by baldilocks

I’m a prideful person. Because I recognize the insidious way that I’ve allowed pride to wreak havoc in my life, I talk about the effects of pride at lot.

It’s almost like the dry drunk who preaches against the evils of Demon Rum. I say almost because it’s easier for a recovering alcoholic to keep away from the booze than it is for pride junkies to keep pride out of our lives.

For everyone, pride is always lurking about, trying to disguise itself as something good and moral in order to have its way in a person’s life. Some people are more prone to it than others, as is so for every other sin/character flaw.

I noticed it flare up in me today—again. I try not to be arrogant about my intellectual abilities because I haven’t done that much with them and because they are gifts—talents—from God anyway. And what He gives, he can take away.

Cause of the flare up: people will treat me like I’m stupid, ignorant, and/or ill-informed until shown otherwise—and sometimes even afterward. I’d say that this has happened to me about twice a month since I first noticed it during my high school trigonometry class, where the teacher treating darker-skinned blacks as if we had just climbed down out of the trees. (Math has always been my favorite academic subject.)

Most of the time I ignore the “condescension.” (I hate that word.) But, occasionally, I’ll use it to make the person sorry that they underestimated me.

That last option is evidence of my pride.

It’s one of the beasts I wrestle down every day and, conversely, I try not to make others feel small either—especially when that stuff can come back and bite one on the butt.

Hill’s service is less useful that this.

Do you think that’s what will happen to CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill? I’ve been trying really hard not to wish it on him.

Lamont Hill said while he has “respect” for Harvey, he’s part of the “mediocre negroes being dragged in front of TV as a photo-op for Donald Trump’s exploitive campaign against black people.”

And about that phrasing—it’s an indicator of the same old thing I’ve been talking about for years: the patronage/serf mindset. Hill wants all observers to know that he is a better serf to his patron that the other serfs are to their patron—Hill is proud of his serfdom and of his service.

But the only way which he can think of to telegraph this notion is to demean the other serfs.

It’s just so much neuroses and lack of self-awareness. And it keeps happening over and over again with these leftish sorts.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done on February 1, 2017! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

by baldilocks

Don’t get it twisted; not a Godwin’s Law violation

Countless times, I’ve seen the assertion that Republicans don’t “care about” black people, starting well before Kanye West’s infamous opinion about George W. Bush in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It’s a notion that sits on very many questionable foundations. I’m not talking about the assertion that Republicans don’t care about black people, but the notion that they should, as if the caring is a good thing.

Conversely, it’s often expressly stated that Democrats do “care about” black people. But aside from what that care entails, why should any government entity care about me? I smell paternalism.

Now, unlike the Social Justice Warriors, I have nothing again paternalism in its proper context: God the Father, individual fatherhood, grandfathers, pastors, etc. Government and political parties, however, placed into that framework tend to ring all my tyranny bells. I mean, it isn’t as if government or leaders of government haven’t sought to insert themselves into the categories that I listed above, once or dozens of times.

In fact, in this country, government has indeed put itself in the place of individual fathers. And the generational results of this “care” have been catastrophic for black citizens, and, increasingly, for all Americans.

So, when a Democrat tells me that Republicans don’t “care,” about me, I feel a sense of relief which most of them can’t imagine. I don’t want Republicans—or Democrats—to care about me. I want them to do the jobs listed in the Constitution and I want them to stay out of the way as I try to care for myself.

But, as I’ve said before, the notion of government and political party as succor—as parent—is almost too ingrained into the psyches of all Americans and especially, black ones. The idea is so well indoctrinated into black American minds that anyone white who repudiates this notion is considered a racist and any black person, a race traitor.

We are interfering with the gravy train.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done on February 1, 2017! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

by baldilocks

Click the links at the risk of your own emotional equilibrium.

In Saturday’s post, I said this:

[W]hat does Satan want ultimately? Answer: the death of humanity, but not just death. He wants our debasement, since he is envious of God’s love for us. Therefore, he will turn as many of us as he can into monsters. He does this on many levels: individual, familial, national, and ethnic; and he does it over time.

Lately, we’ve seen reports of mayhem in which people do unthinkable things to their children and to the children of other people. These ideas don’t just pop up in the minds of the perpetrators; a foundation is laid in the spirits of such people and a “house” is built on top of that foundation. From what I’ve read about it, these people were usually victims of severe child abuse themselves, but where did/do these things start? Who was the first to “decide” that the abuse of others—especially of children—was not or just okay, but pleasurable?

People decide all the time that they don’t believe in and/or need God, but I think that it takes more than that decision to lay the basis for evil in one’s soul. The Bible calls it “hardening of the heart”—an active turning to the other side. It seems that is usually involving occult practices and/or drugs.

