The N Word

Before I launch into discussing the topic I'd like to make excuses for my long absence from writing. I have been busy for a while now but in addition to that I haven't felt it was worth repeating myself again and again in response to new world events. Much of what is going on in the world is still more of the same as it was the last time I wrote. I've also been having a bit of writer's block and several things I've started writing I haven't finished. If you are easily offended by bad words you may wish not to read this. I've refrained from using the main work in question out of courtesy to others who may be sensitive even though this righting is strictly academic. There are several other words I use in full which may or may not also offend but are also discussed in a strictly academic manner. You have been given warning. Now on with the real topic.

As I'm sure you all know Michael Richards made racist remarks to some people while performing at a club. This sparked some justified outrage among other people as it very well should. The patrons to which Mr. Richards made his comments were disrupting the atmosphere surrounding his performance. This quite justifiably was upsetting to him but does not justify the comments he made. However, it does make logical sense that if someone makes one angry enough that one would wish to say something to that person which would hurt them as much as is possible. Hence, why it makes sense that to insult and demean a person of African origin one would call them the N word. Just because it follows logically to use racial slurs does not mean it is right to use them. What interested me the most after watching a segment of the video of this scene was that one of the individuals who Mr. Richards had referred to by the N word responded to him by using a racial slur for someone of Caucasian origin, Cracker. One might be inclined to view this individual as no better in behavior than Mr. Richards. But surely he was only responding in kind because he was angry. Then again that was Mr. Richards' excuse. So it should be said that no racial slur is justifiably appropriate at any time. An eye for an eye solves nothing even if it is logical.

Another subject of related interest is the use of the N word by individuals of African origin referring to people like themselves to which it would have once, and still sometimes is, applied. It is unfathomable to me why one would use a derogatory word to refer to oneself but be outraged when someone of a different racial background uses it. No one should use the N word if only to keep people from demeaning themselves.

Why do we display such anger towards racial slurs and not nearly so much towards other derogatory terms? Words like bastard, asshole, jerk, nerd, geek, bitch, and slut. There is really no difference between the N word and these words when used in anger to demean someone. The N word demeans a person by stating their race is of less worth. Bastard demeans a person by stating their family lineage is of less worth. Asshole and jerk both demean a person by stating their personality and behavior is of less worth. Bitch demeans a person by stating their personality, behavior, and sex is of less worth. Slut demeans an individual by stating that person is of less worth because she engages in a large quantity of sexual behaviors with many individuals. Make no mistake it was made to demean one sex, females. Men get by with the same sort of behavior and no negative social repercussions. Nerd and geek are demeaning to individuals who look and dress a certain way and who may have certain hobbies. Each term is equally demeaning to the group of individuals to which it is applied as the N word is to the group of people it was created to demean. It is inexplicable that the repercussions for using these words to make people feel as if they are less are infinitely less severe. It would be good if the next time everyone hears these words used by someone to hurt others if you were to all ask yourselves "How is the basic behavior behind using these words any different than using the N word to describe a different group of people?"

Xfire for Mac

Its been a long time coming but there is finally Xfire for Mac. Just follow these instructions at your own risk.

1. Get Adium version 1.0b8 Note: the newest version is 1.0b9 but it may cause errors with the plugin.

2. Get the plugin here http://www.kaintek.com/?page_id=18

3. If after downloading the plugin it appears as a folder instead of a plugin just make a duplicate of it and rename the duplicate to how it looks without the word copy after its name. It should now appear as a plugin.

4. Double click on the plugin to install it.

5. If you get the (null) (null) error then right-click on the plugin and show package contents. Then follow the folder path Contents/MacOS/ and then right click on xblaze and open with the terminal. This will likely give you an error message but you should now be able to run the Xfire plugin in Adium without getting the (null) (null) error.

6. Enjoy Xfire and your Mac.

Anyone ever wish the Senate was comprised of pregnant school girls?

What a wonderful day it is today that we should see the senate pass a bill which would throw a person in jail for helping a girl escape abusive parents. This crap abortion bill passed in the senate fails to provide any exemption for anyone helping a girl get an abortion whose parents have abused her. This would stop a girl's grandparents from helping her. The bill does provide a means by which a girl could petition a court to allow her to have an abortion without notifying her parents but this is utterly ridiculous. How is a girl of 13-14 going to get to a courthouse to file any sort of petition? Even if she could walk there in a small town odds are her bloody parents would find out about it. All this bill does is stop anyone from helping someone who has been abused by her bastard of a father/other relative. Who do you think is going to be better at deciding whether or not a girl has abusive parents and should be allowed anonymity? A judge who has never seen her or her grandparents who actually are around at least some of the time? The exemption that was drafted to protect those who help abused girls in these cases was shut down because of evil people who know that since the Judge has no clue what is going on he/she will always decide the parents should be informed. Adults have an unerring propensity for believing in other adults over whatever children have to say. There is simply no good reason why people who help others should have to face criminal charges for doing so.

Reference

What is it worth to you not to have bombs dropped on your head?

People never cease to amaze me with their idiotic behavior. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when you hold two people capitive that their government is going to do everything it can to release them. Most likely this involves beating you into submission by any means possible. Hezbollah are a bunch of idiots and should be looked upon with disgust. They could end this war in Lebonan right now if they'd hand over the two soldiers they took prisoner. Instead they still keep the soldiers prisoner and kill Israeli civilians while letting lebanese civilians die because their hideouts are mixed right into populated areas. I sincerely hope people supporting them figure out that it really does more harm than good. It'd save a lot of lives.

Searches without Warning

The Supreme Court decided today that it is ok for Police to search homes without knocking or giving some form of warning before entering. I am perfectly ok with this since I don't think this violates the Constitution as a form of unreasonable search. In the case in question the police did have a warrant. Throwing out evidence from cases in which the police failed to announce themselves is absurd because it has nothing to do with whether or not a suspect committed a crime. I do wish to point out that this ruling may cause future problems when the police barge into someone's home unannounced. Suppose the police have the wrong house and just run right in and the homeowner thinks he is under attack and kills a police officer in what he perceives to be self defense. I can envision lawsuits where the police have shot an innocent man dead because he was defending his rights. It may be useful to police to sometimes not knock before entering but they should in most cases still do this anyway and be very sure of what they are doing when they use this new freedom of theirs.

