January 2012

Did you hear the latest?  President Obama has announced he will “no longer be thrifty with tax money”.  Kind of reminds me of when the Nazis announced, late in 1944, that they would “no longer coddle the Jews”, or when al-Qaida recently announced that they will “cease being so tolerant of those who burn the Quran.”

But back to reality.  None of the above would be so ignorant of their own past attitudes and policies.  The establishment Left, on the other hand, excels in displaying total ignorance of their own attitudes and policies.  Portland Realist brought one such example to my attention:

No longer colorblind

Schools’ new approach turns racial issues into cultural lessons


The Portland Tribune, Jan 19, 2012

A black teacher at a North Portland’s Open Meadow School sent an email to fellow teachers and staff last week with the subject line of “Whiteness,” asking for “articles or anything that helps explain what ‘Whiteness’ is and the impact it has.”

At nearby Jefferson High School, the white principal is working with her majority-white teaching staff to be more culturally responsive to the largely black student body.

Across town at mostly white Mt. Tabor Middle School, the black principal is encouraging open discussions in the classroom about the recent black-on-white assault of a 14-year-old girl on a MAX train.

At Marshall Campus library last week, 70 Portland Public School teachers — all but 10 of them white — ranked themselves in order of their self-assessed “White Privilege,” then candidly shared their feelings and experiences with racism.

Why all the talk about race in the schools, if we live in a nation where children “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?” to cite Martin Luther King Jr. on the anniversary of his birth this week?

For decades, it seemed that the right thing to do was foster a “colorblind” society, where race doesn’t matter — a la Stephen Colbert’s “I don’t see color” shtick.

Now education and government leaders here and nationally have adopted the opposite thinking, that we must focus on race at all times — because not doing so is actually setting the cause of racial equality back even further…

The “Mainstream Media” acts much like “Big Brother” in Orwell’s 1984.  “Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia”.  Never mind that everything you’ve seen, read, hear and know tells you otherwise.  Never mind that, for the last several decades, race and racial disparities have been in the headlines in newspapers across the country.  Never mind that schools have been indoctrinating black students to be proud of their racial heritage while, at the same time, doing everything in their power to cause white students to be ashamed of their own.  Never mind that, even as early as the 1970′s, when I was in high school, schools were keeping inventory of their students by race.  We must ignore long-standing government programs such as “No Child Left Behind”, forced integration and the anti-white violence it has engendered.    We must pretend that we never saw the multitude of studies that showed how black students were disciplined more than white students – and how teachers must therefore be held accountable for their “racism”.

All of that is in the past, and we must now make believe that it never happened.  Now we are told that, in the past, schools were “colorblind”.  It is as if we were told today, in the year 2012, that “American society has been ignoring Martin Luther King too much, that the time has come to start naming streets after him and maybe even recognizing him with a holiday”.  It makes us want to scream at the newspaper (or television, if you numb your mind with that device), “HELLO!!  Where have you been the last 50 years?”

Latte Island recently posted an extraordinary video about an autistic girl who had been unable to communicate, until one day she started typing on a computer keyboard.  I tried to post a comment there but, for some reason, I couldn’t get through the word verification.  I found the video very moving and informative.  The family appears to be Jewish.

Thank you, Latte Island, for bringing this to our attention!

I’m about to do something I loath.  I find it very distasteful to cite the Oregonian without attacking it.  But one can find valuable things even in puddles of bile and vomitus.  From the article:

Horrific murder no surprise in meth capital of US

Jan. 21, 2012, 6:03 p.m. PST

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) — When a 23-year-old Fresno woman fatally shot her two toddlers and a cousin, critically wounded her husband then turned the gun on herself last Sunday, investigators immediately suspected methamphetamine abuse in what otherwise was inexplicable carnage. It turned out the mother had videotaped herself smoking meth hours before the shooting…

A Bakersfield mother was sentenced Tuesday for stabbing her newborn while in a meth rage. An Oklahoma woman drowned her baby in a washing machine in November. A New Mexico woman claiming to be God stabbed her son with a screwdriver last month, saying, “God wants him dead.”

“Once people who are on meth become psychotic, they are very dangerous,” said Dr. Alex Stalcup, who treated Haight Ashbury heroin users in the 1960s, but now researches meth and works with addicts in the San Francisco Bay Area suburbs. “They’re completely bonkers; they’re nuts. We’re talking about very extreme alterations of normal brain function. Once someone becomes triggered to violence, there aren’t any limits or boundaries.”

