I was thinking about some descriptions for Obama for a post which will appear on Thursday, and one popped into my head that I thought was witty, but which wasn’t usable (you’ll see why when you read the post):
“Halfrican American”
Now, even though I’ve never heard anyone else use it, I thought I’d check before claiming credit.
Turns out Rush Limbaugh received numerous virtual groin-kicks for using it back in January of 2007 (check the comments for some Grade A bilious indignation).
But he didn’t come up with it first, either.
See for example this blog created in October of 2006, by “a twenty something mixbreed born again Black Jew”.
Or this cafe press shop catering to proud mulattos.
Or this MySpace page started in April of 2006 (CAUTION: Music starts playing automatically – devoluminify your speakers).
Theoretically (meaning I got tired of clicking Google links), the term dates back to a post by Coffeebot in an Engrish.com forum dated 9/27/05.

I made up a new word, yes I did. It’s supposed to describe a specific racial mix and I don’t mind adding that Noah is one. But I don’t want to sound all racist and if I ask [chicks] they’ll get all mushy because they can’t discuss real stuff, manly stuff like race and sex without getting all… verklempt.
The word is Halfrican-American. We all need to be proud of our heritage. Does this sound crass?

So what’s my point?
Probably something like “liberals are whiny, hypersensitive shrews who find racism with the unrestrained abandon of Guatemalans finding Mary on tortillas.”

A survey of Americans who have a religious affiliation showed 70% agreed that “many religions can lead to eternal life.” This is taken as a sign of religious tolerance, but I know many would react to it thinking that means many Christians don’t know their scripture. Personally, as a Christian, the afterlife is the part I least understand. Usually there are things so bad that if you do them, you get punished. And there are things so great to do that you get hugely rewarded for them. But those two things don’t usually overlap. For example, if you murder people, you get executed, but you don’t get a $100 million dollars for not murdering people. Also, if you’re really good at chemistry, you can get a Nobel Prize, but everyone who doesn’t get one isn’t taken out back and beaten. But with Heaven and Hell, it seems to be one or the other which never made much sense to me. Either not doing God’s will is so horrible you should get eternal torment for it but you shouldn’t expect anything special for doing what you’re supposed to do, or doing His will is such a glorious thing you get rewarded beyond belief but you shouldn’t be punished for failing to do such a hard thing.
Anyone have any good answers here? If someone doesn’t think too much about it, I would see why they would assume pretty much everyone goes to Heaven if Hell is the only other alternative as we can only think of people deserving eternal torment in the abstract and most of don’t have much of a problem of people being rewarded more than they deserve. Plus, it’s really hard to understand why a loving God would torture anyone for all eternity. I can see why Catholics came up with Purgatory, because it does seem like something is missing from the equation.
Know this wasn’t a funny post, but it was something that’s been bugging me I thought I’d put up for discussion.

Here’s an idea to solve the debate about drilling in ANWR: Just go ahead and do it and don’t tell anyone about it. What’s the likelihood of anyone venturing up to the northernmost reaches of that wasteland and noticing?