Leave a comment

Obama, Racism, and The Presidency

For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. – Hosea 8:7

Let me first say that I have been a pastor in an all Black congregation (we didn’t call ourselves African-American back then… we called ourselves “Black” and were not ashamed of it!). Although I did not vote for him, I had high hopes that the election of Barak Obama in 2008 would bring to an end the ugly stain of racism in our country. Not that it would eliminate all racists by magic, but that we could move forward as a nation, united without regards to color, and racists would be shown to be the small minority that they were. It is with great disappointment that I now see Obama as one of the most racist presidents since Andrew Jackson, and as a man who has set back the course of race relations by fanning the flames of racial tensions for his own political advantage. Can you imagine if George Bush had jumped into any incident of a black man shooting a white man, condemning the black man before trial and implying that the black man did it because of his race? First of all, the media would have excoriated him. Before Obama, what president got involved in individual criminal acts and took sides based upon race? Not only that, it is not the role of the president to attempt to influence the judicial process in individual cases. It is prejudicial. Yet by using high profile cases and fanning the media flames, implying racial motivations, it works to the advantage of the President during times leading up to elections. It solidifies his base, but it has built into such a crescendo of distrust and hostility towards all police that some cities are becoming far less safe than they were before.

I am not trying to justify all police actions. I have been on the receiving end of unjust police actions, so I know a little bit about it. But painting all police with the broad brush of racism is not only unjust, it also creates a climate of open warfare on police officers leading to potential social chaos.

Black Panthers intimidate white voters in Philly in 2008The Voter Intimidation Case
Eric Holder’s refusal to prosecute intimidation of white voters by Black Panthers in Philadelphia in 2008 created the feeling of racial bias by this administration and was the first indication that we were not really in a post-racial society.

Two members of the New Black Panther party, Minister King Samir Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson, stood in front of the entrance to the polling station in uniforms that have been described as military or paramilitary.[2][3][4] Minister King Shabazz carried a billy club, and is reported to have pointed it at voters while both men shouted racial slurs,[5] including phrases such as “white devil” and “you’re about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”[6]
In April 2009 Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer who was serving as a poll watcher at the polling station where the incident occurred, submitted an affidavit at the Department of Justice’s request supporting the lawsuit, stating that he considered it to have been the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered.[2][5] When none of the defendants who were charged appeared in court to answer the charges, the career attorneys pursuing the lawsuit assumed that they would win it by default. However the move to pursue a default judgment was overruled by two of their line superiors, Loretta King, who was acting Assistant Attorney General, and Steve Rosenbaum, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General.[3]
Hans A. von Spakovsky stated that internal e-mails from the Department of Justice released under a Freedom of Information Act request show that political appointees were “intimately involved” in the decision to drop the case, including former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli and Attorney General Eric Holder, and that Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez may have committed perjury by denying this in his testimony before the Civil Rights Commission.[11]
In December 2010, the Civil Rights Commission released a report concluding that their investigations had uncovered “numerous specific examples of open hostility and opposition” within the Department of Justice to pursuing cases in which whites were the victims. The report accused the Department of Justice of failing to cooperate with investigations into its reason for dropping the case, stating “While the department has issued general statements that it enforces the laws without regard to race, these assurances do not confirm, deny or explain the specific allegations of misconduct […] Unfortunately, the department has thus far refused to address many of these specific claims or to provide the type of information that would allow the commission to properly review the decision making relating to the NBPP lawsuit.”[30][31]

The Trayvon Martin Case

President Obama, speaking to reporters on March 23 after federal investigators were deployed to Sanford, said, “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids, and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this… If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”[248]

Former presidential candidate Herman Cain objected to what he called “swirling rhetoric” and “a war of words”,[255] and former Garland, Texas NAACP president C.L. Bryant singled out Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for being “race hustlers” who were exploiting Martin’s death “to inflame racial passions”. Bryant also criticized President Barack Obama for his “nebulous” comment, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”[256][257] Former education secretary William Bennett criticized what he called a “mob mentality”, saying that “…the tendency in the first days by some, including Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and an angry chorus of followers, was to rush to judgment with little regard for fairness, due process, or respect for the terrible death of a young man.”[258]

The Henry Louis Gates Case

On July 22, President Barack Obama said about the incident, “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.” Law enforcement organizations and members objected to Obama’s comments and criticized his handling of the issue. In the aftermath, Obama stated that he regretted his comments and hoped that the situation could become a “teachable moment”.[3]

