Wednesday, August 31, 2005

More Poetry

Before I get back to my regular political blogging, I thought I would share another poem with you.

This one has a story behind it.

Way, way back in about 1990 or so there was a girl that showed up one day at Bible study. She had been around the church off and on but I didn't know anything about her. Our group always used to go out to eat after Bible study and during dinner, the subject of poetry came up. I think I had a couple of poems in my Bible cover that a passed around or something. She asked me to write her a poem. I thought about it for a moment and told her I would bring it to her the following week.

On Wednesday evening I still hadn't written a poem. I nearly forgot about it all together. I was at a complete loss. Then, the first line popped in to my head. What follows is that poem. Keep in mind that I knew nothing about this girl other than her name.

From you comes forth a silence cold,
Of pain unspoken; grief untold.
Of guilt and shame; sinful deeds.
Among the roses you were weeds.

You wanted change. But where? But how?
Transition needed; needed now!
Who to turn to? Who's a friend?
Can the shame and sorrow end?

Just then a light shone through the dark.
The love of God had hit its mark.
Jesus knocked; was true received.
Your lips confessed; your heart believed.

Washed with blood, the sins are gone,
You've found the strength to carry on.
Still present, cutting, like a knife,
Are memories of your former life.

It's over now, forget the past.
Lay it down, it just can't last
Sin forgiven; forgotten too.
God won't see it, why should you?

By the time she got done reading it, she was shaking. It was the story of her life, laid out on paper. I later learned that she was always in and out of fellowship with God. She'd rebel and repent, rebel and repent. One extreme to the other. This girl was certainly either hot or cold; there was no in between with her.

Cindy, wherever you are, this is for you. I hope that you have finally found peace with God.

Monday, August 29, 2005

Feelings vs. Right &Wrong

Sorry for not blogging much lately folks, I've been in a pensive mood the last week or so. I have a lot on my mind and none of can be expressed in a quick post and I just haven't had the time to really write it all out.

One of the subjects that has come up with a couple of friends recently is differentiating between what people 'feel' and what is right or wrong.

I'll just jump right in because this is what the whole off-line discussion really boils down to. Love is not an emotion. Are you clear on that or are you already shaking your head and clucking your tongue? Whether we're talking about romantic love, familial love or the love of God for his wayward creation, I state categorically, that love is not an emotion. I'll explain my position in a little bit but let's look at the results of treating love like an emotion first.

When you believe that love is an emotion you base your actions toward those you 'love' based on how you 'feel' about them at any given moment. When you're mad at your family, you say things to them that you regret because your're not feeling love for them at the same time you're angry with them. Parents that love their children will cross the line between discipline and abuse them because they are angry. Husbands will find other women because they don't 'feel' like they're getting enough love from their wives. Wives will leave their husbands because they don't feel like they love them any more. Lifelong friendships are broken and good romances go bad because people don't 'feel' the same way they used to.

No one says or does hurtful things to those they love when they are feeling good about that person. Why then do we feel justified in hurting them when we're not feeling good about them?

Your love for other people cannot be based on how you feel about them -- at all. Feelings change constantly and the heart is deceitful above all things so why should our actions toward others stem from how we feel about them at a given moment?

I love my Little Difster with all my heart; no one that has seen me with her doubts that for a moment. There are times though when I 'feel' something other than love toward her. Anger, frustration, impatience and sometimes even indifference. Do I 'love' her any less at those moments than I do when I am 'feeling' love for her? It depends on how I act toward her when I am feeling those things. How do I treat her? Do I yell at her more if I'm frustrated? Do I discipline her more harshly than warranted if I'm angry? Do I ignore her if I'm feeling a bit indifferent? If my actions toward my daughter are driven by my negative emotions then I'm certainly not acting in love toward her. It gets even harder with my wife given that I'm in the middle of a divorce. I don't 'feel' like loving my wife. Really, she can just piss off; that's how I feel about her most of the time. But I still love her and my feelings have no bearing on it. If they did I wouldn't try to reconcile.

How can I love my daughter if I'm not feeling any love for her? How can I love my wife when I mostly feel anger, sorrow and resentment toward her? I choose to. The love I have for either one of them is not based on how I feel, it's based on what I do and how I treat them.