If you looking into many of these cases, often the perpetrator is taking some psychotropic illegal substance—like heroin or meth. (The latest drug fad is synthetic marijuana.) And I bet if one looks far enough back into such a person’s lineage, one will find that a progenitor dabbled in the occult.

With God, all things are possible, but without Him anything is, including all the evil things we see in the news of late. Spiritual doors are being opened, entryways better left shut.

RELATED: Musings on Evil, Part One

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done on February 1, 2017! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

by baldilocks

Two recent public atrocities have been on the minds of many observers this week: the Chicago torture of a disabled man–which the perpetrators streamed on Facebook and the latest jihad shooting at Ft. Lauderdale Airport during which five people were murdered. And tomorrow is the tenth anniversary of the Christian-Newsom rape-torture-murder.

My purpose here isn’t to recount any of these crimes or to talking about the looming racial and/or religious warfare. It is to point out how mundane and commonplace these things seem to be. But, the reality is that none of these types of disgusting things are new.

The world over, perverse murders and mayhem are carried out almost unchecked and this has been so for millennia. And lest you think I’m talking about the Third World, you might want to review your pre-1945 European history. Everywhere in existence, there are people who will rape, disfigure, murder, etc. without the slightest twinge of conscience.

The difference here in the USA is that monsters think twice before they attack. It may seem as if there is a greater amount of American violent crime these days, but that’s only because we have direct access to the crime reports within seconds.

Here’s the thing about those who will still commit their acts despite the likelihood of legal consequences: they don’t care about the consequences; I doubt if they even think far enough into the future to care; such people are all appetite and always hungry. And I’d even venture that such people are proud of themselves—like the Facebook torturers.

It is a spiritual matter and, because of that, you cannot reason with these types.

Consider this: what does Satan want ultimately? Answer: the death of humanity, but not just death. He wants our debasement, since he is envious of God’s love for us. Therefore, he will turn as many of us as he can into monsters. He does this on many levels: individual, familial, national, and ethnic; and he does it over time.

Monsters don’t just spring up out of nowhere. They are made.

(To be continued…)

UPDATE: Musings on Evil, Part Two

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done on February 1, 2017! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

by baldilocks

Red Pill–sort of

Since making a public New Year’s Resolution to minimize my time on Facebook and Twitter in order to finish my second novel, Arlen’s Harem, by February 1st, I’ve had minimize my time online in general.

The result is that I don’t really know what’s going on in the news right now, and it feels kind of good–I’m old enough to recall when the news cycle was a couple of weeks, rather than a couple of minutes.

Generally, I take two days off per week from the Internet Race-to-Comment, anyway, and when I come back, I have to spend an hour or two getting back in the loop. Three days of separation from the news-cycle fix nearly puts a news junkie in Low Information Voter (LIV) territory. But now, I don’t wonder why LIVs often seem calmer and happier: they don’t know that the sky is falling and, sometimes, it better not to know. Ignorance, bliss, you know.

The commentary race often gets bloggers in trouble anyway—if one is the slightest bit concerned about accuracy and about being original. That last concern is why I don’t comment on some topics and events—I have nothing new to say about them.

Staying away from shorter communications also has a positive effect on my ability to build a narrative. When I composed the bulk of Tale of the Tigers, I spent much of my non-typing work on it spinning yarns in my mind and connecting them to other parts of the novel. A handy, pre-smartphone tool was an mp3 player in which I could speak my story ideas without writing them down or having to remember them. (I made the grievous mistake of thinking through a story without out writing it down or recording it once…and only once.)

I’ve been semi-newsfree since about the 31st. Obviously, I’m going to have to watch the news a bit in order to post here and at my own blog. But, it feels good to know that I can still spit out 300 or 30K words without being fed by the Matrix.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done on February 1, 2017! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

by baldilocks

 

Sounds ominous, doesn’t it? And it should. Many famous people have died this year, some from old age, some from long-term conditions , some from freak accidents, and of course drug overdoses. Most heart-wrenching and thought-provoking were the deaths of mother-and-daughter superstars, Debbie Reynolds and Carrie Fisher, within 24 hours of each other. But there were some non-famous deaths as well this year, including the mother of my Kenyan siblings, Jeniffer Dawa Ochieng (spelling correct).

The Truth is that most famous persons are famous for a reason. They accomplished something, if only to make a bunch of people laugh, cry, or tap their feet, making them a lot more useful than many. And many of the non-famous, like Jeniffer Ochieng, accomplished even greater things— being a loving wife, mother and grandmother, for example.

Another truth is that we all have to leave this existence; we all have to die. But what do we do in the interim? Live the best lives we can and count our blessing. For example, a friend who works for an airline gave me a ticket so that I was able to be with my American parents for Christmas. It was a great blessing indeed. (My American parents are in good health, but they aren’t getting any younger and neither am I.)

And after I returned to Los Angeles, I got thinking about my three parents, how happy I am to have hugged each of them this year, and what I can do to make them more proud of me. I found an answer.