Ferguson and the Michael Brown Case
This case is a little more complicated. Michael Brown was shown to be a thug and the initial report by his companion that he had his hands up was recanted and later show to be false by the Department of Justice. However, the initial media reports as “fact” caused a boiling over of the underlying racial tension in the community. The Justice Department did find evidence of racial bias in the police department. Yet, as the protests became violent, agitators came in from outside, property was destroyed and looters burned and stole, the President was mostly inclined to justify the lack of civil order by his silence, and only belatedly called for people not to throw bricks…

In the days following the shooting, state and federal officials weighed in on the matter. On August 12, President Barack Obama offered his condolences to Brown’s family and community. …
U.S. President Barack Obama addressed the First Amendment violations, saying, “There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests, or to throw protesters in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights. And here, in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground.”

On November 24, minutes after a prosecuting attorney announced that a grand jury decided not to indict police officer Darren Wilson, President Obama urged calm and restraint in Ferguson, saying racial discrimination and distrust of police cannot be resolved by “throwing bottles.” Immediately after the shooting and in the weeks leading up to the grand jury announcement, President Obama has made several such calls for calm and restraint in Ferguson.

While the foregoing are just some examples of the inappropriate insertion of racial politics by the President into individual incidents, the overall tenor has resulted in the execution style slaying of police officers and even calls for the killing of police by the #BlackLivesMatter movement:

Several conservative pundits have labeled the movement a “hate group”.[97] Candidate Chris Christie, the New Jersey Governor, criticized President Obama for supporting BLM, saying that the movement calls for the murder of police officers,[98] which was condemned by New Jersey chapters of the NAACP and ACLU.[99]
Marchers using a BLM banner were recorded in a video chanting, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” at the Minnesota State Fair.
United States President Barack Obama spoke to the debate between Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter.[120] Obama said, “I think that the reason that the organizers used the phrase Black Lives Matter was not because they were suggesting that no one else’s lives matter … rather what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that is happening in the African American community that’s not happening in other communities.” He went on to say “that is a legitimate issue that we’ve got to address.”[13]

Yes, by all means, systemic racism must be addressed. But we must also be cautious about a mob mentality which justifies a rush to judgment and creates a climate of hostility which cannot be placated by any means. When all police officers in any shooting are immediately condemned and found guilty because of a difference in race, then we have a fire that cannot be extinguished. By sowing hate, suspicion, and vengeance, we reap social disorder.

#BlackLivesMatter, #AllLivesMatter, #BlueLivesMatter

Seattle Seahawks Richard Sherman said about the “Black Lives Matter” movement, “I dealt with a best friend getting killed, and it was [by] two 35-year-old black men. There was no police officer involved, there wasn’t anybody else involved, and I didn’t hear anybody shouting ‘black lives matter’ then.”[124]
Some commentators and law enforcement have claimed that BLM has made it hard for police to do their job, leading to a rise in crime rates.[123] Commentators have referred to this as the Ferguson effect.[123] FBI Director James Comey, for example, suggested that the movement is partly leading to a national rise in crime rates because police officers have pulled back from doing their jobs.[132]

While the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore certain seems to show gross misconduct by some police officers, it is telling that President Obama will jump into any issue involving the death of a black man, but has never said a word about the murder of a white man by a black man. That is just an irony of the President who was supposed to be post-racial and unite us all. He is biased, and it shows.

And the worst part about this whole stirring of the racial pot is that it feeds into the racism of white supremacists and has led to murders by white racists in Missouri and now apparently in Minnesota. Dividing us by race for political ends is destroying the very hope for change his election in 2008 should have fulfilled. A lost opportunity for bringing out the best in us is leading to the devolution of our culture. Having sown the seeds of racism to the wind, he is reaping for us all a whirlwind.

Leave a comment

Dante’s Inferno, Pedophilia, and the Catholic Church

Dante’s Inferno is a picture of hell with 9 levels, each with greater punishments for sins committed on the earth. Dante was not afraid to place in hell Cardinals, Bishops, and Popes. Dante’s point was that corruption in the Roman Catholic Church by its leaders was just as worthy of punishment, if not more so, as sinful deeds done by pagans and government leaders. His political activity was not admired by all, but his writing exposed the abuse of power by Popes and church leaders. We hear today that Pope Francis is engaged in a similar battle, facing much entrenched opposition to his attempts to cleanse the church of its sins.