Only Partially Free Speech

"A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that government whistle-blowers are not protected by free-speech rights when they face employer discipline for trying to expose possible misconduct at work."-UPDATE 1-U.S. court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right By James Vicini

"Adopting the position of the Los Angeles prosecutor's office and the U.S. Justice Department, the high court ruled that a public employee has no First Amendment right in speech expressed as part of performing job-required duties."-UPDATE 1-U.S. court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right By James Vicini

So this would mean that everyone has protection from being fired under free speech but only when it is not related to their speaking about their work. It seems to also mean that anyone who works for the Justices can be fired simply because they use their free speech to disagree with the court's decision. After all, its work related. Speaking of misconduct at work this is the second time in recent history the Supreme Court has let down their fellow human beings. The other case was the recent one where they ruled it was ok for the local government to take your land, paying you a sum that is likely less than what you could sell it for commercially, and then giving it over to industry for development. Don't you just love this country where the average citizen's rights are so well protected?

Source

Learn English

I cannot fathom why anyone would be against requiring immigrants to learn English. If someone comes here and doesn't learn the language then they are forever in a huge sea of the unknown as people converse around them. It would be a great idea, though by no means a should be a requirement, if they could learn it even before they come. It would make their lives a million times easier. I heard some liberals crying out that the bill was based on prejudice towards illegal aliens and even legal immigrants from Mexico. You can't change your ethnicity but you can learn English. It makes no logical sense to call it prejudiced when one can actually change something about one's self and learn the language. It isn't logical to move to China and expect them all to learn English for you either. Its even a bit arrogant and insulting if one believes everyone in a country should learn another language for one's self. America is a meltingpot of people who all have shared two things throughout history. That being a common language which brings them together and a desire for the rights and freedoms of this country. Having more than one language is devicive. This bill helps ensure Americans all understand each other in a mutual language and become united in that understanding.

The Great Wall of Mexico

There seems to be a growing debate about what should be done about the growing number of illegal aliens in the U.S. There are two ways to fix this. The first is to let them in and the second is to keep them out. I personally would prefer that they be allowed to stay on the provision that they are all accounted for by having records, paying taxes, etc. I'm happy with such an open door immigration policy. What I can't stand for are unregistered illegal aliens. They work here, don't pay taxes, and undercut the salaries of legal citizens who work here. Essentially they are stealing from the government and the citizens of this country. I realize that even allowing all of them to come here legally likely won't stop them from coming here illegally anyway. Any illegal alien who becomes legal is likely to get fired by the greedy scum employing them and replaced by another illegal. What is needed is strict penalties for employing illegals to stick up for their rights and the rights of our citizens to be treated fairly and given proper salaries. By this I mean forget just fines and go with jail time. The best way to enforce fair salaries and ensure people aren't fired for doing the right thing and becoming legal is to make sure the only way into this country is the legal way. That means guarding the border. Too bad President Bush sent all our troops to Iraq to guard its border instead of ours. The more of the Guard that is Guarding our border the better. The more illegal aliens we keep out the more likely we'll be able to keep out any terrorists trying to cross the same way. What's the argument about defending people's rights to fair wages and not to be blown up by terrorists? Defend the border and let everyone in the only way, the legal way.

What? Did Someone Make a Caricature of Him too?

Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Nigerian who was considered a candidate for pope last year, made his strong comments in a documentary called "The Da Vinci Code-A Masterful Deception."

Arinze's appeal came some 10 days after another Vatican cardinal called for a boycott of the film. Both cardinals asserted that other religions would never stand for offences against their beliefs and that Christians should get tough.

"Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and to forget," Arinze said in the documentary made by Rome film maker Mario Biasetti for Rome Reports, a Catholic film agency specializing in religious affairs.

"Sometimes it is our duty to do something practical. So it is not I who will tell all Christians what to do but some know legal means which can be taken in order to get the other person to respect the rights of others," Arinze said.

"This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected," he said, without elaborating on what legal means he had in mind.

- Cardinal urges legal action against Da Vinci Code By Philip Pullella

For some reason the way this cardinal reacted to the Da Vinci Code reminds me of a bunch of Muslim's after those Muhammad caricatures were published. I absolutely love how he professes that it is a fundamental human right not to have one's Christian beliefs questioned. The only fundamental right that remotely comes close to what he professes is in the first amendment and that only allows for the free exercise of religion. There is nothing in the first amendment that says one has to respect another religion only that the believers of it are allowed to worship. For instance, suppose there is a mosque of Muslims who believe the people murdered in the WTO got what they deserved because they were infidels. Am I going to respect their beliefs? Hell no. Do I believe they still have the right to worship Allah since they as of yet haven't gone out and martyred anyone? Yes they may worship Him as they see fit. The most idiotic statement this cardinal makes is that Christians shouldn't forgive and forget. If I remember correctly there is a whole lot of advice in the Bible professing forgiveness. I think the cardinal needs to read through it again before he opens his mouth and makes himself look foolish a second time.

Source

Teaching Creationism: Listen to Europe and Just Say No

"The Archbishop of Canterbury opposes teaching creationism in school and believes that portraying the Bible as just another theory devalues it,"- from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall

"For most of the history of Christianity, there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time," - The Archbishop of Canterbury from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall

Apparently, certain American Christians do not have this awareness the good Archbishop speaks of. The Archbishop is correct that by making the Bible a theory it is downgraded. A theory in science can be disproved and is constantly open to questioning. This is not the realm the Bible should be in. It should stay in the realm of religion. So to all those who want to teach it in public schools I say "No".

If you happen to be Catholic please listen to the Vatican: "In January the official Vatican newspaper said a decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution was "correct.""- from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall

I hope the other Christians in America see the logic in keeping the Bible in the realm of religion and not as questionable scientific theory. Just say no to creationism in schools.

Source

Does Anyone Think they Fired the Wrong Guy?

"Ray Nagin, New Orleans mayor, said on Wednesday night he was shocked by video showing President George W. Bush being told the day before Hurricane Katrina hit that the city’s protective levees could fail. The tape contradicts the president’s statement four days after the hurricane struck: “I don’t think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.”- Reuters: Bush ‘warned day before Katrina struck’

"Trent Duffy, White House spokesman, said the tape was misleading. 'It seems to me to suggest that the president was not fully engaged in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The president was fully engaged and involved in meetings on the response,' he said."- Reuters: Bush ‘warned day before Katrina struck’

If the President was fully engaged in the meetings and the mess that was the response to Katrina why did we fire Mr. Brown and not Mr. Bush?