The Central Valley of California is a hub of the nation’s methamphetamine distribution network, making extremely pure forms of the drug easily available locally. And law enforcement officials say widespread meth abuse is believed to be driving much of the crime in the vast farming region.

Chronic use of the harsh chemical compound known as speed or crank can lead to psychosis, which includes hearing voices and experiencing hallucinations. The stimulant effect of meth is up to 50 times longer than cocaine, experts say, so users stay awake for days on end, impairing cognitive function and contributing to extreme paranoia.

“Your children and your spouse become your worst enemy, and you truly believe they are after you,” said Bob Pennal, a recently retired meth investigator from the California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement.

I am not an expert on meth, but from what I’ve heard and read, it’s probably not a good idea to take up the habit.  Perhaps it is possible to be a casual meth user, just as there are casual users of many other illegal drugs.  But the analogy that came to my mind, and I’m certain I’m not the first to think of it, is that of a person who releases a dangerous beast into an inhabited area.  If that animal injures somebody, the responsibility goes back to the person who released it.

To damage one’s mind, in such a way that he becomes a danger and nuisance to those around him, is the equivalent of releasing a dangerous beast upon the unsuspecting public.  Whether he releases an actual beast, or turns himself into a beast, is immaterial; either way, people find themselves in danger because of his actions.

It is unfortunate that we must take government opinions, and studies, with a grain of salt.  It is difficult to trust them.  But if there were a substance that, upon repeated ingestion, caused people to become beasts, I can see how a ban on that substance could make sense.

Eugenicist is on a posting hiatus, but she still gives me good ideas for this blog now and then.  Here are some nice memes, of a genre called “liberal douche Garofalo”.  Enjoy!

There are many more where those came from – and you can make your own here.  If you come up with a good one, feel free to share it in a comment.

We recently saw news reports of blacks attacking a white on the Portland MAX (train).  According to the Oregonian, and the powers that be, this attack wasn’t racially motivated.  Therefore, hate-crime charges will not be pursued.  We are told:

Police have made arrests. Karley escaped with just bumps and bruises. TriMet has promised a written apology and to improve security. But there’s still something hanging out there. Buckland and I couldn’t decide which was uglier: The video or the reaction to it. “People have taken a grain of sand,” the landscaper and fishing guide said, “and tried to turn it into a 200-pound boulder.”

Karley is white. Her attackers are black. For many people hiding under the hood of anonymity on talk radio and in online forums, that’s all the evidence they needed to unload: Hate crime! Racist attack! Proof of “black hate” and “black racism”!

Stop. The reality, investigators say, is that the flogging started after Karley and her attackers had a “verbal dispute” on the train. Karley made it clear that she didn’t appreciate the girls’ loud, distasteful remarks about a boy riding with her. They, in turn, didn’t like that she had the mettle to stand up for her friend. So, the thugs advanced.

Yes, Karley told me, one of the strangers referred to her as “white girl.” But it was an encounter of a hundred insults. The girls were drunk on their own spit. These are the things bullies say.

Reading this story, a sense of deja vu came over me.  Haven’t I seen this before?  Oh yes!  Back in 2008 there was also a black on white attack – and we were told the same thing, that race was not a factor.  That the white victim was just as much at fault as the “vibrant” perpetrators.  In another black-on-white attack the same year, the Oregonian did admit possible racial motives – and even included the fact that racial epithets were used – but readers had to get about half-way through the article to learn that it was “African Americans” who were attacking the elderly white woman.

The black-on-white public transit crimes we read about in the news are only the tip of the iceberg.  I have personally heard white victims recounting their ordeals, at the hands of blacks, in attacks that never made it to the news.  Are there any white-on-black attacks on the MAX?  I seriously doubt it.  Whites do sometimes misbehave on the Max, but it appears that most violent incidents are by blacks.

But getting back to the first incident, an Oregonian article, printed January 13th, 2012 (but apparently missing from their webpage) helps put the racial aspect of the crime in context:

Officers arrested three young women suspected of beating and spitting on a 14-year-old Centennial Middle School student Dec. 26 on a Green Line MAX train.  A bystander’s video of the attack went viral.

Rakeshia Shamone Burns, 18, her 16-year-old half-sister and the 13-year-old half-sister of the 16-year-old face counts of assault, riot, disorderly conduct, harassment and interfering with public transportation, said Sgt. Pete Simpson, a Police Bureau spokesman.