In my tagline here at Da Tech Guy, I have been promising to finish my second novel, Arlen’s Harem—first in 2014, then in 2015, then this year. Well, I’ve decided to make a New Year’s Resolution to finish it not just next year, but on February 1st of next year. It’s what I’m going to do, hook or crook.

And if I die before I start my third novel, at least I can say to God that I stepped out in faith and invested the talents that He gave me.

What are you going to do in 2017?

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done on February 1, 2017! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

Repost from my blog.

by baldilocks

I try not to scream in frustration in response to some usage of the word ‘extremism.’ People use it without even thinking about what it actually means. And it almost always has the word ‘Christian’ is front of it, and, less often, ‘Muslim.’

According to the ignorant, extremism is always something bad–usually involving pain or death–and, again, according to the ignorant, people like this ‘tard preach “Christian extremism.” And if you don’t know what Christ commanded, what the Dispensation of Grace is, or what the adjective ‘extreme‘ means, you’ll buy it.

Here, I’ll help a bit more: an actual extremist Christian wants you to believe that Jesus the Messiah died for your sins, rose again, and is your Lord and Savior. Also, that Christian wants you to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself  a whole heck of a lot. These items are the hash marks on the Christian yardstick and if, after knowing this, you decide you don’t want to follow Jesus, He tells His followers to move on to the next potential hearer of the Gospel and leave you be. “Shake the dust from your feet.” Extreme.

Conversely, an actual extremist Muslim wants everyone to submit to Allah, and wants to coerce any and all to convert to Islam or to pay the jizya tax. A truly extremist Muslim should, according to the Koran and the Hadith, use the threat of death toward this goal: your money or your life. And if you don’t want to convert or are unable to bribe them, it’s off with your head, if they can get close enough. This is yet another yardstick.

You can’t mix and match definitions and expect to make a coherent argument. But ignorance is so rampant that it almost doesn’t pay to point this out. But I did anyway.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

Pillar of Fire

Talking about the nature of God is always good

by baldilocks

The Shack, a novel by William P. Young, is being made into a movie and it isn’t surprising that many Christians are up in arms about it. I read the book a few years back and found it fascinating, but I missed out on the controversy that came with it when it was first published in 2007.

At issue is Young’s characterization of the Holy Trinity, seen through the eyes of the story’s main character, who on the four-year anniversary of his daughter’s brutal killing is mysteriously invited by someone named “Papa” — his wife’s affectionate name for God — to the abandoned shack in the Oregon woods where the girl died.

He goes, reluctant and angry, unsure if he’ll be met by his daughter’s murderer.

Instead, he finds this: a Middle Eastern, Jewish carpenter named Jesus; the Holy Spirit embodied in a wispy Asian woman who loves to garden and God (played by “The Help” star Octavia Spencer) as the very opposite of the Gandalf-like grandpa figure modern society is used to seeing.

This depiction — God as a woman despite its gender-less designation [sic] in the Bible — has some critics incensed.

(Emphasis mine.)

Does anyone remember how God appeared to the ancient Israelites in Exodus 13:21?

By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night.

And in Psalm 91:4, God appears to take on the characteristics of an avian.

[The Most High] shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. 

Appearance, solid existence, and what each of those concepts mean seem to be the key issue when it comes to this controversy, but the problem is much more simple than that.

Even many Christians cannot not quite wrap their minds around the sovereignty of God and, therefore, around His omnipotence. He can appear as a cloud, a pillar of fire, or as a female member of the species He created. And, in this context, we might consider one of the names of God: El Shaddai.

El is another name that is translated as “God” and can be used in conjunction with other words to designate various aspects of God’s character. Another word much like Shaddai, and from which many believe it derived, is shad meaning “breast” in Hebrew (some other scholars believe that the name is derived from an Akkadian word Šadu, meaning “mountain,” suggesting strength and power). This refers to God completely nourishing, satisfying, and supplying His people with all their needs as a mother would her child. Connected with the word for God, El, this denotes a God who freely gives nourishment and blessing, He is our sustainer.

(Emphasis mine.) This does not mean that God is a woman.

Omnipotence and sovereignty–much less all the other attributes of God listed in the Bible–are hard pills to swallow, even for some of us four-dimensional beings who acknowledge that there is a whole aspect of reality that, because of our human limitations, is nearly inconceivable and, usually, imperceptible.

There is another simple problem with criticism of the novel; Young never says or intimates through the plot of the novel that God the father is a black woman or that the Holy Spirit is an Asian woman. In fact, he goes out of his way to demonstrate the opposite by contrasting “their”[i] nature with that of Jeshua, who, in the novel and the movie, both appears as and is a Middle Eastern human male.

Like any good novelist, Young gives his audience credit for being able to figure this out by reading the book instead of taking what other say about it as…ahem…gospel truth.