How I choose to act toward those I love is the measure of my love. Love is not an emotion, emotion is a byproduct of love. That 'feeling' of love is what reminds us to act out love. What so many people fail to recognize is that we can, and should act out of love when the 'feeling' isn't there and especially when the feelings are pegging the other end of the meter.

We have shows like Oprah and Montel and all of that other crap where the whole point is to go on national TV and let everyone know how you feel. Sheesh, you don't have to show everything you feel. It's actually a very good thing to keep some of it inside. There is a time and a place for everything.

News bulletin: I DON'T CARE HOW YOU FEEL. How you feel about something carries no weight whatsoever when it comes to doing what's right. If I hurt your feelings by doing the right thing that is your problem not mine. We must take grace, mercy and compassion in to account as well. Tell the truth in love, not out of malice intent.

Do the right thing no matter how you feel. If you're angry or hurt by someone, stop for a moment and get control of yourself and act rightly. I've been accused of not caring because a particular thing doesn't seem to bother me (mostly by women). It's not that I don't care or that I don't have feelings on the matter, it's just that it's not always appropriate or prudent to 'express' how I feel about it, at least not to certain people at certain times. I can feel fear but I don't have to act on it. I can feel 'love' for another person that I certainly shouldn't be acting on if you get my drift. I met a girl the other day and my heart was all a flutter. She was sweet and she was pretty and she seemed genuinely interested in me. I couldn't act on how I was feeling though because it would have been wrong. I could have asked her out; hey, that's how I was 'feeling' at the time. I didn't because I would have been betraying my wife even though she isn't acting in love toward me. I could provide many more examples, analogies and allegories but I think I've made my point. Now comes the important part.

For all of our faults, our anger, our bitterness, our hate and our sin, God still loves us. It is irrelevant if I don't happen to feel God's love for me at any given moment. I know that God's love for me is steady, constant and enduring. I don't always feel it but I always know it. I never have to wonder how God 'feels' about me because I know He loves me. He loves you too whether you feel it or not. He loves you whether or not you love Him and are acting rightly toward Him. His love for you is meant to be an example to you of how to treat others. God is full of grace and compassion and love. He disciplines us out of his love for us and discipline never feels like love at the time; sometimes it's downright offensive but with God it is always out of love. Even when God's wrath is poured out upon the earth, it is driven by His righteousness, justice and love. He loved us and through Jesus, He provided us a way to restore that relationship He created us to have with Him. Act on what is true and what is right because your feelings will turn you wrong more often than not.

Friday, August 26, 2005

We Are All Going To Hell

Maybe it's just me but it seems that we're all headed for Hell when our country will starve an innocent woman to death and force feed a murderer.

John Muhammad, the sniper who murdered 10 and wounded 3 people in 2002 apparently refused to eat after being transfered to the Montgomery County, MD jail.

The man has ALREADY BEEN SENTENCED TO DIE and they are force feeding him because he is at serious risk of death or injury.

What The @#$$@%@#%@#$%#@$#@?

Pack your bags, we're all going to Hell.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Busy Week

Sorry folks, busy week. Normal posting will resume this weekend.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Sex Education Works

In Canton, Ohio, there are are 490 female students at Timken High School. 65 of those students are pregnant. 13% of the girls are pregnant! The article doesn't mention how many girls already have babies though. Of course they wouldn't and couldn't report how many had abortions.

Apparently the Sex Eductation courses are quite effective in Canton. Someone needs to tell the school board that Sex Eduction isn't supposed to be a How-To course.

This is the inevitable result of telling kids that they're going to have sex anyway so you might as well do it right. With acedemic rates as low as they are, why would anyone expect the kids to learn "safe sex" any better than they're learning algebra? Oh, my mistake, it's "safer sex" now isn't it?

I couldn't find the original article that the link above refers too.

Fix America

We visit different blogs and we comment and respond to bits and pieces of things but it's always about a specific topic (digressions notwithstanding). Let's put the pieces together for a change and come up with a plan to Fix America.

What is your plan?

Obviously it can't be a 100 page thesis but give me a basic outline that's clear enough. Be specific when you can. Think through the ramifications of what you are proposing. Also try to tell me why you think your plan will work. Be logical and reasonable.

If you don't want to go in depth, leave it in the comments. If you want to go in depth, email me your response and I'll post some of the best and the worst of the bunch.

If you're so inclined, link to this post from your own blog or other forums you participate in. Maybe we can get some good responses from all over the political spectrum. I will try to post responses throughout the week as time permits.