Source

Once Upon a Time on a Field

Once upon a field many years ago I was running the miles as all school children do for P.E. As I was running I can't seem to remember much of what I was thinking. Quite possibly, I wasn't thinking much of anything at all. Whenever I run these days I rarely think of much other than where I'm running to or maybe the feel of the breeze blowing over me as I run. But the story I'm telling begins when I stopped running. I had reached the last stretch of the mile around the field we were using as a track. It was early morning and cool. It was what I consider the best weather one can run in. I was one of the first few people to reach that stretch though not the very first. I slowed my pace and came to a stop. Then I knelt down on the ground staring at the grass in front of me for an instant before looking up and around at the field. I was thinking then just how easy it would be to keep going. I could have just continued and placed high in the rankings. I continued to kneel on the ground and watch the other runners for a couple minutes. During this time the coach and one of the other students came up to me to make sure I was ok. I was fine. I told them as much several times having to reassure them. Then I continued on my way running the last quarter of the last lap of the mile. At least two people passed me probably a couple more but I can't remember for certain now. That didn't bother me though. It still doesn't. The reason was I realized that I could easily outrun them and it just wasn't important anymore after that. I suppose the reason I stopped was to simply take in the moment. It was a very nice morning after all. A possible moral of the story if there is one is that one should not judge a person who appears to fail. The coach and the student both thought I had stopped because I was exhausted or something of the sort. Their assumptions were not accurate. So whenever you see someone who appears to have reached their limits it would be a good idea to realize that they may be capable of much more but simply have lost the desire to do more.

No... Not Embarrassing At All...

"The Energy Department said it has come up with $5 million to immediately restore jobs cut at a renewable energy laboratory President George W. Bush will visit on Tuesday, avoiding a potentially embarrassing moment as the president promotes his energy plan." - Jobs cut at energy lab restored before Bush visit By Tom Doggett Reuters Monday, February 20, 2006

No that isn't embarrassing at all except that they were caught restoring cut funding and it has been published. I think this shows exactly how seriously George W. Bush believes in cutting our energy dependence on oil.

Just as a note to everyone: Articles like this don't usually make it to the front page of Google News. Sometimes you have to click on the U.S. button on the sidebar to find something interesting.

Source

Why be Concerned by Homosexual Marriage?

I've always wondered why so many people get so worked up over homosexual marriage. Every time I've asked someone who is against it why they have their position I never get a satisfactory response. The best answer I have received is that marriage is something that is between a man and a woman. This answer is completely unsatisfactory in defending the argument because their position is reduced to arguing over the definition of a word. I have no problem with calling homosexual marriage civil unions for the sake of progress towards decency since the whole purpose of homosexuals being allowed to marry is for them to have the same legal rights contained in the legal definition of marriage as heterosexual couples. It is exceptionally cruel to deny someone’s partner the right to be beside his partner's deathbed just because they are not legally married. In many instances homosexual couples have been together just as long or longer than many married couples. Yet we as individuals, a society, and country do this to people. Homosexual marriage will end this cruelty to people. Denying someone basic decencies such as this over the use of a word makes one a representative of evil. My best clue to a better reason for the position against homosexual marriage is that it is religiously offensive to them. It is conceivably possible that those with this position see homosexual marriage as an offense against God. However, this does not adequately explain why one should oppose homosexual couples having the same legal rights in their unions as heterosexual couples. The rights in question are legal rights not religious ones. The act of marriage that could be construed as offensive is homosexuals performing the marriage ceremony with the Bible and everything. Denying homosexuals legal rights does not stop them from performing this ceremony since they have done it without getting marriage licenses for years. Under the constitution of this country it is unconstitutional to stop homosexuals from taking part in a marriage ceremony with their partners because such a ceremony falls under the jurisdiction of religion and freedom to worship as one sees fit is a cornerstone of this country. All denying homosexuals the legal rights under marriage does is punish people who haven't caused anyone harm. Those seeking to deny homosexuals the right freedom of religion are no better than the clerics in the Arab world who tell their followers to go out and burn stuff because they won't allow freedom of speech when it has to do with their prophet. The advent of homosexual marriage in no way changes anyone's marriage or makes anyone's marriage less strong in the eyes of God or the law. I suggest to all those who are against homosexual marriage that you should go home and spend some quality time with your spouse and children instead of trying to make people who are different suffer. Maybe then the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.

Sayings Again

I am what I am.
-The Major

Reality is rarely how you feel about it.
-The Major

Iran, Nukes, and Hamas

Much of what I read in the news these days centers around Iran and their uranium enrichment program. I have a hard time understanding why Americans should be very concerned about it. Iran insists that it is developing the process for the purpose of cheap abundant energy and not for nuclear weapons. As they have stated before they do have a right to do such a thing. The U.S. telling them not to is arrogant and violates the fact that Iran is a sovereign nation. If for some reason Iran chooses to develop nuclear weapons even though they claim they will not then the U.S. has perfectly good reason to take decisive action. Rather than being arrogant and insulting it would be a much better policy to state that if Iran ever does develop nuclear weapons that those weapons and the facilities for making them will be destroyed in airstrikes. Add to this economic sanctions and everything should work out fine. If for some insanely foolish reason Iran should choose to use a nuclear weapon the U.S. should make it very clear that Iran will be annihilated from the face of the planet by our nuclear weapons. There is no need to take any action now when the U.S. can dictate the necessary consequences for such dangerous behavior in the future.

On another topic, Hamas still refuses to recognize that Israel has a right to exist. This isn't really surprising but I would have hoped that they'd care about their people who will likely end up starving without Western aid. One really has to wonder why Israel and the West fund people who enjoy blowing themselves up in the streets to murder others. I suppose I can't hope that the Palestinians will realize that the aid is long standing proof that the west is actually nicer to them than they think. Is it really too much to ask that they stop the murdering in return?

Two of the Three Questions Answered

I am taking a philosophy of religion class. So far, we are going over the three main traits that God is generally thought to possess: omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence. We've covered some of the problems with each of these and a few possible answers but none of the answers have been satisfactory. Eventually during the class I want to get up yelling "No, no, no. That is not how you should think about it! Look, try this." It doesn't take me long to come up with solutions for the drawbacks to each answer. I don't like in class speaking so I'll just write my solutions here. Maybe I'll print it off and hand it to her one of these days.