Simple. And fundamental. I plan on seeing this movie.

Meanwhile, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukkah!

[i] As a human being with attendant limitations, I am content with not being able to entirely understand the concept of God’s triunity.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

And that the slaves were never freed

by baldilocks

There were all kind of attempts to lure the GOP state electors into voting for someone other than Donald Trump. A few took the bait, but so did some Democrat state electors; Hillary Clinton lost even more electors that Trump did. But, now that the Electoral Vote is done—yesterday—and now that Trump is again the victor, but Clinton won the popular vote, there’s a new meme emerging: that the Electoral College is racist. Yes, you read that correctly.

The New York Times leads the outcry with a description of the three-fifths clause in the Constitution and a distortion of its relationship to the Electoral College.[i]

The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America’s original sin. When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations [Ed.: slaves and Indians—and women]. Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes.

A more detailed description:

For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people [sic] of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College. (…)

The implementation of the Three-Fifths Compromise would greatly increase the representation and political power of slave-owning states. The Southern states, if represented equally, would have accounted for 33 of the seats in the House of Representatives. However, because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern states accounted for 47 seats in the House of Representatives of the first United States Congress of 1790. This would allow for the South to garner enough power at the political level, giving them control in Presidential elections.

However, as time moved forward, the Three-Fifths Compromise would not provide the advantage for which the Southern states and slave-owners had hoped. The Northern states grew more rapidly in terms of population than the South. Even though Southern states had essentially dominated all political platforms prior to the Civil War, afterward that control would be relinquished slowly but surely. It would not be until the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was be enacted in 1865 that the Three-Fifths Compromise would be rendered obsolete.

Bloody Kansas Era Editorial Cartoon

The Compromise was a trade-off because no perfect solution to the slavery conundrum was available at the time. It was an advantage to the South at first, but over time, the advantages amounted to nil. (This also explains Bloody Kansas.) Strategy.

Thus was the infant USA not born the perfect USA; it was born with a birth defect—an “original sin” just like every other nation on earth. ( The Organized Left always wants to talk about “original sin” even when they don’t believe in real sins—at least not those committed by their ideological allies.)

If the North had not compromised, one wonders what would have happened. Two nations would have likely been born and lasted about as long as 1812—the year of the next war with the British. And that time estimation is a generous one.[ii] And even if those fantasy nations had lasted, one wonders when the Southern Nation would have ever abolished slavery.  Sounds like a Democrat’s…er…Confederate’s dream, no?

So it is that the EC and the Compromise ensured that a USA was born, grew and matured and that her citizenry and liberty expanded.

But, it seems to me that the NYT editorial staff dreams of a never-born United States of America and believes it’s never too late to have an abortion. What a surprise.

[i] By the way, let’s not forget that Alexander Hamilton was a leading advocate and architect of the Electoral College.

[ii] There were three wars between the end of the Revolution (1783) and the War of 1812: The First Barbary War, The 1811 German Coast Uprising, and Tecumseh’s War.

RELATED: Electoral College Mission Accomplished All Around Left, Media and Right

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks

by baldilocks

A scientific experiment: “Come and see.” The Journey of the Magi (1894) by James Jacques Joseph Tissot.

Gerard Vanderleun on science, mystery, vision, the worship of false gods and of the true One:

It is a central tenet of our faith in science that the new will encompass the old in one endless and eternal conservation of sense and sensibility. In this cathedral we worship a database. We can see outward to the edge of what is, and downward into time was to (almost) the moment of Creation. We can see inward into (almost) the mute heart of matter. We have the proven method. We have the hard evidence. We know that nothing is, in time, beyond our knowing. All doubt has been removed. We are the Alpha and Omega. Our science is now as eternal and as deeply grounded in truth as… well, as astrology was in 5 B.C.

Somewhere around 5 B.C. three of the world’s leading astronomers/astrologers noticed something unusual in the sky. It could have been a comet. It could have been a supernova. It could have been a rare conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter. Whatever it was, it was strange enough for them to travel towards it. Or so it is said. Or so it is written. Or so it is remembered from the time of myth.

Myth or history? What is the reality of this road trip towards an obscure birth in a wretched town, during a not very pleasant passage in history, over 2,000 years in our past?

We do not know. We cannot know. As it is in so much else that we ignore it is not given to us to know.

We have only shards of pottery and fragments of texts snatched from desert caves or teased out of the soil with tin trowels and brushes. We have only the sifted detritus of history; a global jigsaw puzzle where ninety-nine percent of the pieces have long gone to dust.

Our past is a handful of ashes. It is beyond our gift to ever know the difference between an inspiring folk tale and the eyewitness accounts of something that, even today, would occupy the realm of the miraculous.

As well-done a praise and worship for the Way, the Truth and the Life as any. Read the whole thing.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

baldilocks