One gets the impression that there are a lot of half-siblings in the black community of Portland.  But aside from that, it is obvious that the authorities threw the book at those “troubled youths”.  Notably missing, of course, are “hate-crime” charges.  The article continues:

In a separate incident, a mother and daughter were arrested following a fight about 3:05 p.m. Thursday about a TriMet bus near Southeast 122nd Avenue and Division Street.

Officers were told that the pair tried to use invalid transfers, then verbally abused the driver and punched two passengers who tried to intervene.

Tina Renee Duckett, 36, and Markishia Welikea Duckett, 19, were jailed on counts of assault and interfering with public services, Simpson said.

Lest there be any doubt as to the ethnicity of this mother-daughter team, here’s what they look like:

All told, the article (on page B2 in the corner) describes three separate incidents.  They could not hide the race of the first two.  But here is the description of the third:

On Wednesday, a 15-year-old Benson High School student was beaten about 8 p.m. as he walked to a MAX platform on North Interstate Avenue.  He was catching a Yellow Line train home after a wrestling tournament when a car driver yelled at him, then punched and kicked him Simpson said.

The suspect, who remained at large, was described as in his 30s, about 5-foot-10 and 200 pounds, with a silver Toyota Avalon.

Is it just me or is there something obvious missing from the above description of the suspect?  Should we take a wild guess here and assume that that assailant was black?  Well, it turns out we would be right.  Here are some comments from the comment section of another Oregonian article:

MSNBC is reporting that the assailant was a black man. Yep, another racist attack. What other motive could there possibly be? Supposedly police are trying to retrieve videotape from the MAX platform to attempt the ID. But if you believe the police, Tri-Met or anyone at the Oregonian (which is too PC to even give a description of the villain) REALLY want to find the assailant, you’re dreamin.

I had a feeling. The O keeping it quiet to temper the story about the black mom and daughter Trimet Assault and the black teenager Trimet attack the other day. Ms Crombie, maybe you have any comment on this, sometimes reporters leave notes on these things?

Gee. The Seattle news says it was a 200 lb black adult male that administered the beating to a 15 year old white kid. No hate crimes in Portland if the Oregonian won’t print the news.

The printed version of this story in the O goes on to describe this guy as aprox 30 years old, 5-10 and 200lbs. Presumably so others can help track him down. What are the chances that the O just accidentally forgot to include his race while every other news agency is reporting that he was black?  I don’t care what race he is….white, black or otherwise just print the news in it’s entirety and quit thinking you need to be so GD PC! This is exactly why the O is in the crapper.

Three different incidents, all involving black perpetrators and white victims.  And yet they still have the audacity to tell us that race had nothing to do with them.  This is why we should never support the Oregonian, or any other “mainstream” newspaper with our money.  I get mine used from work.

An afterthought:  I’m pretty sure that Pete Simpson, the police spokesman, is well aware of the truth.  He would probably love to be able to speak his mind, but he fears for his job and his family.  He probably did include the race of the perpetrator in the last case – but the Oregonian conveniently left it out.

Julie Kroll, of The Wrap, asks a fairly good question:  “Why do they always blame the Jews?”

Have you noticed how celebrities who seem to reach a crisis moment in their lives lately bring up the Holocaust or engage in anti-Semitic wordplay during their outbursts — most notably Mel Gibson, John Galliano and Lars von Trier. Two were drunk, one is known for his unpredictable behavior, but still: Why blame the Jewish people?…

She goes on to give some examples of celebrities, and their relatives, making anti-Jewish comments or claiming to be Nazis.  Some of them were drunk, some senile and some apparently taken out of context.  But, for our purposes, we can assume that they were expressing their sincere opinions.  After all, we know that many people really do dislike Jews.  This much is not in question.

I knew, from the start, that Kroll would not even try to give an honest answer.  Instead, this is what we get:

 I read an article one of my good friends sent me from Aish.com. Historians and sociologists have come up with numerous theories to explain anti-Semitism. We will examine these one by one, and discuss the validity of each.

Economic: Jews are hated because they possess too much wealth and power.

Chosen People: Jews are hated because they arrogantly claim they are chosen by God.

Scapegoat: Jews are a convenient group to single out for blame.

Deicide: Jews are hated because they killed Jesus.

Outsiders: Jews are hated because they are different than the rest of society.