Monday, August 22, 2005

Iraqi Constitution

Wow, here's a shocker. The proposed Constitution for Iraq is going to be based on Islamic law. You know, the law of The Religion of Peace.

I'm guessing that this Constitution is going to be vague and leave lots of room for Islamic clerics to do what they want no matter what the participants in their 'Democracy' say. As I outlined in my earlier post on Imposing Liberty, the Iraqi's are only getting a shadow of freedom.

Do they have the right to bear arms? Not from what I've heard. As soon as I see the approved Constitution, I'll dissect it here.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Congratulations... my good friend and former boss who fired me, Mike Kordik. He is the winner of the Greater Pinnacle Peak Area, Write Stuff contest. No, it's not exactly a Pulitzer prize for literature but congratulations anyway.

If you like Western themed stories, click here and scroll down to the story.

Since Mike isn't used to having his name published on the Internet, I'd like to take this occasion to embarrass him a bit.

Back when the "I love you" virus came out, Mike sent it to me. How nice.

A couple of years ago, Mike sent out an email to a huge list of people warning them to delete a file because it contained a virus that the virus checkers could detect. It was a hoax. Mike was forced to apologize to his entire email list after I immediately clicked 'reply all' and told them to ignore the email, because Mike fell for a hoax. To Mike's credit he doesn't send out warnings like that anymore.

Back to getting fired. Mike fired me from my first IT job back in 1996. As a matter of fact, he fired me the day after my birthday. Thanks Mike! Oh sure, I deserved it but he still fired me. But he's a nice guy so he let me stay for 5 more weeks so I could teach him everything I knew about the system. A couple of years later, he called me up and asked me to drop by so I could lock down the system because he was firing yet another System Administrator.

Congratulations Mike! It was an excellent story and I could almost hear you reading it out loud. I look forward to the next one.

Grammer Lesson

I was reading this article and noticed a couple of glaring errors.

What's wrong with this sentence?

"I really wanted these artists on to complement them and to complement the songs."

How did that make it past the editors?

The first instance of 'complement' should have actually been 'compliment'.

Compliment: An expression of praise, admiration, or congratulation.

Complement: Something that completes, makes up a whole, or brings to perfection.

Oh well, what do you expect from 'journalists'?

Friday, August 19, 2005

Happy Birthday... me.

Ok, I know this is just a gratuitous solicication for well-wishing but I'm working today and I'm the only one in the office. The boss is cranky/worried because his wife is in the hospital recovering from surgury and the other girl that works here is out sick today.

I'm 38 today, my how time flies.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Wes Is Back

If you haven't noticed it already, Wes is back to blogging after a 2-Month absence.

Good to have you back Wes!

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Christian Group Bombs Mosques

It's being kept out of the newspapers but I've received word that a Christian group has been bombing Mosques in the Middle East. Unconfirmed reports put the death toll at 54.

According to my information, the group is comprised of American and European Christians who are responding to Islamic terrorism by trying to rid the Middle East of their mosques. They are reportedly being funded through back channels by the some of the major Evangelical organizations under the guise of missions work.

They hope to conduct a couple of high profile bombings in the near future in order to bring attention to their cause and possibly use it as a recruiting tool to convert Muslims who are comfortable with the concept of Jihad but don't believe in the traditional views of Allah.

When asked how blowing up Mosques and killing Muslims is in keeping with traditional Christian doctrine, the anonymous leader said, "There is no question in our minds that we are doing God's work here. These people are under condemnation anyway and if some unrepentent Muslims die in order to bring many times more than that to Christ, I think Jesus will be quite pleased."

***Yes folks, it's just satire.***

You were probably shaking your head the whole time thinking, "No, this can't be true." I'm sick and tired of hearing the ACLU and other groups comparing Christianity to "The Religion of Peace." Yes, there are a few wacko Christians out there who might do this kind of thing but can you imagine Christians organizing terror campaigns? I can't. It goes against everything the Bible teaches us about seeking God, holiness and righteousness.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

It's All About Safety

From a /. entry comes this story from ZDNet.

For the safety of the American people, the government wants to require that they can track the location of all VoIP handsets that connect to the public telephone network. They want to map all wireless access points in the United States (a nearly impossible feat) so they can triangulate signals from VoIP callers.