The first problem is the nature of God's omnipotence. The classic question about this is "Can God create a stone so heavy even He could not lift it?" The answers given to this are generally paradoxical. Consider that God did make such a stone in our universe. It would have to have some sort of infinite force to oppose whatever force God uses to attempt to lift it. Since both forces would be infinite the stone cannot be lifted. Simple physics. However, God could just change the rules of the universe and make the stone possible lift again. The argument is that since God could lift it by doing this then there is something he cannot do; make an stone He cannot lift. Hence the paradox since omnipotence means He is all-powerful. I disagree with the direction of thought on this. It seems that omnipotence also has a component of will to it. Without God's will no such stone would come into creation in the first place. Until God takes an action that negates his own omnipotence he is omnipotent. Saying he could not negate His omnipotence would mean He is not omnipotent. If he were to commit an action, which negates his omnipotence, then he would not be any less powerful. The stone is a bad example since it does not specifically account for God changing the rules. Lets consider that He makes the rules in such a way that He cannot change them and creates the stone. Is the stone any greater than God who is omnipotent? No, the stone can never be more powerful than God because even with its infinite force it is no more than equal to God's infinite power. By refraining from creating the stone God is merely maintaining his omnipotence. So the definition of omnipotence should mean He could do anything He chooses to.

The second problem is that of omniscience. How can God be omniscient and humans have free will? Being omniscient means He is all knowing. The accepted definition of knowing is to have a justified true belief. Omniscience follows easily from omnipotence since He is all-powerful it would be possible for Him to be omniscient. The answer here is simple. There are a multitude of possible universes. Humans are free to choose so at each decision point they change the universe making it into one of the possible ones. The supposed catch is that if God is all knowing then He must have known which one you would choose. I reject this as foolish thinking because it relies on the idea that there is such a thing as a future. I propose that the only time that exists is the present. The future by its very definition does not exist yet. If something does not exist then there is nothing to be known about it other than its nonexistence. When a person makes a decision God knows what that decision is. There is nothing further he needs to do to show that He is omniscient since there is no future to know. But wait what about the past? If there is a past then we are that past’s future so doesn't that show that a future exists? No, because there is no past. The universe only exists in the present. The memories we have of what we call the past are formed and maintained in the present. They reflect states and changes to those states of the universe. Time equals change. So there is no past and no future only the present and change. God has an infinite memory by virtue of His omnipotence. End of story.

The third problem is the problem of evil. I think I'll wait to discuss this one. It’s a much longer subject than the first two.

Peon Part IIa: Life would be Simpler if Carriages Lacked Breaks

This is about half of the second part of Peon. I keep delaying on releasing the complete Peon since I've been going back and editing/adding to it. I'm going to start editing and posting it in smaller sections. Enjoy reading.

Peon Part II: Life would be Simpler if Carriages Lacked Breaks

The town was as an amazing site for Peon to see up close as it was from the top of the hill. Townspeople went quickly about their business here and there as a steady traffic of mover drawn carts hauled merchant goods down the main thoroughfare. Peon followed the merchant traffic along the muddy road towards the market at the center of town. As he walked he saw children running between the many mover carts playing or maybe lifting a few items here and there as they occasionally had been known to do. As the path neared the market it became a paved cobblestone street. He saw many more people crossing the path now on their way to and from local shops. A woman was sweeping off the stoop of a little shop off to his right. It was in a nook shoved between the much larger Golgameshe’s Chamber Pots and Alagan’s Wooley Woolerby Rugs. The small sign above the door said Yed’s Assorted Things. Peon took no interest in these stores but noticed the fine quality of the broom the woman was using to sweep the stoop. The handle was made of a sturdy red wood which Peon thought could be from an Yllian tree. Carved in it were beautiful scenes of flying birds and falling leaves. The bristles were tightly packed and wrapped to the handle by a fine red string. As he was about to call out to the woman and ask where he could get such a broom for himself one of the children still playing around the carts bumped into him. Momentarily startled he looked down to see a small brown-eyed child glance up at him then push off and rush into the stream of carts once more. When Peon recovered his composure he turned back to face the stoop only to find that the woman with the finely crafted broom was no longer there. He glanced around him for any sign of her but was disappointed when he could not find her in the mass of carts and people. With a slightly disappointed sigh he continued on his way towards the market to acquire some delicious berries and secretly hoping that he might be able to find one of those brooms there as well. A few short parts of a moon later he reached the market and began perusing the various goods for berries. He saw many interesting things including: glowstone necklaces, a multipole, invisible thread, Salt Coast wine, one merchant was pedaling magic spoons that could shift into forks or maybe it was the other way around. As he continued to search for berries Peon came upon a animal keeper selling rarer fare than one might normally see in such a town. Peon noticed a bird perched on a stand that was changing its colors every few seconds.

“Come closer my friend and have a look at these wondrous creatures. Just make sure not to touch. Some of them can be fairly intolerant at times,” said the keeper as he took a beetle from a bowl he held and dropped it into a cage nearby. Squeaking and squawking sounds emanated from the dense foliage within then the cage shook violently with a few piercing shrieks before going quiet.

“Feeding time,” said the keeper turning to him and smiling broadly.

Peon had read many articles about exotic creatures from his subscription to Palladium magazine and was interested in getting a good look at the selection before him. He approached the keeper’s alcove and peered down at one of the creatures on display. This one was a small lizard lying out across a bed of hot coals. Its scales were a dusty orange color. The lizard did not seem to mind the heat from the coals and even seemed to be enjoying itself. As Peon stared at it intently it raised and cocked its head to the side. Blinking slightly it stared at Peon with a fiery golden eye then turned its head toward him flicking its long wisp of a tongue to taste the air. Peon and the creature stared at each other in this fashion for several more seconds. With a flick of its tongue the lizard shot forth a plume of flame. Being possessed of quick reflexes especially when his life was in mortal danger Peon ducked in time to avoid the majority of the flame. He backpedaled away from the lizard patting franticly at the hair on his head to extinguish the tufts which had caught fire. The keeper looked at the lizard and shaking his head said, “Uh oh looks like somebody has a cold. Maybe we had best put you away for a little while.” The keeper picked up the stand the lizard rested on and moved it to the back of the alcove covering it with a glass bowl. “Every time I bring him here he comes down with something. It must be a bit too drafty even on the coals salamanders prefer lava, you know. If I could just get him some Alchemist’s Fire,” he said turning back to Peon he continuing, “Could I interest you in some of my other creatures. Flick makes a great show item in warmer weather but you wouldn’t want him sitting around your house with a cold. Maybe you’d like a little coo cat? They make excellent pets!”

“Ummm….no, no…no thank you….I’m afraid my house isn’t big enough for another creature.” Responded Peon shakily. With that Peon turned away and continued searching through the market for berries. Peon had no idea how much sense his comment made. Having never seen a coo cat or read of them in Palladium Magazine he would not know that coo cats can grow to a rather large size. In fact, the average fully-grown coo cat could reach a couple times the size of peon’s small house. Coo cats are known for making a distinct cooing sound that is very pleasing for people to hear. Many traders sell kittens to unsuspecting patrons though these traders seldom every trade in the same area again. A trader who returns usually finds an angry mob of villagers complaining of how he sold them cats that ate them out of everything they had. A returning trader may also find that the villagers had found an inventive use for their overly large pets.

