Obama, Elitists, and Jeremiah Wrong

Hanh mitakuyapi. I got an email from a political site recently asking for comments on Obama, elitists and elitism, and Jeremiah "Wright"s comments. Let's discuss JW first.
Jeremiah "Wright" is well & truly Wrong. About nearly everything I've heard him comment on. That said, we come to some Traditional Lakota Teachings about such: (1) Bad words are like the wind blowing around you. Ignore them and keep to your trail. (2) Some statements are so stupid, they don't deserve the dignity of further response. This proves that lack of response does not mean you thought the speaker was right.. Remember "the silent majority".. They subscribe to this Teaching.
Reconsider (1) and ignore the noisy mouths such as J Wrong. If all else fails or you need reinforcement for (1) and (2) above, there's (3) Consider the source (of the remarks) and rise above it. Is sometimes harder to do than it sounds, but is well worth the effort. It's about dignity and keeping your self-respect.
On to elitists and elitism. My perspective on them is, elitists are people of small souls, small minds, and small views. They 'think' others "suck up" to them.
Since I Walk with a Holy Pipe, there is no one for me to "suck up" to, so I don't..
In our Lakota Way, the Teaching about that for 'everyone else' is, "As the Keeper of a Pipe lives, so live the People who come close to Them." So now there's no "sucking up" for you, either. So much for elitists and elitism. And with luck, Obama. And Hilary. And John McC. I plan to write in either "None of the above. Give us some REAL choices for a change!" or vote for my dog. His name is Chakli, if you want to join me.. (It means "coal" in my language.)
On Obama.. I haven't liked the man since he first began to run, and it has taken awhile for me to figure out why. He's what we ITI call "a salesman". He's an elitist, he's slick, and while he seems to believe he's telling us the truth, I don't hear the ring of it when he speaks. My gut reaction is to tune him out and look elsewhere for a candidate for President. My gut reactions have never been wrong, and I'm a great grandmother now..
When GWB first ran for President, I asked myself my standard question for determining if I should vote for him - "would I buy a used vehicle from this person knowing no more about him/her than I do right now?" My gut reaction was a screaming, "No! No way!" History has proven my gut reaction right, hmm?
I'll talk about Hilary and John McC separately. Back to Obama..
He doesn't seem to be part of the mainstream black 'tribe'. He strikes me as some kind of sellout, from whatever "black tribe mindset" may exist, to what I call "white middle-class blahness". He has made disparaging remarks about "blackness" in America. He and his wife made $4.6 million in 2007, which definitely puts him apart from mainstream blacks in the U.S. He just doesn't seem real.
What he reminds me of most is Bill Clinton without the dick-think problem. He wants what he wants, and to heck with what we want. Or need. He 'thinks' he knows better than the rest of us what we most need. I'm always leery of people like that.
Obama reaches out, but he doesn't make contact. Not with this Indn, anyway. And to heck with what "the tribes" have decided. Tribal councils have almost never been in line with the wants and needs of their People since some time in the 1850's, and more so since IRA 1934. So don't be fooled that most ITI want Obama just because some tribal councils have said they think he's the best choice. The majority of us ITI don't necessarily agree.

