the back and forth negotiations with Floyd Mayweather Jr. fell apart, people were wondering who Manny Pacquiao was going to fight. Rumors had him fighting Paulie Malignaggi (which made no sense considering he was the 1st to accuse Manny of doping) and Yuri Foreman, who didn't post much more of a threat to Manny than Paulie did. Neither of these were well received by boxing fans, and apparantly Bob Arum and Pac's team heard that loud and clear, because Manny is reportedly set to fight Joshua Clottey on March 13th 2010, site to be determined.

I think this is a better fight than Foreman/Paulie, even though I think Manny will still dominate. It's nice to see him taking on a bit of a tougher fight than we had heard.

Now we'll see who Floyd Mayweather Jr. will fight. Rumors had him fighting either Matthew Hatton in Wembly Stadium (which would be a joke of epic proportions) or Paulie Malignaggi (which would still be a joke, but not as big of a joke).

I'd personally like to see him take on a Shane Mosely, Miguel Cotto or a Paul Williams. And yeah, Miguel Cotto lost his last fight, but Floyd didn't have a problem fighting Zab Judah immediately following a loss.

I think who Floyd chooses to fight will speak volumes on whether or not critics are correct in saying that he tends to pick fights against people who have no chance to beat him and take his beloved perfect record away from him.

This is really cool. Check it out.

NOTE: Palindrome is a word given to words and phrases that read the same forwards and backwards. This video was created in much the same way, which becomes evident near the end. Very cool.

UPDATE: Apparantly the Redskins kinda sorta adhered to the Rooney Rule by interviewing secondary coach Jerry Gray. As John Feinstein writes HERE, it's kind of a traveshamockery, if we're being honest.

When the news came out today that Mike Shanahan had been signed to a 5 year deal to be the next coach of the Washington Redskins, two thoughts came to mind.

1. Wow, really? Mike Shanahan? The guy who's done nothing without John Elway his entire coaching career? The guy who did that nothing, while being in a notoriously weak conference? THAT guy gets a 5 year deal, when other coaches such as Bill Cowher were allegedly available?

2. Wait....so they fire Jim Zorn a few days ago, and already have a deal in place with Shanahan? What about the Rooney Rule? You know, the rule where every team has to seriously interview and consider African American and other minority coaching candidates in their search?

The only name I heard mentioned in the articles I've seen is Mike Shanahan, and the random rumors and speculation on Bill Cowher and Mike Holmgren and other white coaches.

So did Washington just ignore the Rooney Rule? And is the NFL going to just ignore them ignoring the rule?

While discussing this on a sports forum I'm on, I mentioned how it seems to me that the NFL is selective in who they pursue as to ignoring the Rooney Rule. They'll fine some teams, and other teams won't be.

I don't pretend to know why that is, but it is a bit strange. For all I know, the Redskins DID interview an African American coach, and decided on Shanahan. For all I know, or any of us know, they honestly felt that Shanahan was the best coach they had talked to.

That's not out of the realm of possibility. However it's just strange how there was no names bandied about as serious contenders for that job, other than the one who ended up getting that job.

Maybe we'll hear more about this in the coming days. And maybe not. Maybe, as I said, it's selective, and the NFL won't go after Daniel Snyder, the owner of the Redskins.