One such merchant, by the name of Bartholomew Woodard, sold a number of kittens to the town of Waterman’s Knoll in the fifty-first Moon Year of the Wintry Moon; while passing through on his way to the capital city of Iron Holm. Upon his return voyage in the spring he made a second stop at Waterman’s Knoll with the belief that he could charge whatever he wished for the food stores he possessed. At the marketplace the town’s mayor greeted him and demanded that he make restitution for the expense of feeding the gigantic coo cats. Bartholomew Woodard was not a simple trader but owned a large merchant fleet and had several guards to ensure that he and his precious cargo made it safely to and from his destination. Not afraid of a few angry villagers he refused the mayor’s demands. It came as a complete surprise when the mayor gave him a little smile and then whistled a high-pitched note. What followed was the demise of Bartholomew Woodard and the destruction of a great merchant fleet as two-dozen coo cats rushed out from behind the town’s buildings trampling Woodard and his guards. The cats then proceeded to play in the harbor with Woodard’s fleet. The surprised merchant captains attempted to flee but unlike normal felines coo cats enjoy water. Each ship sank with all hands due to the coo cats pouncing on them as if they were giant floating mice.

It so happens, that while Bartholomew Woodard had been in Iron Holm selling his goods the townspeople of Waterman’s Knoll had been starving to death as the growing coo cats had eaten all their winter stores of food. Having no other choice the townspeople began sending parties to hunt the local forest for any creature that would pass as edible. On one expedition a coo cat had followed one of the hunters out into the forest. The hunter had tracked a small herd of wild woolerby to a clearing and was about to shoot one with his bow and arrow when the coo cat lumbered out of the forest and swatted the woolerby breaking its neck. It then set about to eating its meal as the surprised and frustrated hunter looked on. The hunter stormed out of the bushes he was hiding behind and yelled furiously at the coo cat to get away from his woolerby. The coo cat looked up at the hunter then slowly backed away. The hunter surprised the large beast had listened to him stood there stupidly for a few small parts of a moon. Once he recovered his wits he quickly grabbed the woolerby and dragged it back to town with the coo cat following serenely behind. After returning to town and sharing the woolerby meat with the other townspeople the hunter began to think about the strange way the coo cat had responded to him. An idea occurred to him that it might be possible to train the coo cats to help with hunting. It was soon realized, once a few attempts to train the cats had been made, that they were very intelligent and learned quickly. With the help of the coo cats the village hunted a steady supply of food for the winter and in the spring were able to deliver the merchant Woodard’s comeuppance.

Peon passed more colorful stalls filled with goods as he searched the market for berries. He was extremely glad to be away from the fire breathing lizard and quixotic animal keeper. The crowd was becoming thicker in the section of the market he had just entered. He had to push his way through the throng of people to continue onward, hoping to find what he was looking for at the market’s center. After what seemed like several parts of a moon longer than it was Peon broke out of the crowd of people. Peon stood where he was taking in the wonderful sight he had come here to find. Across from him and the gap in the crowd was a stand covered with every kind of berry imaginable. There were blueberries, red berries, white berries, orange berries, blackberries, multihued berries, and the shapes and sizes varied from tiny to the size of Peon’s fist. It was while standing there struck dumb he had found what he was searching for, that a passing mover cart passed over his foot. Peon let out a bloodcurdling scream and began hopping around wildly. Heads turned in his direction to see what all the commotion was about. The onlookers were perplexed to find a peon holding his foot while hopping up and down in a lane of traffic as a mover cart prepared to make him a useful roadway. While continuing to hop away the reawakened pain in his right foot Peon noticed all the people staring at him and behind him. Curious to find out what was of interest behind him he hopped around and noticed the fast approaching mover cart. Having no intention becoming a new coating of pavement Peon made a large hop to the side and rolled out of the way just in time to avoid the mover cart. Unfortunately, as the mover cart passed leaving Peon unscathed it hit a badly placed pothole and kicked up muddy water drenching him to the bone.
The onlookers laughed at the soaking wet peon still laying in the road holding his foot, and went about their business. Peon climbed to his feet gingerly setting his throbbing right foot on the ground. He decided that he would not let being in pain and soaking wet ruin the moment. He proceeded to hobble toward the merchant stand with the assorted berries. The shopkeeper, an old woman with frizzy white hair and inordinately large spectacles, looked at him giving a slight grimace at the sight of a muddy peon visiting her establishment. But being the successful business woman she was she asked “What can I get for you today, sir? I have this fine collection of berries available here before me and a stock of preserves in back.”

“I’ll have some blackberries, blueberries, red berries, orange berries, and some multihued berries…..ummmm…..make that a double helping of the multihued,” he replied.

The shopkeeper quickly put the berries Peon selected into a complementary basket and extended it toward him. She then asked, “What do you have as payment, sir?”

Peon quickly dug in his pockets for the watch he was carrying and handed it to her smiling. The shopkeeper looked at her hand and scowled then flung the ball of mud Peon had handed her to the ground saying, “I’m afraid mud doesn’t cover the cost of delicious berries such as these.”

Startled, Peon looked at the ground where lay the ball of mud he had mistaken for the watch. “I’m terribly sorry madam I thought that ….well….. it was something else….just a moment….” He said digging through his pockets once again.

But try as he might he could not produce the watch. The shopkeeper a bit miffed at receiving no payment withdrew the basket full of succulent berries saying, “Well, I thought my berries were worth more than mud to you but I can see that I was wrong. Come back when you have something that isn’t dirty. That includes yourself!”

Peon stunned and defeated wandered away aimlessly from the berry stand eventually sinking to the ground. Having come so close to his goal and failed he laid there for many parts of a moon pondering how he could have lost the watch.

THIS WORK MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED PERMISSION OF THE
AUTHOR(S). PLEASE CONTACT THE AUTHOR(S) FOR REPRODUCTION RIGHTS.

The Foolish Cleric

"This is not violence, this is the right of every Muslim to fight for the prophet," said Ali Allameh, a bearded cleric whose hair was tied back with a bandanna. "Those who insult the prophet are not people, are not human beings. They're pigs and chimpanzees. Even pigs are better than these people."- From: Beirut Rioters Attack Church By Megan K. Stack, Times Staff Writer

Notice the absurd and utterly vile nature of this man's words. He and those like him are the reason the cartoons depicting Muhammad were printed in the first place. For a cleric he lacks wisdom. Even animals strike back when they are attacked.