Yes, our benevolent government just wants to be sure that we can all call 911 no matter where we are and get a response. They won't use this power to track us for non-emergency purposes. They won't abuse this power or use it against us. No, that couldn't happen.

This is coming from the FCC under the Bush administration. Still think he's a conservative?

Fatal Flaw

The Bay Area Center for Voting Research has released a study ranking US cities according to political ideology.

The top 5 liberal cities are:

5. Oakland, CA
4. Washington, D.C.
3. Berkely, CA
2. Gary, IN
1. Detroit, MI

The top 5 conservative cities are:

5. Plano, TX
4. Hialeah, FL
3. Abiline, TX
2. Lubbock, TX
1. Provo, UT

The problem is, the methodology used to determine these labels is seriously flawed. According to this article, the study took each city's compiled votes for President Bush and for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the Democratic presidential nominee, and added to those totals the city's votes for third party presidential candidates, depending on their positions on the political spectrum.

Since President Bush is clearly NOT a conservative, the study doesn't take in to account those moderate Democrats who recognized one of their own and voted for Bush accordingly. This study, and the entire main stream media have failed to recognize that the country has not become more conservative, but that the GOP has moved leftward and attracted Democrats that are tired of the luntic fringe.

The fatal flaw in the study is that they assumed that anyone that voted for Bush is in fact a conservative. Such an assumption requires a huge leap of logic given Bush's less than conservative political record.

In all fairness, the study is likely to be generally accurate. Detroit certainly is liberal and Provo certainly leans toward the conservatives but for a more accurate study, they should determine what defines a conservative or a liberal and poll the people directly on their beliefs about a variety of subjects.

Saturday, August 13, 2005


Thanks to Digital Brown Shirt along with added pressure from Billy D. and JenE for suggesting that I make the picture I posted the other day a permanent part of my blog.


Get thee behind me.

Watch your backs, I'm coming up the ranks.

**thanks to My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for the link.

Update: It seems I'm much closer to the top, thanks too all those that voted me up. I won't forget you when it comes time.

It's For The Children

Senator Tom Carper from Delaware is proposing legistlation that would impose a 25% tax on pornagraphic material sold over the internet.

The money would go to police units to investigate child pornography. The article actually says it's to prosecute them but police don't prosecute. Just picking nits. Moving on.

Who could be cold and heartless enough to oppose funding for those who will take these people off the street? Me! Me! Pick me!

I am going to invoke the slippery slope argument here. Once the mechanism is in place to tax on line porn, how long will it be before every other internet service is getting taxed? Not very long at all I imagine.

Along with taxation there will of course be 'compliance methods' which will basically monitor everything that everyone does in terms of the Net.

Heavy taxation always leads to a black market. Organized crime (inlcuding terrorist organizations) always stand to profit the most from the black market. High taxes then increase the crime rate.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Afraid Of A Picture

As I mentioned below a couple of posts ago, I used to participate heavily on a website called Tribe. The forums that I participated it in, were mostly political and predictably leftist.

The debate eventually turned to gun control so I went out to my back yard, set my camera on the tripod and hit the timer.

I had this picture attached to my profile for quite some time and you wouldn't believe the comments I recieved. Some people (men and women) actually said that the picture frightened them and/or they felt threatened by it. They said they don't like loaded weapons pointed at them. Well, neither do I but a loaded picture doesn't bother me.

Really, I can see how some guy might be threatened by my stunning good looks, but how could anyone be afraid of a picture of a gun?

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Imposing Freedom

Ben Shapiro says:

But now, America faces a crossroads. Since the death of the Soviet Union, we are unquestionably the world's only superpower, the world's remaining empire. Acquiring an empire requires a different mindset than maintaining and expanding one. Empires either decline or they grow. If America is to survive and flourish, Americans must realize that empire isn't a choice: It's a duty.

Excuse me? It's now the duty of America to conquer the rest of the world?

I don't think anyone could accuse me of not being a patriot. But I am not a blind patriot. I don't love my country because I was born here, I love it for the ideals of liberty it once represented. I strive to educate people about those ideals and the meaning of freedom.

It is clear that we are less free here in America than we used to be and our freedoms will be further abrogated in the years ahead. I do not support the political expansion of America in to the rest of the world because that is not the proper role of a nation that embraces liberty.

The people of oppressed nations that desire liberty will, if they love liberty enough, rise up against their government and demand their liberty. Such revolution is almost always paid for with blood; so be it.