This week I met an artist, Butch Casanova, who invited me to his home. There I saw a work of art that reminded me of Dante’s Divine Comedy. He was disgusted by the corruption exposed in the pedophilia scandals that rocked the Roman Church. And putting brush to canvas, he created a great allegory of the cover up by  Bernard Cardinal Law of Boston. He tried to have this work displayed through the Boston media, but at that time, no one would touch it because Bernard Law was feared and so powerful. He has since escaped to the Vatican to avoid prosecution for his knowledgeable suppression of the scandal and for allowing it to continue. Law, in his own mind at least, was perhaps on his way to becoming the first American Pope…
Because the painting is so good as an allegory I wanted to share it. I will let Butch’s explanations of the allegory complete this article. I felt this work of art deserves wider recognition, even if there are those in the hierarchy who would rather the whole scandal be swept under the rug…

The Cardinal

Pedophilia, Bernard Law, and the Catholic Cover Up


The document forming the backdrop is a page from the Missale Romanum, the standard source for the prescribed prayers for Masses honoring certain dates or personages.

In this instance, it is modeled on the Mass for a Pontiff, personalized for a speculative Pope Bernard the Great, the first of that name. The date is that of the birthday of Bernard Cardinal Law.

The millstone has a worn, but evident “quarter dress” harp pattern found on many of these implements;

The Latin sentiment rounding the face of the millstone is variously found in each of the Synoptic Gospels: St. Luke 17:2, St. Mark 9:42, and St. Matthew 18:6. The version quoted is Luke’s, from the Latin Vulgate;

Those parallel cites converge upon this main sentiment: “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.” New American Standard Bible (©1995);

The bishop’s mitre the Cardinal figure wears has had its center torn out, where typically a cross or the OC (Chi Rho) figure might be in a medallion;

The handheld mirror shows through its back, the image of a Papal Triple Tiara, traditionally worn by popes in coronation. The last pope to wear one at his accession to the papacy was Paul VI at his coronation in 1963;

His successors, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have later set aside this crown in favor of a bishop’s mitre, none of them styling his accession to the Papacy as a coronation;

The tiara depicted in this image was that donated by Emperor Napoleon I, for the coronation of Pius VII in March of 1800;

The serpent has the coat of arms of Bernard Cardinal Law in its jaws. On it is inscribed his motto, epitomizing a life of Christian dedication: To Live is Christ.

The priest menacing the doll is a twisted image of Fr. John Goeghan, convicted in Massachusetts for child molestation, sentenced to prison, and killed while there by a murderer sentenced to life, Joseph L. Druce;

The Male Child Doll is inspired by Raggedy Andy.

Leave a comment

France, Gun Control, And Terrorism

A Well-Armed Citizenry is the best defense against lawlessness and Terrorism

Military weaponry is completely illegal in France for private citizens, nevertheless 
“Bloomberg reports that weapons designed for military use, such as the Kalashnikov AK series, have been illegally flooding France over the past few years…
The number of illegal guns is thought to be at least twice the number of legal guns in the country. Weapons such as AK-47s can be bought for the equivalent of a few thousand dollars.
France does not have a “right to bear arms” — the right to privately own a gun is not protected by law. In order to purchase a firearm, one must first obtain a hunting or shooting sporting license that requires a psychological evaluation and regular renewal. Semi-automatic rifles that can hold more than three rounds, as well as rifles and handguns with military-grade calibers, require permits. Fully automatic weapons are completely illegal for civilians. If one purchases or possesses a gun illegally, the punishment is a maximum of seven years in prison, plus a fine.”
Our government, which can’t control illegal immigration or illegal drug trafficking…. wants gun control and to disarm its citizens? Who will have the guns then? If all the law-abiding citizens surrender their arms, who will be left with them? Criminals and Terrorists loose within a defenseless populace…. like in France. 
Paris is currently experiencing one of the worst terrorist attacks in modern history. Multiple shootings and explosions have left at least 60 people dead, according to…
1 Comment

What if the Constitution Had Not Compromised on Slavery?

The Quartet: A Review
The Quartet: Orchestrating The Second American Revolution, 1783-1789, by Joseph J. Ellis.