Source

Ideology Is Less Flammable Than Flags

This idea comes from a comment Tom made regarding flag burning under the previous post. Here in the U.S. there is a divide between those who support flag burning as freedom of speech and those who find it offensive and think it should be illegal. I do not find flag burning the least bit offensive. I can understand that to certain people the flag represents what they have fought for or believe in in other ways. To some others it represents things they wish to change. The burning symbolizes the doing away with the old order. If your church burns down, do you lose your faith? One would hope not or else your beliefs are very weak. I think of flags in the same way. If one's beliefs are so weak as to be challenged by the destruction of a material thing then one should not have those beliefs. It is foolish to be concerned over the burning of a flag itself but far more logical to be concerned with the reasons and ideology of someone burning a flag. On an end note, according to the U.S. regulations regarding proper disposal of the U.S. flag the accepted method of destruction is to burn it.

Unreasonable Gunmen

I think it is unusual that I have to write an update to a post so soon but for the sake of keeping up to date and furthering my points I will do so. In another bout of complete lack of reason, masked gunmen surrounded the European Union offices in Gaza on today. This is in reaction to a French newspaper publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad to remain in solidarity with the Denmark newspaper, which published a selection of cartoons earlier this week. I have to say that it is completely absurd to involve something that represents the entirety of Europe in a threatening demonstration when only two newspapers are involved in the offensive behavior. What could possibly be going through their minds that lead them to believe all of Europe is behind the publication of two newspapers? That question isn't really relevant anymore since because of this demonstration of force they've caused even more European newspapers to publish the cartoons that were offending them. I have often wondered what leads people to such senseless courses of action. Fortunately, I think I've got my answer.

"We are angry — very, very, very angry," said the legislator, Jamila al-Shanty. "No one can say a bad word about our prophet."- From Temperatures Rise Over Cartoons Mocking Muhammad By CRAIG S. SMITH and IAN FISHER

This seems to be a philosophy that would lead to many conflicts since the majority of the people on Earth do not follow the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. Since they do not follow his teachings it is logical to assume they do not hold him in any great esteem. Therefore, they have valid reason for saying less than flattering words about him, if they say anything at all. Waving guns around at those who do not believe the way you do is a very poor way of convincing others that they should follow your beliefs. It is more likely to make them angry and do the same to you, in turn. This is another reason the Muslim world is submerged in illogical thought. Maybe if Muslims or at least their leaders were more reasonable people and did not anger so easily there would be less negative cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

Source

No Freedom of Speech In Congress

Note: This post contains some carefully chosen strong language. You have been warned so read at your own risk.

At the State of the Union address Cindy Sheehan was arrested by capitol police for wearing a shirt with the number of people killed in Iraq on it. Beverly Young the wife of Florida Representative C.W. Young(R) was also removed from the visitor's gallery for wearing a shirt with the slogan "Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom."

The capitol building is the one place in this "Land of the Free" where we should have "Freedom". I would have whole-heartedly supported both of these women if they had grabbed the security guards' balls and twisted. They are deserving of the pain for their unpatriotic actions. This is a case where the capitol police should have stopped "just doing their jobs" and started being people again. When and who wrote this unpatriotic law that says the police could do this? If it was congress, which it probably was, I suggest the next time they are all assembled the police should manhandle them out the door and toss them on their fat behinds. It is time those who are sent to the capitol stop thinking they can get away with violating the rights of those who sent them there.

The Black Hole of Missile Defense

According to President Vladimir Putin, Russia has developed a new missile.

“These missile systems don't represent a response to a missile defense system, but they are immune to that. They are hypersonic and capable of changing their flight path.”

Putin said that the new missiles were capable of changing both the altitude and the direction of their flight, making it impossible for an enemy to intercept them.

“A missile defense system is designed to counter missiles moving along a ballistic trajectory,” Putin was quoted as saying. - From Reports: Putin boasts Russia has missiles capable of piercing missile defense By Vladimir Isachenkov ASSOCIATED PRESS

Congratulations to everyone who is reading this post! You have just found out another reason why the U.S. government is wasting your money. I suggest you write your congressman and tell them to vote to end funding for the missile defense program. The money would be better spent securing our borders against terrorists.

Source

Focus: The People Sent To Fight For Us

The following is an excerpt from an article I found. I think it deserves more attention so I am posting it. The focus of media on casualties in Iraq should be all people not just one. You can find the complete article here.

"'Why do you think this is such a huge story?' wrote an officer stationed in Baqubah, Iraq, Monday via e-mail. 'It`s a bit stunning to us over here how absolutely dominant the story is on every network and front page. I mean, you`d think we lost the entire 1st Marine Division or something.

'There`s a lot of grumbling from guys at all ranks about it. That`s a really impolite and impolitic thing to say ... but it`s what you would hear over here.'

At least 2,242 troops have died in Iraq since the war`s start, 1,753 of them killed in action. Another 16,000 have been injured, half of them seriously enough to require evacuation from the battlefield. According to the Pentagon, 60 percent of the deaths are the result of IEDs. IEDs have injured more than 9,200 troops, nine times more than gunshots.

'The point that is currently being made (is that) that press folks are more important than mere military folks,' a senior military officer told UPI Tuesday.

The unavoidable consequence of war is this: People are savagely wounded and killed. Soldiers in Iraq watching the coverage on satellite television and reading the news on the Internet are getting the impression that the press has only just discovered this fact." -Excerpt from Some US troops question Woodruff coverage By Pamela Hess Feb 1, 2006

Danish Fleas and Arabian Sledgehammers

It seems to be almost an understatement to say that much of the Arab/Islamic world is illogical. Recently, a Danish newspaper ran cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed. Some of them in a less than good light. This has led to some very illogical and disgusting behavior by many Arabs.

"The backlash led to street protests, threats to Scandinavians in the Palestinian territories and a boycott of Danish goods, including Lego."- Danes face fury over cartoons of Prophet
By David Rennie in Brussels Source

Sending death threats to the cartoonists and even people who have nothing to do with these offensive cartoons is like hitting a flea with a sledgehammer. It seems like this is a standard reaction by Arabs to many similar events. Whenever a film comes out that is in opposition to their ideology they send death threats to the producers. If the Arab world acted logically they would have just demanded an apology from the newspaper, which published the cartoons. This is what a European country would have done. What I find even more amazing is the lack of conceptualization of the idea that these cartoons were created and published by an independent news agency. It seems like Arabs think that one newspaper printing insulting cartoons is the equivalent of an entire country doing so and treat both the same when they are not the same at all. I suppose that I can't blame Arabs for being ignorant of the idea of free press. I just hope a few read this and spread the idea that one newspaper does not equal an entire country. The most important thing I wish the Arab world would learn is that if someone picks a fight with you in words then you should end it with words not sledgehammers.

