From the article:
"This is not a decision I come to lightly ... and it is one I make with some sadness," Obama said at a news conference after campaign officials released a letter of resignation he sent to the church on Friday.
"I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church," he said, adding that the new pastor at Trinity and "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them."
Basically, he is not quitting due to the doctrine of anger and hostility being taught here. This statement is simply saying he wants to spare the church of unwelcome attention that it has received during this campaign. In other words this "noble sacrifice" is not because it is the right thing to do for his campaign (or for himself personally), it's for the church's benefit.
Right. And my uncle plays lead guitar for The Who.
In the Indy Star today, we see some commentary on ethanol's role in the recent spike of food prices.
The price of food is rising, and the sharp increase in demand for corn to produce ethanol since 2005 is partly to blame. The only question is: How much to blame? Ethanol proponents say at most 4 percent of the overall run-up in food prices is due to ethanol. A different study estimates that as much as 30 percent of the rise in food prices worldwide is due to the production of ethanol and other biofuels, especially biodiesel from soybeans.
Such vastly different estimates mean two things: First, researchers are looking at different factors; and second, a precise answer really isn't possible. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to believe that the ethanol industry's number is far too low.
The opposite assessment can be found written by someone that is benefiting from ethanol. Naturally, he places the blame squarely on oil.
Over the last 18 months a firestorm of criticism concerning biofuels, and specifically ethanol, has erupted in the U.S. press. The criticism is directed at corn-based ethanol (ethanol produced from the corn kernel), with a number of "experts" and economists declaring that corn-based ethanol is the reason for rising food prices.
This is the premise of the essay but what follows is some weak, cherry-picked facts that really do not prove his point. Even the premise is faulty, because the critics are not putting the blame on ethanol, totally. Both are factors, the difference lies in how much the corn lobby wants us to believe is due to ethanol.
Read both pieces and see what you think.
Linda Chavez has written a lengthy opinion piece on race. I would recommend reading it before falling into this unhealthy trap of believing that race relations in this country are at an all-time low.
To put the truth plainly: far from there being a racial stand-off in the United States, relations between blacks and whites have never been better. According to virtually every survey of racial attitudes taken over the last several decades, only about 10 percent of whites report generally unfavorable views of blacks. In a 2007 Pew Research Center poll, the relevant figure stood at 8 percent—lower, interestingly enough, than the percentage of blacks reporting similarly negative views of their fellow blacks.
Amazing, but I doubt the MSM or Democratic hacks will even acknowledge this.