With 20-20 hindsight, history teaches us that the immoral compromise over slavery, made in order to ratify our Constitution, led inevitably to a Civil War, which made us pay for our past mistakes with the blood of our citizens. What is missing from our history books is an appreciation for how unlikely it was that our Constitution was even created. Joseph Ellis makes a convincing case that the citizens of the newly freed States were in no mood to form a centralized, national government at all. Tired of war and tyranny, by distant powers, the people were suspicious of any attempt to regulate the States by a federal government. They were, by all accounts, content with the dysfunctional and ineffective Articles of Confederation. What was more likely was that the States would go their own way, ignore their debts to Europe and England (the Treaty of Paris obligated the new nation to repay its loans to individual lenders and banks), and even wages due to their own soldiers. Ellis’ book shows how four men (Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay) maneuvered and cajoled the political process to force a vote on a Constitutional Republic, with built in checks and balances, which preserved States’ rights and Federal competence. It is a marvelous book, which needs only a little bit of editing to remove some repetitive material. It appears to have been pieced together from separate lectures that covered some common ground. Aside from that, it is a fascinating look at what we now consider as inevitable, which was hardly inevitable at all; namely, the United States of America. I highly recommend this book as both a good read and an antidote to our ignorance on the fragile compromise that allowed the Constitution to be created and ratified in the first place.

But what if the Constitution had not been ratified?
Ellis points out that the southern States all were dependent upon an agricultural economy, which was ingloriously dependent upon slave labor. While men of conscience from the North railed against this immoral evil, without a compromise on the issue of slavery, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The Southern States would not have joined. There would have been no United States, but a loose confederation of States which may eventually have gone to war with one another over land claims and other disputes. The Confederation may have devolved into a European style competition between small countries, like France and England.
It was not that men of conscience did not oppose the evil in Congress.

Luther Martin of Maryland denounced slavery as “an odious bargain with sin, inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character.” Gouverneur Morris pronounced slavery “a curse” – p. 145.

And John Adams was well known for his opposition. But without slavery, the Southern delegates believed they could not survive, and most of those delegates owned slaves themselves.The compromise to allow slavery, but only count them as 3/5ths of a person, was a compromise made to limit the voting power of the Southern States in the House of Representatives. If counted as full persons, it would have given the South much greater representation in the House and increased the influence of slavery. The compromise, a deal with the devil, was made, and allowed the Constitution to be accepted and ratified by all Thirteen States.

No one is now happy about this bargain with sin, but we all recognize that the Constitution would not have been ratified without it. Some people suggest it would have been better for the Constitution never to have been ratified and the country never created. But what if it had not? It could be argued that it would have been worse for the issue of slavery, and slavery still might have been an issue today. Why? The issue is the land claims of the Southern States, especially Virginia. Virginia’s land clams included Ohio and Michigan! Slavery would have extended westward and northward, effectively locking in the New England and Northern states to a small portion of the continent.


In order to form a federal government, Virginia and then the other Southern States, surrendered claims to Ohio and the West (p. 74ff and 88ff). If they had not done that, but had resisted, these states would have gained much more power both politically and economically as their populations increased while the North was locked in place. The likelihood of a civil war over slavery looks almost impossible. The North would not have the votes in Congress, Lincoln would never have been elected, there would have been no Missouri Compromise to limit slave expansion in the West. The only way slavery would have ended was from some internal change or revolt. The possibility is that the machine age would have made slavery uneconomical, but without a Supreme Court or a 14th Amendment to secure the rights of all people, there would have been no incentive in the great Southern Empire, to grant equality or rights to the former slave population.

Doubtless the North American States would have shied away from World War One and Two, and perhaps the Southern coalition would even have sided with Nazi Germany because of racial sympathies. But these counterfactuals require modal knowledge, which we don’t have. The only seeming certainty is that the short term compromise with evil in ratification of the Constitution eventually led to the elimination of slavery and the establishment of the 14th Amendment through the shedding of blood as we fought among ourselves for a greater justice for all. While an intrinsic evil, I would argue that the compromise over slavery in the Constitution eventually led to a better outcome than if there had been no United States of America and no Constitution at all.


Esau’s Porridge: Federal Health Care and The Loss of Liberty

Esau’s Porridge: Federal Health Care and The Loss of Liberty

Reprint from The Scholars Corner* – 1994 by Jefferis Kent Peterson

The Founder’s of this nation raised the battle cry for liberty with the words oft repeated, “We have no king but Jesus!” But our contemporaries have abandoned our historical quest for freedom with a cry of a different sort, “We’ll have any king who will give us health care!” Just as Esau traded away his birthright for a bowl full of porridge to appease his temporary hunger, so we are in danger of trading away our heritage of liberty for the temporal security of cradle to grave health care.