Racial Theory: Jews are hated because they are an inferior race.

Let’s examine these six frequently given reasons…

After briefly examining only the first of these reasons, economic envy, Kroll apparently ran out of space and concluded, essentially, by saying “don’t be an anti-semite”.  Not once does it even occur to her that there might be some sort of behavior, or attitude, common among Jews, behind the dislike called “anti-semitism”.  It’s really very simple.  If it is acceptable to announce that one likes Jews, or “people of color” or gays, then this must refer to certain traits.  Otherwise, such a statement is meaningless.  If a person can like certain traits, then it follows that he can also dislike those, or other, traits.  I’ve never heard of anybody getting in trouble for saying he “likes Jews” or “likes gays” for example.  But the implication would be that, relatively speaking, he dislikes gentiles or straight people.  But this is not considered a problem.  If that same person were to announce that he “likes gentiles” or “likes straight people”, there is little doubt that there would be vocal objections.

As of this writing, there are only 9 comments to Kroll’s article.  That is to say, there are only 9 approved comments.  Here is my comment, which I doubt will be approved:

Perhaps it’s because anti-white organizations and individuals, such as the SPLC, appear to be composed largely of Jews.  Here is a short piece I wrote addressing this very issue:


Here is a good synopsis how we know the SPLC is anti-white:


Hat tip to Human Stupidity (he sends me a lot of stuff) for bringing this to my attention.  Should the figurehead monarch of a historically Christian nation honor Islam by covering her head while visiting mosques in Muslim countries?  Many people are asking this question:

Queen Beatrix took on the fiery leader of her country’s anti-Muslim party, Geert Wilders, on Thursday by dismissing as “nonsense” his criticism of her decision to wear a headscarf during a recent visit to a mosque.

The queen made her unusually forthright comment to Dutch reporters covering her state visit to the United Arab Emirates and Oman. Her comments were not recorded, but Beatrix told reporters she wore the head scarf in the UAE and again on a visit to an Oman mosque to show religious respect.

The popular monarch was responding to questions from reporters about parliamentary questions filed by anti-Islam lawmaker Geert Wilders, who said the monarch’s decision to cover her head on a visit to a mosque in Abu Dhabi on Sunday legitimises the oppression of women.

It is rare for the queen to respond so directly – and dismissively – to criticism from a political party in the Netherlands, where the unelected head of state’s role is largely ceremonial.

Wilders is a staunch opponent of Islamic head scarves and head-to-toe burqa robes for women. He is not alone in his position: the government of the Netherlands has announced plans to ban burqas.

I have no idea why she was visiting a mosque in the first place, but I can think of several possible reasons.  As for her decision to obey the dress code within the mosque, of course she did the right thing.  What kind of person would visit a house of worship, of any religion, and disrespect the the dress code?

When gentile politicians visit the Western Wall in Israel, they typically wear a skull cap.  I happen to believe this is unnecessary and silly – but I understand their motivation:  They wish to show respect for local traditions and people.  When I visited Egypt, I walked about dressed in a Galabiyeh for much the same reason.

Perhaps Mr. Wilders has a problem with his queen visiting a mosque in the first place.  This I could understand, but surely he doesn’t expect her to be rude and disrespectful toward people in their own native countries.  If Europeans expect foreigners to respect European traditions in Europe, then they need to set an example by respecting other peoples in their own lands.

Human stupidity brought a positive turn of events to my attention.  The government of Ireland is now allowing homeowners to protect themselves with lethal force.  In the past, the law required them to retreat in the face of an intruder.  Naturally, “civil liberties organizations” are attacking the new law.  Apparently, the right to defend yourself, your family and your p0ssessions, is not a “civil liberty” according to them.

As told by Irish Central:

Irish homeowners now have legal right to shoot intruders

New law is attacked by civil liberties organizations as ‘license to kill’


IrishCentral.com Staff Writer
Irish homeowners can now legally shoot anyone who enters their property – a move that has been slammed by civil liberties campaigners in a row with Justice Minister Alan Shatter.

Legislation has now  come into effect that allows homeowners to use “reasonable force” to defend themselves, their families and their property.

The new home defense bill has moved the balance of rights back to the house owner if his home is broken into “where it should always have been,” say top Irish police.

The police association of superintendents and inspectors, the AGSI, stated before the bill became law, that “the current situation, which legally demands a house owner retreat from an intruder, was intolerable.”

