Last night, I was sitting on the edge of the couch with my parents watching CNN=Politics as the polls closed for the last two primary states. Despite the primary results, I knew what was coming, that a history making moment was minutes away. I watched as the numbers gradually decreased for the delegate count Barack Obama needed to clinch the democratic nomination. Even though I knew what was coming, I had to watch until he actually had the numbers on his side. So when the newscasters finally proclaimed Obama as the democratic nominee, I felt an emotional response unlike never before. I was happy, sad, exhilarated, amazed, motivated, and a whole host of emotions. An historic day that I wasn’t sure would ever come did. Americans decided that skin color was not a factor when it came to their democratic nominee. They wanted change. They wanted enthusiasm and hope. They wanted new blood. They wanted Barack Obama, and it didn’t matter that his father was a black man and his mother was a white woman. Considering what I know about American and African American history, I watched a miracle occur on June 3, 2008.

This country was largely built on the backs of slaves from Africa and their decedents. In fact, African Americans invented many amenities that we enjoy in our every day life – the traffic light, the filament in the light bulb (the filament actually makes the light in the bulb), elevators, and even the ironing board. Still, despite African American’s contribution to the country, they were treated less than human by many, before slavery and after slavery ended with Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. (more…)

Over the past couple of months, we’ve seen some U.S. presidential candidates go through “Pastorgate,” which is a series of scandals involving controversial comments made by ministers of churches that are or aren’t associated with the candidates. Barack Obama had to deal Rev. Jermiah Wright and more recently Father Michael Pfleger. John McCain had Rev. Rod Parsley and Rev. John C. Hagee. And Hillary Clinton? Well, no pastor seems to care about embroiling her in scandal. In any case, I have watched the media headlines and “news” talk shows dissect these “scandals” to the point of overkill. As an observer, I simply don’t understand why the media is harping over the Pastorgate comments. After all, the candidate didn’t say these things; these pastors did. So why is the media focusing so intently on comments made by these “rogue” pastors when these words didn’t come from the candidate? It’s quite simple; the media is trying to sway your vote by shooting a huge marketing effort for/against a particular candidate, which is why I think the U.S. government controls mainstream media more than we realize. However, we, as Americans, should take a deeper look at why these comments from pastors are irrelevant to the 2008 election.

When I attended institutionalized churches, I listened to hundreds (if not thousands) of pastors’ sermons. Some things the pastor preached, I agreed with and others, I did not. I usually didn’t agree with the pastor using the Word of God to preach a personal agenda that had nothing to do with saving souls or uplifting people. See, I listened intently enough to realize that there were times when I was being served up personal agendas that the pastor was pushing via charismatic sermons. Here are examples.

Example 1

One particular pastor constantly preached about how “the Baptists are trying to do it like we do.” By “we,” this particular pastor meant the charismatic movement known as the Pentecostal movement, which is similar to the Evangelicals. He obviously had an ax to grind against the Baptists because he often used them for target practice during his sermons. Whenever I visited that church, I noticed he could barely deliver a sermon without targeting the Baptists at least once. I also noticed that while some members jumped on his anti-Baptist bandwagon, others were so turned off that they eventually left the church, which also sent him packing not too long after attendance dropped. (more…)

Once again, rumors abound over the possible sale of Digg. If you follow what’s happening in technology startups, then you’re aware that this type of rumor concerning Digg crops up every few months Unlike those previous rumors, there is the appearance that this particular rumor has more credence than others…according to Michael Arrington.

Whether Digg is for sale or is on the verge of being acquired doesn’t really matter that much to me. I login to my Digg account periodically, but more often than not, months will go by before I visit the site. The site just isn’t as compelling for me as it once was; however, the same can’t be said for thousands of other users. Some are threatening an outright revolt. They are threatening to leave Digg (especially if Microsoft is the buyer) and jump ship to another competitor (Reddit, Propeller, etc.) if Jay Adelson and Kevin Rose “sells out and cashes out.” Have any of these Digg users speaking out against the alleged sale considered that Adelson and Rose are ready to move on to something else? Did they think Rose started Digg as a gathering place for fanboys to congregate? Last time I checked, Digg is not a non-profit; it’s a for-profit business. Anyone who goes into business may want to work for themselves and/or do something they’re passionate about, but they also want to make money.

Frankly, I don’t care what they do. It’s their business (literally), and they can do what they want with it. However, many Digg users don’t feel the same. They believe they “own” the site by providing content, and that if they whine enough, Digg will cave as they have done before. This sense of “entitlement and ownership” around Digg (or any other service) is the problem with the whole “wisdom of the crowds” philosophy. It’s a good idea in theory, but it’s a bad idea in practice.

Polaroid recently announced they would stop making instant film. For all you crazy, young kids who don’t know what I’m talking about, Polaroid made cameras that printed instant pictures right out of the camera! That’s right. You got your pictures instantly. No need to take your film to your local Walgreens or CVS pharmacies to have your pictures developed. No need to hook your digital camera up to your PC, store them, and load some of your digital photos on Flickr. All you had to do is wave your photo paper around like a fan for a few seconds, and you had your picture…you know, in an instant! Perhaps some people should have supported instant cameras more, and Polaroid wouldn’t have had to stop making instant film.

Recently, a scandal erupted when Hong Kong singer/actor, Edison Chen (of “The Grudge 2″ fame for us Americans) took his MacBook Pro in for repairs. Low and behold, the repair technicians couldn’t resist being nosy and found “racy pictures” of him and other female Hong Kong entertainers…approximately 1,300 photos.

YouTube Video Link: 

Perhaps this guy and all celebrities who insist on taking sex photos should have used instant cameras, and the poor guy wouldn’t have had to quit. That way, you can take your PC in for repairs without any worries. Now, if sex videos is your thing more so than photos, I suggest you use an old fashion VHS camcorder. I’m sure you can still find one somewhere.

Digital is not always good, people. Think before you store it on your machine.*

*This has been a public service announcement, courtesy of the WriteTilt Blogger. Thank you and good day.

My parents use to support Kenneth Copeland Ministries by sending in love donations before they wised up. They believed that the couple’s teachings would lead them to prosperity by giving. I watched as my parents consumed themselves in Kenneth & Gloria Copeland books, CDs, tapes, etc. on how to be prosperous while the only people getting prosperous were the Copelands as shown in this video.

YouTube Video Link: 

See previous coverage on televangelists:

• Pass the Collection Plate
• 80s Televangelist Scandals in a Nutshell