Esau was judged by God for caring so little about the privileges of being the first born son in the family (Genesis 25). Traditionally, the first born son held a position of great honor and was in line to inherit double the portion of earthly goods that the remaining children received. But Esau was so concerned about feeding his stomach that he was willing to cast it all away for the sake of a simple meal. So he sold his birthright to his brother Jacob for a bowl of mush. And God rejected Esau because of his unworthy choices.

In our nation, we have surrendered our trust in God as our provider, and we now we look to the State to take care of us. We want to live in a world that has no risks and where our needs are always met. We are willing to surrender our liberty for security, and because we have turned to the State in such dependency, we are willing to change our allegiance from Almighty God to a human government which promises to meet our every need.

But the life of faith and trust in God has risks. God demands our dependence upon him. And because of that risky dependence upon God, we are to look to him alone to meet our needs through prayer and by faith. Jesus told his followers not to worry about food our clothing, because “the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. ” (Matthew 6:31-32). Yet rather than trust ourselves to the uncertain nature of God, we would rather take refuge in a government program that promises us the security of daily bread.

But there is a price for such allegiance. The price is slavery. Oh, no matter that the health program will eventually sap 15% or more of our income in new taxes to fully cover the program. And no matter that every state will be forced to provide abortion on demand. No matter that the Federal Government will overturn state laws and undermine the people’s right to govern themselves. “Just give us health care and we will serve you all our days!” The dream of liberty which The Founders found so dear is now being sold on the auction block of fear and insecurity to the politician who will make the highest bid of promises to satisfy our cravings. And our response is, “Give us leeks and onions. Give us meat. Give us those things we crave, and we will be your slaves.” We will willing trade away our freedom to a government which promises to keep our bellies full.

Merrill Lynch just did a tax study called Saving the American Dream which found that unfunded government programs like future Social Security and medical payments will eventually increase the tax rate to 82% on individual income if we continue with present mandates. How high a price are we willing to pay for our present bowl of porridge? If we do not rise up and resist the tempting but poisonous pill of federal programs, we will indeed place upon this generation a burden it cannot bear. And the freedoms we so cherished will be lost in the maze of federal regulation. Our freedom may still be there somewhere, but no one will know how to bring it out of the dank labyrinth of government bureaucracy for its light to shine again upon the citizens of the land.

* First Published in KeyStone Unity Press and Pennsylvania Reporter (Christian Coalition of PA) in May, 1994

Leave a comment

Government as Savior: A Tower of Babel

A Tower of Babel –The Tower of Babel Government as Savior?
A reprint of the Scholars Corner from 2009

The story is told that the ancients wanted all their problems in life solved, so they came together to form a vast, human government. They built a walled city for security and a tower to reach into heaven, so they could attain eternal life without God. But seeing their arrogance, Heaven sent confusion into their midst to prevent them from building an empire. Today, it seems, that our nation’s leaders have been touched by that same finger of confusion, with all their babbling plans, arguments and indecision. If God intended to destroy our trust in human government, he is certainly doing a good job.

The debate we currently face as a nation is not over healthcare, or greenhouse gases, or jobless recoveries. The real debate taking place among us is whether government is the solution to our problems, or a cause of them. The Founders of our nation believed that government’s tendency over time was to encroach upon the liberties of the people, to become corrupted by power and to become oppressive. Therefore, they established a limited form of government, which could provide the opportunity for us to prosper, but which could not guarantee it.

Since the dawn of the Progressive Era under Woodrow Wilson, however, a different philosophy of government has taken hold. The Progressive belief is that government is the solution to humanity’s problems: that government, and its bureaucracy, has the means, the power, the responsibility, and the wisdom to fix our social problems and provide for all our basic needs. But in the hearts of the people there is a rebellion brewing as this century-old belief in government “progress” is falling on the sword of economic reality. Government cannot be our savior when its policies create massive debts the people cannot repay.

The Beltway has become the wall to this modern Babel city, built to keep the politicians secure and the people out. Our leaders have deluded themselves into thinking that they can control the future through spending and programs, while the common man from outside these gates looks at this city of confusion in disbelief and wonders “where will it all end?”

Babel was abandoned, the people scattered, and their grand tower into heaven left unfinished. If we fail to recognize the limits of our power, we also may suffer the same fate.