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, however, is highly critical of the change in the law but Justice Minister Alax Shatter has denied it is a “license to kill.”

Council director Mark Kelly has labeled the new law “lax” on home defense and is highly critical of the legislation.

Kelly said: “These are lax proposals, which contain insufficiently robust legal safeguards to protect the right to life of householders or intruders.

“The law encourages people to use lethal force to defend their property and is at odds with Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights which obliges the state to ensure that lethal force can only be used if absolutely necessary and strictly proportionate in all the circumstances.”

Those who object to the law claim that innocent people will accidentally get shot.  This is true, but it illustrates the flaw of so many “civil liberties” proponents:  They are so concerned about the right to life that they are willing to sacrifice basic rights in order to protect it.  In more sane times, people understood that other priorities sometimes take precedence over an individual life.  Among them are justice, pride, spiritual fulfillment, protection of family and nation, and liberty.  For many people, these are values that make life worth living.
I applaud the Irish for passing this law and I hope it can withstand the inevitable attacks from the European Union.

It seems to me that the “mainstream media” hates Ron Paul mainly because it is simply an organ of the entrenched establishment and status quo.  We live in a big-government, anti-freedom, anti-white, sports-oriented world – and the powers that be want to keep it that way.  Does this make them “conservative”?

While Barack Obama used the slogan “hope and change”, he clearly gets his directives from the same people who controlled Bush and just about every other president in living memory.  Ron Paul, while not perfect, at least calls for meaningful change.  He calls for more freedom and less government.

It just so happens that some people at Stormfront also want more freedom and less government.  The folks at the New York Times did enough research to build a circumstantial case that Paul might have pro-white sympathies.  Gasp!  It seems he has associated with people who are not filled with hatred toward their own kind.  The horror!  Not only that, but he has stated he would have rejected the 1964 Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds.  The nerve!  How dare he support property rights and freedom of association; those concepts are alien to all that is good and wholesome – at least according to the New York Times:

But a look at the trajectory of Mr. Paul’s career shows that he and his closest political allies either wittingly or unwittingly courted disaffected white voters with extreme views as they sought to forge a movement from the nether region of American politics, where the far right and the far left sometimes converge.

In May, Mr. Paul reiterated in an interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawing segregation. He said that he supported its intent, but that parts of it violated his longstanding belief that government should not dictate how property owners behave. He has been featured in videos of the John Birch Society, which campaigned against the Civil Rights Act, warning, for instance, that the United Nations threatens American sovereignty.

Would the New York Times ever objectively examine the pros and cons of the Civil Rights Act?  About as much as the Vatican would objectively examine the pros and cons of the Virgin Mary.  To question the Civil Rights Act is tantamount to blasphemy in their eyes.  Property rights?  Way over-rated.  “American sovereignty”?  Since when was the Times concerned about that?  In their eyes, America is just a random place on a map.  A crime scene where “racist whites” have yet to make amends for their past sins.

The Times attacks Paul for noticing that whites are disproportionately victims of violence at the hands of blacks – a fact the Times has been trying to hide for decades:

An earlier edition of another newsletter he produced, The Ron Paul Political Report, concluded that the need for citizens to arm themselves was only natural, given carjackings by “urban youth who play whites like pianos.” The report, with no byline but written in the first person, said: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self-defense. For the animals are coming.”

The only way a person could notice the black crime wave against whites is if he possessed independent thought.  “We can’t tolerate that!” says the Times.

Of course it is also verboten to lament the loss of a white majority in a nation that whites founded:

Those newsletters have drawn new scrutiny through Mr. Paul’s two recent presidential campaigns. The New Republic posted several of them online in 2008 and again recently, including a lament about “The Disappearing White Majority.” The conservative Weekly Standard ran an article highlighting the newsletters last week.

This is a privilege reserved only for non-whites.  Native Americans can mourn the loss of their nations, blacks can complain about the loss of their “communities” and so can Jews.  But it is “hate” for gentile whites to express the same concern about their communities and nations.

According to the Times, it is “gay-baiting” to entertain the notion that some homosexuals might be malicious:

During that nominating battle, a flier produced by Mr. Paul’s opponents accused him of gay-baiting by reporting in one of his newsletters that the government was “lying” about the threat of AIDS and that the virus could be transmitted through “saliva, tears, sweat.” It said that some “AIDS carriers — perhaps out of a pathological hatred — continue to give blood.”