Executions Allowed At Any U.S. Army Installation

I got this from http://www.germanforeignministry.blogspot.com/ and the writer's source is given here source. It is apparently now allowed, by order of Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker, that prisoners can be executed at any U.S. Army installation not just Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The writer's analysis of this information appears to be the logical conclusion:

"Analysis: It is highly likely that the U.S. military changed this rule for the sole purpose of authorizing executions at Guantanamo Bay or other oversees prison facilities due to the fact that very few U.S. servicemen are currently awaiting execution. With only 7 military inmates on death row at Fort Leavenworth, there isn’t a clear domestic benefit to this new regulation in the U.S. (Analytical Confidence: 9)"-unknown writer http://www.germanforeignministry.blogspot.com/

An Aborted Thought

I believe I promised an in depth writing on abortion early on when I first created The Edge of Forever. I think I removed that short post when I reorganized this blog. Here are my thoughts on the subject.

I support Roe vs. Wade. I believe that abortions should not be performed except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is in jeopardy. This belief appears to be at odds with the Roe vs. Wade decision but it is not. I will explain why. Roe vs. Wade allows abortions to be performed under conditions other than the ones I stated. So why not narrow the law to only these exceptions? It would not be practically moral. I am an Idealistic Realist. I ripped this term right off the top of my head. Basically, it means I look for the Ideal situation, the best possible solution, and believe that everyone should strive toward such goals. However, I am also a Realist this means that while I believe in striving for the ideal I understand it is not always possible to apply the ideal standard to the world and get the best possible result. By applying a stricter law on abortion to fit my narrow definition of what I consider its acceptable use I would be causing others harm.

Take for instance a rape victim who is attempting to get an abortion. The victim has no evidence to prove to the doctors that she was raped and under the law is not allowed to get an abortion. She is forced to live with an uncomfortable reminder of that evil event for nine months. Practical application of the ideal through the law causes this individual harm. The ideal state of law is not to cause anyone harm and therefore such a law is immoral. One might argue that the absence of law in this case causes harm to individuals. Acknowledging that fetuses are individuals I do not believe the absence of law is the cause of the harm. As an example we must look at the ideal state of society in relation to reproductive matters. Ideally, no one would be raped and people would use protection when having intercourse or abstain entirely. The percentage of unplanned pregnancies would be extremely low if this were the case. The abortion issue in this instance would be virtually nonexistent save in the case of the mother's life versus the child.

From this concept of the ideal it is easy to see where the harm originates. Rapists and careless individuals who engage in unprotected sex and have abortions as cleanup so they can continue their careless lives. It becomes apparent that in application it is impossible to stop people from getting abortions since some would do so illegally. It is also apparent that not imposing a strict anti-abortion law keeps people like the example rape victim from suffering more harm than she is due. Knowing where the harm comes from one can understand that establishing a law, which will not stop many careless people from receiving illegal back alley abortions while compounding harm to rape victims who cannot legally get an abortion is not an ideal law. Staying consistent with the moral premise that one should strive never to cause and to minimize harm to individuals when possible, it is logical to refrain from imposing a strict anti-abortion law.

One could argue here that it is in the interest of the whole that such a strict anti-abortion law is passed and that the majority's benefit outweighs the possible harm to the minority. An example demonstrates the problem of the concept that the good of the whole outweighs the good of the few. You are a rescuer on your way to save five drowning people. As you are driving you come to a man trapped under debris in the road. If you stop to help him the five people will drown. However, due to his position in the road you will have to run over him to get to the five other people. You cannot drive around him since the edge of the road is steep and leads into a ravine. By driving over this man you would be committing the immoral act of murder.
The definition of murder is taking an individual's life against his/her will. The individual has a right to life that cannot be overridden against his/her will. This is the reason it is immoral to have a law so strict that abortions are illegal period. It is immoral to deny an abortion and cause the mother to die in cases in which her life is in jeopardy from the pregnancy. One might object by saying that it is immoral to kill the child since his/her life cannot be valued more than the mother's. In many cases in which the mother's life is in jeopardy the child will not survive birth either. In such cases this objection is a mute point since it is only possible to save the mother's life or no life.

In cases where it might be possible to save one or the other examples illustrate that abortion is acceptable. Take for instance a man who is attempting to kill another man. Is it within the second man's rights to defend himself by killing the first man? I would say yes because it is illogical for the second man to allow himself to be killed. If he were to do so then on a large scale evil would dominate everything because immoral people would kill the good and control the world without anyone being morally able to raise a finger to stop them.
In cases where an individual is harming another individual it appears to be morally acceptable to act harmfully in return because the first person must have waved his/her rights by committing it. By causing the death of its mother the fetus is relinquishing its right not to be harmed.

There is a possible distinction between the fetus and the first man. Unlike the man the fetus may not be actively willing harm to its mother but causing it nonetheless. A giant is walking around the woods one day as he normally does. As it so happens the giant is quite blind and cannot see what is below him. He happens upon a village of little folk and walks through it squashing many of them. The little folk army gathers together its most powerful weapons and kills the giant as he is making his return pass back to his home. Just like the fetus the giant is unintentionally causing harm to people. Lets say he's even a nice guy who would be horrified if he'd known what he was doing. Is it still morally wrong to kill him? I would again say no since the little folk have a right not to be squashed by giants and they didn't go and try to kill him first. The distinction of intention seems irrelevant to whether or not one can defend oneself from an individual attempting to cause oneself harm.

I believe I have satisfactorily explained my position and the reasoning behind it. If something is unclear please comment and I’ll try to do better.

Foodstamp Reform: A Response To The Don

The Don has made some interesting points about the Foodstamp Program, which I feel is worth discussing here as well. Don’s first two complaints about the program are concerns I’ve had about it for a long time.

“1.The Foodstamp Program is outdated because it has no restriction on items: Customers are free to buy any cold food item, including soda, candy bars, gum, potato chips, etc.

2. The Foodstamp Program is wasteful of tax payers' money: Customers are free to spend funds however they wish, in which they tend to buy expensive items (such as made to order sandwiches) rather than basic foods (such as flour, bread, packaged meat) for wholesome meals.”