Comment: We are trying to fix our problems while at the same time as a nation we are rejecting God, God’s help, God’s ways, God’s wisdom, and God’s laws. Perhaps the confusion is God’s ordained way of bringing us to collapse and to our knees so that we will finally realize that license is not liberty, and “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any land.” If the people lose faith that their government can actually fix things, then they may finally turn to the One who truly can. Without some great Awakening and national repentance, there is not enough will or wisdom in the country to save us from what we ourselves have chosen. John Calvin said that God gives us the leaders we deserve. God help us, for we have voted ourselves into this mess by deceiving the people into believing that government is truly our savior. That is an idolatry, like Babel, that God cannot allow. And the healing of it may be the destruction of the very idols in which we have placed our trust.


My Love Affair with Apple May Be Over :-(

Samsung vs iPhoneI have been using Apple Mac computers since they first came out in 1984. I have lived in a Macintosh universe since then. All my applications and contacts and emails have been integrated into one environment. All was well until about 2 years ago when Apple tried to integrate contacts, photos, and music on iCloud. While I still love the Mac computer and don’t see switching anytime in the foreseeable future, I am thinking about dropping the iPhone and switching to Samsung. What was always the selling point for me in the Apple universe was the simplicity of the user interface with the intuitive nature of its functions. That is no more, and I am so frustrated with the way things are going that I’m a seriously thinking about dumping many things Apple. From a long time, hardcore user, that foretells a dangerous future for Apple. Many things are promised in the about to be released iOS9. I am hoping things improve, but if not, my next phone will be a Samsung and I will figure out a way to move my contacts over to the Android environment. Frankly, the only thing that was keeping me was the ability to sync my contacts on all devices… but there have been problems with that as you will see below.

What are the Problems?

Apple has gone from simple elegance to complex incomprehensibility in the last couple of years. For example…

  1. I cannot show my iTunes playlists from my computer on my phone. Why not? That is a basic feature. I have had playlists for years, and now I have to recreate them from scratch?
  2. With iOS 7 or 8, Apple wanted you to store all your music on iCloud so that you could sync your library on all devices. That’s just great, except for one thing, when you are on the road and want to play a song on your iPhone, there a no songs stored on your phone and you have to wait to download every single song you want to hear and use data to do so!
  3. Using Photos and iCloud has become such a mess, taking up so much space on my iCloud account that I’d have to pay $200 a year for the privilege. Not only that, but when Apple replaced both iPhoto and Aperture (its pro-photo program) with Photos, I wound up with thousands of duplicate photos and had to buy a third party program to straighten out my photo library. I am so disgusted with Apple that I’m switching from iPhoto, Aperture, and Photos to Adobe Lightroom and am now looking for alternate online storage from another provider… perhaps Amazon Cloud?
  4. With the introduction of SSD boot drives on new computers, Apple suffers from limited space, making it necessary to move parts of my Identity to an external drive for storage (music and photos, e.g.), but apparently apple doesn’t recognize my new locations, and so it recreates my picture folder, download folder, and music folder on my boot drive and loses track of my preferences, adding files there instead of to the other drive.
  5. Even worse, Apple keeps recreating iPhoto libraries on my iCloud account after I have deleted them multiple times!
  6. The ability to sync my laptop, iPhone, iPad, and desktop is great, in theory, but one of the dastardly effects of the syncing on iCloud was that my contacts in Address Book, now called Contacts, would be duplicated and multiplied. Editing and deleting an address on one device only caused it to be added back in on the next sync. I think they may have fixed that, but again, I had to use a third party service to fix my address book.

I am so frustrated with Apple’s making easy things complex, that I am actually considering getting a Samsung for my next phone and switching most of my important stuff to Android. If it weren’t for the fact that I don’t trust Google with my email, I would have already.    I have been a Mac user since 1985, and have never been as disappointed and turned off by Apple as I am now. The computers are great, but the iOS thing has just become a minefield of problems and organizational chaos. 
I realize that there are some settings for music, syncing, the cloud and the devices that may have avoided or fixed these problems, but my point is that I am no dummy. I read ancient Greek, have completed post graduate level studies, and have worked with and on Apple computers for over 30 years and am somewhat of a tech support geek for my friends and family, and if I have trouble understanding how things are supposed to work, then what of the average consumer who just wants things to make sense and function properly? And finally, I saw a photo my mom took on her Samsung, and it is so much better than my iPhone 6’s camera, that I just about turned green with envy. And that, my friends, has never happened to me before with any device that made me want to give up on Apple. My love affair with Apple may not just turn into an affair with Samsung, but cause a real divorce.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 99 other followers

%d bloggers like this: