Right on the heels of my diatribe about anti-Muslim bigotry comes this post (once again from God’s Politics! Yay Jim!)

I Love My Name (by Omar Al-Rikabi)

Two points in this article that are delivered with much more eloquence than my feeble attempts:

What stings even more with the Obama situation is the implied notion that being a Muslim, or having a Muslim or Middle Eastern name, means that you are not as qualified for a position that anyone else with a “normal” background or name could have.

For those who are all too ready to click the “forward” button have exposed their real thoughts and convictions of bigotry and mis-placed fear toward the Muslim world.

and finally…

And for those of us who claim that we say and do what we do “in the name of Jesus”, we should remember that “name” also means “nature.” So then, are we saying and doing what we do in the very nature of Christ, who had a radically different nature when it came to enemies and foreigners?

OK people: If you get one of those stupid e-mails proclaiming that Obama is a (gasp) Muslim and therefore, just a step or two away from handing the country over to al Qaeda or some other bull$*!+ like that, look no further than Jim Wallis’ post over on God’s Politics.

Even better, read Barrack’s own words in his book, The Audacity of Hope

One point Jim doesn’t mention, and for that matter I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere else in reference to this flap: would it really matter if a candidate were a Muslim? I mean honestly, now! The vast majority of of the followers of Islam are wonderful, faithful, peaceful people. Equating millions of Muslims with the likes of Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and the Wahabbis who we see in the media day in and day out would be like saying that all Christians are like Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson or the other “Christian leaders” who get all the airtime. You know it’s not true, so why do Christians paint those of other faiths with the same broad strokes?

Isn’t it a little odd that in a campaign where gender and ethnicity are taking a back seat to ideas, we are jumping headfirst into a different kind of prejudice? I seem to remember that Jesus had a little something to say about this issue. The story goes that a man was robbed and left along the side of the road… And who was the neighbor in that story? The person who was despised for having a faith that was different.

Now the fact remains that Barrack Obama is a Christian. Hey, I’m one too. And as a Christian I’m going to love my Muslim and Hindu and Buddhist neighbors just the same. Because God’s grace is freely given to all.

This past weekend I found myself with nothing better to do in a mall with an Apple Store, so what else was I to do but check out the new line of iPods?

Sure enough, the iPod Touch and the 160GB iPod Classic were nowhere to be found. They have yet to hit the stores, but I was able to handle the new 80GB Classic and the Not-So-Nano. I feel that after seeing these units in person, a few additional comments are warranted.

First comes Fatty. The new Nano is in fact smaller in real life than it is in the promotional pictures. But it’s still in no shape to carry the Nano name. Maybe the Wafer would be better. While its width is the subject of much ridicule (and will continue to be here), its depth is impossibly thin. I wouldn’t stick in my pocket, though. The increased surface area and paper-thin depth makes me afraid that the thing might snap in half at the slightest wrong move.

Now the Classic. In the promotional pictures, the black Classic looked about as sexy as an iPod could look. But in the real-life arena of the showroom floor, the poor thing announces the presence of every sweaty fingerprint and food-court-slimed palm swipe that comes within a cubic meter of it. Very disappointing.

But the Silver/White Classic is the embodiment of gorgeous! No photograph can do justice to the subtle contrast of silver brushed metal and classic white click-wheel. And though just as many gawkers were pawing the silver/whites as the matte blacks, not a single shred of biological evidence could be seen on the spotlessly clean surface. The silver/white 160GB is my choice for iPod perfection this holiday season.

For two years - ever since the first rumors of the widescreen iPod - I’ve bided my time. I put off buying a Video iPod because somewhere in the not-so-distant future, a hard-drive based widescreen iPod beckoned me to hold off just a little bit longer. Once the iPhone arrived, I knew that my wait was about to come to an end. And with Wednesday’s announcement growing ever closer, surely my dream was about to be fulfilled. After all, it made perfect sense to come out with a multi-touch iPod to finally arrive with enough space to finally hold a collection of movies.

Alas, not much makes sense about the new line of iPods that Apple released this morning. Sure, every feature that I was hoping for was introduced, but in 3 different products! Apparently, the search for a unified theory of iPod was too much for the brilliant minds at Apple.

Instead we are treated to a hideously expensive (but WiFi capable) multi-touch version in the iPod Touch which for $400 gets you a whopping 16GB of storage! Too much money? Well, you can get the paltry 8GB version for $300. What a bargain, right?

Oh, but wait. The new iPod Nano now serves up video too. (I’ll get to this “beauty” later) Sure, the Nano doesn’t offer the sweet loveliness of multi-touch, or WiFi, but you can cram the same amount of video and music in its 8GB flash drive for $100 cheaper.

The iPod Classic is a slightly redesigned version of the beauty we all know and love. Upgrades to the Classic are pretty good. Gone is the scratch-happy outer shell, replaced by the chic and durable brushed aluminium available in silver or drop-dead-sexy black. The best news of the day is that the Classic comes in two beefy varieties: 80GB (remember when that was the “HUGE” size?) and 160GB. Now THAT’s what I’m talking about. The price is definitely right, with the 80GB going for $250 and the $160 going for $350 (ok, $350 is a touch on the high side, but we are talking 5x the storage of my iPod Photo) Sadly, the classic lacks the WiFi capabilities and wide screen of the Touch.

Now on to the ugly stepsister of the iPod clan. Remember when the Nano was the cutest little iPod you ever did see? When it reminded you of a stick of gum and not a coaster? When you just couldn’t BELIEVE that they could make an iPod that did THAT much look THAT small? Those days are long gone. Touch gives you the big screen that video needs. Classic gives you the same old screen that you’ve grown used to. Nano… well… Nano is like the snake that swallowed the rabbit. In order to accommodate the full-sized Classic screen, Nano had to expand its waistline… big time. The thing is two-thirds the height of Classic, and just as wide. Why, Apple, why?!? Steve Jobs, you had the best streak in the business going and now THIS? I just don’t see the necessity of screwing up the Nano when you have three (including iPhone) other products that play video. It’s not like Nano owners were fretting over filling a bunch of excess drive space. Most can’t fit their entire music collections on the darned things anyway.

So I’m disappointed. After a string of successes that endeared fans and critics alike, Apple has finally stepped into a steaming pile of their own creation. For the first time you are going to hear die-hard Apple loyalists complain that the company has destroyed a perfectly good product in the Nano. And how many more times must we look forward to a major Apple announcement, only to have our hopes of a widescreen iPod (not phone) that actually has a hard drive capable of storing a collection of movies?

So, this holiday season I will finally succumb to temptation and ask Santa for a 160GB Classic. And just my luck, the unified theory of iPod greatness (the 160GB iPod Touch complete with price reduction) will be announced 2 days after the return policy expires.

Happy Oh Canada! Day!