Stephen Hawking and the Reality of a Creator

I've been reading a book on Stephen Hawking, the British theoretical physicist who has ALS.
Dr. Hawking wrote a book in 1988, A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME; FROM THE BIG BANG TO BLACK HOLES. In it, he asks, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
The analogy for the shape of the universe he uses is that of the earth, having a point - somewhere - at the top, widening to the equator, then becoming smaller to a point - somewhere - at the bottom. Since there is no place on the earth that is identifiable as the point of beginning of the earth, so there can be no point of an end to the surface of the earth. Dr. Hawking takes the position that because this is so for the earth, if it is also true for the universe, then there is no need or place for a creator.
He further posits that there is no place for a creator - i.e., no reality of one - because, without a point of beginning, there is no possibility of "anything existing before time".
I believe Dr. Hawking is wrong, and that his position has a basic flaw. This basic flaw stems from the logic he uses to make his position. He appears to believe that if we cannot measure either "time", or the point at which "time" began, nothing existed before it except possibly energy, and nothing could have. Simply because there is no point of beginning - of time or anything else - that we mere humans can measure does not automatically insure that nothing came before the thing we call "time". In fact, 'nothing' has been proven to be impossible to exist; nature abhors a vacuum and there are no true vacuums to be found anywhere.. If there were, the basic laws of physics would be nullified. In short, Dr. Hawking depends on humans' ability to measure and quantify the universe in order to define both the universe and the reality, or lack thereof, of a creator, and his position is based on a premise that is a direct violation to the most basic laws of physics.
Moreover, the lack of a point of beginning or ending of the earth or any part of the universe in whole or in part proves the reality of a Creator, simply because it reflects the eternal nature of the Creator, Which has not beginning or ending Itself.
While Dr. Hawking is welcome to espouse any theory he cares to, the lack of ability to measure a thing does not prove it doesn't exist. The most basic laws of physics speak to this. What this lack does prove is that human technology is not infallible, may never achieve the perfection he seems to believe it can, and in any case, since physics has long ago proven that there is no such thing as a 'true' vacuum – i.e., a space containing absolutely nothing, there may well be a creator.
More than that, I believe absolutely that the universe is a logical creation, and that this in and of itself proves absolutely that there is indeed a creator. To believe in the logic that allows physics and mathematics to exist and to describe the mysteries of the universe and then to claim at the same time that the universe happened by accident is completely illogical. If the universe happened entirely by accident, logic could not function. Predictability would not exist. Chaos would rule, rather than entropy and predictability. The Big Bang may have happened, but it did not 'just happen'. There was a logic – a creator – that made it happen, if it happened at all.

I am a Traditional person of my Lakota People. We have a creation story, as does every other culture on earth. I will tell a part of it here, because it reinforces my position.

Our Lakota Creation Story teaches: Long, long ago, before measurable time existed, and so, before the world (= universe) existed, everything existed, but it was formless. We Lakota call this formless condition 'being in the void'. A void is not an empty space; no such place exists. Void means “the absence of physical form”. Yet, there was life, because everything is made up of spirit (energy) at its most basic.

A proof of this would be lightning. We can see lightning and its effects, but we cannot see the parts that make it up, and we know it is pure spirit, pure energy. Yet, among our People, there are those wakan (mysterious / holy) people who can call the lightnings – the Wikangli Oyate – and work with them. These are the heyoka – sometimes called the Thunder Dreamers.

Anyway, the many parts within the void may not have had form, but they did have a connection to each other; we say, "they were related"; and they knew this and that they made up a whole, because the world (= universe) is composed of spirit at its most basic, and spirit has no one form itself, yet It is everywhere.

For whatever reason, suddenly the group consciousness began to wonder what Its various parts were like. It wondered about this for awhile, until finally Its curiosity was so great It decided to find out.

It began to separate out some of its most basic spirit energy, since Power has many levels, and what eventually formed, was Inyan, the Rock, which later became the Earth.

As the most basic spirit energy separated out and formed Inyan, the Rock, some of the Power of Takuskanskan – Something Holy Moving, which is spirit / energy, which is always moving – also leaked out. As it turned out, it had to be this way, although we don't know why, or need to know why, and it could not be reversed without great difficulty.

The color of this Power was bright blue, and became the disc of the sky. This shade of blue is the holiest of the colors. The point when Takuskanskan began to separate out some of Its most basic spirit energy and it became Inyan as it solidified into having form, is when Time began.

We Lakota have known these things far longer than the majority culture has existed. And, whether we argue Dr. Hawking's question from the perspective of the newcomer, physics, or from that of ancient knowledge from my people's culture, we know his question and his belief that there is no Creator, is wrong and his logic is flawed; that he has apparently overlooked some basic tenets of physics and logic. Just because something has always been does not mean there is no creator - it means there must be a creator, since only the form, or lack of it, is the point of contention. The universe IS the Creator, then; resolving Itself into Its myriad parts, in order to learn what It is really all about. The ongoing formation of the universe is a voyage of self-discovery by the Creator. Hechetu ye.