Obviously, the New York Times considers itself among Paul’s opponents.  It attacks him for being concerned about the safety of children in schools:

Still, that same year he was quoted in The Houston Post as saying that schools should be free to bar children with AIDS and that the government should stop financing AIDS research and education.

I wonder if the authors of this Times abomination, Jim Rutenberg and Serge Kovaleski, would allow their own children to share spit with HIV positive people.  Also, for all their whining about anti-semitism, I wonder if those authors (whose names give the impression of being Jewish) even realize that their grossly biased article gives credibility to anti-semitism.

While it is true that Paul has denied holding some of the above positions, he probably had little choice but to do so.  Each of us must pick his battles.  Paul’s battle is against big government.  To acknowledge any sort of pro-white stance would jeopardize this.  When big government comes crashing down some day, and our basic freedoms are restored, whites can once again have self-determination and pride in their own heritage.

In contrast to the article itself, we find a lot of truth among the comments.  For example:

I care about Paul’s voting record. I care about Paul’s adherence to the Constitution. I care about Paul’s economic and foreign policy plans.
I could not possibly care less about whether anyone thinks he might or might not be a racist.

“Paul Disowns Extremists’ Views but Doesn’t Disavow the Support” Correct, just as Obama did with money from Hamas and Fatah. Ron Paul, like every other American politician does not have a black list for donations.I didn’t read past the silly headline, was there anything below it that was at all useful?Moving on…

I don’t usually comment on articles, but I thought I’d give the perspective of someone who’s still undecided.I voted for Obama in 2008, and still lean toward Obama. However, I’ve started to do some research on others to see what their policies and plans are. As I’ve been doing my research, I’ve found that it’s pretty easy to find fairly objective articles about Mitt Romney, and even a few about guys like Huntsman. However, I can hardly find any truly objective articles on Ron Paul. The only places that lay out Paul’s policies without prejudice are pro Ron Paul sites, and they are obviously biased the other way. All I want is objectivity on his positions and I can’t find it. Why is this? As a liberal-leaning moderate, I feel all the media should do is lay out each candidate’s policies without pretense. If they did so with Paul, I probably wouldn’t vote for him. I agree with him on pulling back on war, and like the idea of opening up avenues for research on medical marijuana, but the rest is a bit out there. Yet, when I search for Ron Paul on Google News, all I see are article after article from outlets on BOTH sides (liberal and conservative) just trying to tear him down. Do you know what this looks like to a 3rd party observer? It looks really bad. Almost like the media is trying to tell us who to vote for. I would have probably written off Paul based on his views alone, but now I’m interested in what he has to say because the media en toto seems so scared of him.

Yes, now that Paul is gaining traction, and the media has been called out on their obvious bias, they are scared.  In the above article, nothing can be taken seriously – except for the fear that oozes from between its lines.

One of the things I love about travel is the opportunity it offers to meet interesting people.  It is not uncommon for seemingly unfortunate circumstances to present possibilities for new friendships.  Unpleasant situations often turn out to be among the most interesting aspects of travel adventures.

Due to my own forgetfulness, and lack of foresight, I found myself in a cheap hotel room with no functioning door.  On top of this, I had forgotten my camera charger in Cancun and missed my rendezvous with a friend in Merida.  So I found myself wandering downtown Merida at night, carrying all my luggage and searching for a replacement charger and an internet cafe so that I could contact my friend.  I was tired and did not speak the language.

An old man saw me on the street looking lost and confused.  He approached me and, though we had no common language, it was clear he wanted to help.  He spent a couple of hours trying to help me find what I was looking for – without much success.  But the least I could do was offer him dinner or a drink.  He looked at me, with the most innocent of looks, and said simply:  “Ice cream”.  Cesar lead me to an ice cream parlor where they served a special kind of sherbet.  It was served in a special way and it was very good.  We each had two servings.  I sculpted a pyramid out of my ice cream to show him my plans for the morrow.  He took out a binder and, within it, were hundreds of small handwritten names and addresses.  These were the friends Cesar had made over the years.  My own contact information was added to the binder.  He is retired and spends his time making new friends and trying to help people.  I have no idea if his Christian faith is what drives him, or perhaps some other motivation.  Whatever the case may be, in my eyes, he is a precious human being.  I’ll correspond with him using Google translate and traditional snail mail.

If I could do the same trip over again, I would have planned on forgetting my charger in Cancun – just so that I could meet Cesar.

Next Page »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 134 other followers