We cannot and should not tromp around the world trying to impose freedom on other nations. The Iraqi people were oppressed by Sadaam Hussein; of that there is no doubt. But I question what they really wanted. Did they want freedom or just freedom from Hussein? If they really wanted freedom, where is the evidence of previous attempts at revolution by the masses? Is it democracy they wanted? Perhaps they really wanted a Representative Repbulic, but I doubt it.

While I agree that it is sometimes necessary to go to war to protect this country, we shouldn't be going to war on behalf of the people of another nation. Freedom must be earned by those that would maintain it.

Let's go back in history a bit to the American Revolution. Let's say that France, in it's hatred of England, decided to send it's military over here to the Colonies, kick out the English and hand us our government on a silver platter. They planned and oversaw elections and stuck around for a while to supress the uprisings of those colonists still loyal to The Crown. How long do you think this nation would have lasted under those circumstances? I contend it would have been less than 100 years, probably far less. Why? Because you can't just hand freedom over to a group of people that did not earn it.

Sure, the French helped us. In fact, they handed us a decisive victory at Yorktown but they did not fight our war for us. They helped a nation that was already resolved to throw off it's chains.

Let's go to Iraq. What are we doing there? Are we simply a helping a nation that has resolved to gain it's freedom? No. We have gone over there and insisted that they have their freedom. We planned and executed their election. We are fighting their insurgents. We are training their military. They do not have freedom. For all intents and purposes, they are a colony of the United States and they exist at the pleasure of the current administration. They don't have freedom in Iraq; only a shadow of it without form or substance.

I might have supported the war in Iraq if the Iraqis were rising up against their oppressor and sought our assistance. But we cannot march in to another nation, slap a Constitution down on the table and tell them that that this is how they must now live. We cannot, and should not determine the course of another nation who is not a direct threat to us. The overthrow of Hussein might have been necessary for our own protection but we have gone beyond the pale and conquered a nation that had neither the resolve nor the resources to be a threat to our borders.

It is not the duty of free nations to impose their freedom on other nations but only to encourage people to stand against their masters and free themselves.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

More Fun With Vox's Article

Inspired by Steve posting Vox's article which lead to the current debate over at his blog, I have gone and done the same.

Some of you may be familiar with a website called It's a bullitin board/social networking site and it's a lot of fun. I spent a lot of time (too much time) debating and debasing liberals and conservatives alike for nearly a year. I stopped because it was taking up too much time. I'd much rather just blog now. Anyway, I still drop in and visit a couple of my favorite forums once in a while and so I went and posted Vox's article there.

Follow this thread and read the responses. In case you're confused, I'm Jake (which isn't my real name) but that's really me in the picture. Keep checking back on this thread, it should stay alive until tomorrow night at least after everyone has had a chance to weigh in. If you feel so inclined, sign up and join in the fun.

Jesus Was A Socialist

In the strictest sense of the word, Jesus was a socialist. He advocated communal living, giving money to the poor and taking care of others.

Resub (from another forum) said: "However (and I'm seriously not trying to be a dick) as a Christian how do you reconcile your capitalist views with the socialism that is commanded clearly in context in several locations in the Bible, including the book of Acts where a capitalist couple is killed for profiting from the sale of their house?"

I answered:

"Easy. What Jesus was advocating was purely VOLUNTARY and that is clear from the text.

Furthermore, Ananaias and Saphira died, not for taking a profit, but for lying about it. Again, read the text, Acts chapter 5. Peter basically told Ananias that it was his property to do with as he pleased. They were under no compulsion to either sell their property nor donate the procedes to the church. They volunteered to do so and then lied about what they sold it for. They didn't die for taking a profit."

These are simple arguments to destroy folks and you need to practice them or the liberals will push you over. It won't be long before Christian Republican start making these arguments.

To argue that the government should control our lives because the Bible says so is a really dumb thing to say yet there are people that believe it. Resub wasn't the first person I've had ask me this question.

Monday, August 08, 2005

Prayer Request

As some of you know, I am going through a divorce. Well, today is my 7th wedding anniversary.

Please pray for me, but especially for my wife that God may soften her heart toward me so that we can be reconciled.

This will be my only post here today.

Thank you, everyone.

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Peter Jennings

It seems that Peter Jennings might be near death. He was diagnosed with lung cancer earlier this year.

And here I thought he'd been blowing smoke all these years, not sucking it.