The system is wasteful because it allows people to spend money on foods that are expensive rather than more basic necessary foods. People are also allowed to buy unhealthy foods. To me this seems unacceptable since the program was intended to help people. Don’s third point is that the stamps are abused on non-food items such as cigarettes and alcohol. I seem to remember some fraud cases involving the sale of alcohol in exchange for food stamps. This is illegal but a certain amount of corruption is involved in any program this size since there are quite a few evil individuals in the world.

“4. The Foodstamp Program sets no goal: Foodstamps customers are given no incentive to get out of this Foodstamps-dependent state. On the contrary, it encourages customers to remain in this state.”

Any welfare without a limit is bound to have a number of users who see no reason to better themselves when they can get a free ride. This is another form of corruption and these people have as much a share in evil as the others.

“5. The Foodstamps Program rewards immorality: People who have premarital sex and get pregnant are easily eligible for Foodstamps. This mindset in a way rewards premarital sex. Only those in financially desperate situations should be eligible for Foodstamps.”

Point five I disagree with. Unlike Don, I am not convinced that premarital sex is immoral in all conceivable cases. I could provide examples I think explain this position here but that would be going off topic. This said I would not engage in premarital sex because of the risks of unplanned pregnancy. I do not believe that food stamps themselves are sufficient incentive to convince people to get pregnant out of wedlock.

To begin with, unplanned pregnancies cause extreme emotional strain, which is aversive enough that I doubt any benefit from the stamps would be seen as a reward. Also, raising the child itself would be even more emotionally and financially straining even if one has food stamps to alleviate some of that. The problem here is not with premarital sex but with sexual promiscuity. Those who engage in unprotected sex repeatedly and get pregnant many times over are a drain on the system. I believe these individuals are evil or immoral because they ensure almost beyond doubt that their many children will grow up in poverty and will likely not get out of it.

I am sure it is unintentional but Don seems to lump all premarital pregnancies into the category of needing the assistance of foodstamps. I can see how teenagers and younger couples might need the assistance since they are the least likely to be financially secure. However, there are many individuals who are in this situation that are financially capable of supporting themselves and do not use foodstamps.

With a time limit imposed upon use of the system and the help of someone like a social worker as Don suggests I would expect a decrease in the waste of taxpayer money. The downside is a time limit might also increase the number of abortions since unwed or even wed couples may choose to abort rather than bear the great expense of raising another child. At the very least the poor may be forced to put the children up for adoption, which would actually increase the burden upon the state. A time limit may also drive some couples to be more responsible and use protection or abstain from intercourse. I think a majority of people would use the options of abortion and adoption since there is a deficiency of self-control and responsibility in many individuals. The good news is if the children are given to the state for adoption it is possible they would be raised to be more responsible than their parents. But that would require an overhaul of an entirely different system, which is already strained and does not do a good job for the majority of unfortunate children. It should begin to become obvious here that the problem is not all with the system but with people themselves.

Don’s ideas for reform are good but I would make a few suggestions. Make it a food card system instead of a food stamp system. Instead of just restricting the food items have set standard meals that all users receive weekly. The meal size would be based on the height and weight of the individuals receiving the food credits. It would be enough to keep them healthy but not allow them to over indulge since it is only meant to keep them from starving. The cards would have a limit of three meals a day given out weekly. Using cards would have the added benefit of allowing the government to track expenditures and make oversight a little easier. I think someone would still come up with a way to abuse the system for profit, but like I said before some corruption is unavoidable. Until we change people we will never have a truly efficient system.

Frosted Window

I originally wrote this short for my creative writing class. I've expanded upon it a little. I chose to present it in that class because I think it brings to mind interesting thoughts.

The wind swirled the snow outside as the man stared through a frosted window of his small home. It was dark. He could barely see the shadowy trees as they swayed lightly in the frigid gusts. He wondered how long he could stay here, in his comfortable home, before they found him. He did not think about this with any sort of alarm, only with curious uncertainty. The man stood from his seat by the window and walked to a small counter, which served as his kitchen. As he prepared some hot chocolate for himself, he continued to think about the people searching for him. He had caused them a great deal of pain and embarrassment over the few short years he had been at war with them. He had exposed their endeavors and assassinated many of their people. Yet he had been unable to win his war. There were simply too many of them to shine light on or eliminate. He took pleasure in the thought that he had caused them to feel, in their own way, the pain they inflicted upon others. His hot chocolate prepared he returned to his seat by the window. He waited and thought. He still wondered if he was a good person anymore now that he had done so many of the evil things they had. He decided he wasn’t but he was still better than them and on the right side. He had tried eliminating their vile existence in another manner, a peaceful manner. But he could not convince the vileness that it was indeed vile and needed to go away. The man sighed thinking that his attempt had been about as useful as petting a porcupine the wrong way. It not only was an unreasonable creature but had also decided to leave him with several painfully well-placed barbs. At least he had tried. He continued to wait and stare out the frosted window at the snow-covered landscape until they came and made him disappear.

A Quote of Wisdom

Here is a quote that I think has an important meaning.

"Evil men obsessed by ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously, and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply,"- George W. Bush

We'll Trade You Pat Robertson for the Journalist

Well, it's been a long time since I've posted. I'm sorry if anyone was reading and was disappointed that I haven't continued. I had all of my wisdom teeth extracted and didn't feel like writing. So I'm kicking off the New Year a little late with another post on Pat Robertson.

In his statements on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson alludes to Ariel Sharon's stroke as being "divine punishment" from God for splitting up the holy land.

“The prophet Joel clearly says that there is enmity for those who –and I quote: “divide my country”. God feels this is His land. Read the Bible, where he says : “It is my land”. And regarding any Israeli Prime Minister who decides to divide it and give it away, God says : “No. It is mine”. Ariel Sharon was a very nice man, a person whose company was wonderful…I prayed with him in private. And now he is about to die. He was dividing God’s land and I would say: poor any Prime Minister who takes the same path to relieve the European Union, the United Nations and the United States of America. God said: “This land belongs to me. Leave it alone!”-The 700 Club, Pat Robertson.

I restate what I've said before, is there no better way to use network airtime than allow Pat on to damage foreign relations?

On another note, Jill Carroll, a 28 year-old freelance reporter for the Christian Science Monitor was captured by an Islamic terrorist group who threatens to execute her if the U.S. does not release all Iraqi female prisoners. Hopefully, an American Muslim advocacy group traveling to Iraq can secure her release. We wish them the best of luck.