Peter Jennings passed away Sunday evening at the age of 67.

Friday, August 05, 2005

Walk The Line

This ought to be good. Walk The Line.

Then again, they might really screw it up.

But this ought to be bad. Rumor Has It.

Nothing good can come out of a movie with Kevin Costner AND Shirley McLaine; they both make me ill.

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Domestic Partners

Here in California, despite the best effort of the voters, the domestic partnership laws are very strong. For all intents and purposes, it's gay marriage without actually getting that title.

I'm wondering if some brave soul out here in the land of fruits and nuts who is married could go form a domestic partnership with someone of the same sex. I'm not asking anyone to get invovled in homosexuality of course but it would be a very interesting legal experiment.

Why couldn't one have a wife and a domestic partner? Since the advocates of gay marraige want to dabble in the fine art of moral equivocation, what would be the big deal if someone had a wife AND a domestic partner? Or several of them? Who's business it is anyway? Why couldn't someone make an adult child a domestic partner? Why couldn't someone have domestic partners that have nothing to do with sexual relationships?

Other suggestions welcome. Don't bring animals in to it though since they can't give legal consent.

Why Not Indeed?

An excellent question.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

National Food Program

Since there is a high likelihood that the Lizard Queen will run for POTUS in 2008 the issue of Communist Health Care will not only be back on the table, it will dancing like an Okinawa stripper when a WESTPAC hits port.

I've got a great idea.

Rather than nationalize health care, let's just nationalize food. Food is a critical resource and we certainly can't live without it. How can we possibly continue to leave the production and distribution of such a critical resource in private hands?

If FedGov was in charge of all growth and production of food it would benefit us in many ways:

  • Only food that met strict government dietary standards would be distributed and health care costs would drop dramatically.
  • Poor people would have access to the same food that rich people have. I believe this is known as social justice.
  • It would take all of the profit out of these evil Big Food companies. The fatcat Big Food execs would have to get real jobs. I believe this is known as economic justice.
  • The money we currently spend on food could be better put to use in the economy. Welfare recipients could spend it on other necessities like digital televisions that will be mandatory in 2009.
  • Since everyone will be receiving their food for free, recurrent will shut down thus freeing up massive amounts of land for public housing projects and food storage warehouses.
  • Illegal immigration will nearly disappear. Since there would be no private farmers to pick crops for, they would have no reason to come here. The guest worker program would be tailored to suit agri-workers so that if they worked in government farms for seven years, they'd be granted citizenship.
I know what you're thinking, people can still grow their own food and there will be a huge black market for non-government food. Fear not, the Department of Homeland Security will crack down on all of the food terrorists out there trying to subvert the system. Felonious farmers will be in prison with the drug dealers and murderers.

There's really no down side to this plan. If we're not feeding our families we can focus on more important issues like making sure our children fully embrace homosexuality and abortion.

In Other News

There were several fender-benders on the 405 Freeway today. There were minor injuries but no one was killed.

Seriously, why is a minor plane crash in France all over the news when there is no stench of burning bodies filling the air? No one died! It's not news! Sure, it looks bad, but scalp wounds always look more serious than they really are too.

Keep this crap out of the media.

Is This A Joke?

WND is reporting that British police are constrained on their activities while raiding Muslim households.

Here are some of the guidelines:

  • Rapid entry needs to be the last resort and raids into Muslim houses are discouraged for a number of religious dignity reasons.
  • Police should seek to avoid looking at unclad Muslim women and allow them an opportunity to dress and cover their heads.
  • For reasons of dignity officers should seek to avoid entering occupied bedrooms and bathrooms even before dawn.
  • Use of police dogs will be considered serious desecration of the premises and may necessitate extensive cleaning of the house and disposal of household items.
  • Advice should be sought before considering the use of cameras and camcorders due to the risk of capturing individuals, especially women, in inappropriate dress.
  • Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station.
  • If people are praying at home officers should stand aside and not disrupt the prayer. They should be allowed the opportunity to finish.
  • Officers should not take shoes into the houses, especially in areas that might be kept pure for prayer purposes.
  • In the current climate the justification for pre-dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent.
  • Non-Muslims are not allowed to touch holy books, Qurans or religious artifacts without permission. Where possible, Muslim officers in a state of 'Wudhu' (preparation before prayer) should be used for this purpose.
This is unbelievable. I can understand following the laws of due process and respect for civil liberties, but why should the police have any respect whatsoever for their 'religious dignity'? It would be unprofessional to go out of their way to make trouble over it but they shouldn't be putting stuff like this in to their SOP.

Terrorist 1: I see the police aren't allowed to wear shoes in our house if they come in to raid us.

Terrorist 2: Jolly good! We'll put nails and broken glass on the floor near the entrances then.

Terrorist 1: Oh, and we'll hide key evidence inside the Koran too since they can't touch it without permission and there aren't going to be many Muslim officers around.

Terrorist 2: Yes, and we can hide anthrax in the lining of the extra clothes we'll have prepared to take to the station with us.

Terrorist 1: And when they're standing aside waiting for us to finish praying, it will allow us plently of time to remotely detonate the bombs around the home with the devices in our robes.

Terrorist 2: Not to mention sending signals to the other cells to be careful.

Terrorist 1: These rules work out very well for us. Our brothers advising the police are very clever indeed.

Monday, August 01, 2005

Fun With Hippies

I went to the Orange County Fair this weekend and amongst the festivities and frivolities I found a display for the Green Party which was attended to by a couple of aging hippies. I rubbed my hands together in that mad scientist BWAHAHAHA sort of way, put on my best game face and approached the booth.

There was a 'NO WAR IN IRAQ' sign, something about encouraging democracy and other assorted posters about saving the environment, etc. The only thing really missing was a sign demanding the legalization of pot.

The woman, did most of the talking. She asked, "Are you a Green or are you just looking for information?"

I replied honestly, "I really don't know too much about the Green Party, what are you all about?"

She smiled and seemed relieved that I didn't appear to be there for a heated political argument. She proceeded to explain that they're against the war in Iraq and that they support responsible environmental policies, social justice, getting the money out of politics etc.; they were just typical talking points. I was nodding my head and listening attentively and forming my battle plan in my head.

She directed my attention to a folder they had on the table describing their Ten Key Values which I have conveniently provided a link for. When I saw the first item, I knew that I was going to have some fun.

Grassroots Democracy

I looked right at the hippy man with a confused look and asked, "Why on earth would we want a Democracy?" I shifted my eyes back and forth between the two and waited for a reply. They didn't really know what to say. They couldn't even comprehend that anyone could possibly have a problem with democracy.

One of them finally replied with something about everyone deserving to have a voice in the system. "Democracy is just mob rule," I said. "We elect our respresentatives to decide certain things for us and if they don't do a goo job we replace them."

"But the system is broken," says Hippie Man, "there is too much corporate money in politics. With our system of democracy, we wouldn't have to worry about mob rule because we have an 80/20 system that would prevent that sort of thing."

That confused me a little and I asked, "Doesn't that mean that 20% of the population could hold the other 80% hostage by withholding their consent from various issues?"

Hippie Chick says, "Err, well, yes, sort of but out structure encourages cooperation and since all of the corporate money would be out of the political process, we wouldn't have as much corruption so it would be a smooth process."

From there, the conversation took a turn in to the evils of Corporate America and they were stunned because I was mostly agreeing with them. I was biding my time, waiting for the next opportunity to twist their heads off. Wait for it....

Hippie Chick says, "Capitalism doesn't work because the corporations dominate people and we don't have as many choices." DING! DING! DING! Folks, we have a winner.

I put up my index finger to indicate that I wanted her to pause. "We don't have a capitalist system now. What you have been describing is corporate statism."

It was as if every sound and movement at the fair had slowed to a crawl. I could tell they were trying to absorb that term. They heard it before but didn't understand it and couldn't figure out if they should be upset or not. I had mercy on their poor souls and explained what I meant. I continued to explain why a more pure market economy would provide so much better for the needs of everyone than our current system.

The whole conversation was about 15 minutes long. They thought they were getting through to me because I was agreeing with them and I kept dropping bombs on them that they had never had to defend before. I told them the minmum wage should be elimated and Hippy Chick nearly had a stroke. She started spouting off about the intrinsic value of every human being and there is no reason someone with computer science degree should be paid more than someone working at McDonalds becuase we all need to have the same opportunities. She ignored everything I said about scarcity in the labor pool and reviled the corporations yet again.

Alas, the conversation could not continue, Little Dif was doing the pee-pee dance and when she's got to go, she's got to go.

Hippies are fun.