November 2006 Archives

Lately I have been looking for a good coding project to work on in my spare time since I don't get enough opportunity to code right now. What I am thinking of is some sort of encryption device for USB keydrives. Writing one in C# should not be that difficult to do, and I already have an idea of how to make it work. I was inspired by such a program that come on a keydrive I bought while back that ceased functioning altogether when I ran it in WINE under Linux. Now that Mono has gotten so mature on Linux, I should be able to develop in VMware on my laptop and run it soon in the Linux environment without issues.

So yeah, I might be starting to play around with the latest builds of MovableType in the near future. With features like this, there's a lot to love about thew new builds of MovableType. One of the great things about having Linux installed on your PC is that you can actually play around with stuff like that easily, whereas it's a royal pain to do a lot of cool geeky stuff in Windows.

And lastly, I got tired of Firefox in English, so I switched to the Italian locale. I love how Google's services all respond to the language of the browser, localizing the content. When I went to Google News earlier, all of the content was from Italy and eerily enough, my Italian is getting to the point where I can generally follow some of the articles I read. I've got the Corriere della Sera in my RSS reader to help me out with some of that. Cerco per blogs in Italiano, cualchi ha racommmandazioni?

It's very obvious that the Fairfax County Health Department would rather homeless people go hungry than risk having an upset stomach:

Under a tough new Fairfax County policy, residents can no longer donate food prepared in their homes or a church kitchen -- be it a tuna casserole, sandwiches or even a batch of cookies -- unless the kitchen is approved by the county, health officials said yesterday.

They said the crackdown on home-cooked meals is aimed at preventing food poisoning among homeless people.

Well, you know what they say. No good deed goes unpunished. But then, what can you expect from a local government bureaucracy except to stymie local efforts to fix problems facing the community? Local governments, police and fire departments aside, are largely useless organizations whose functions could be easily managed by local civic organizations in a cheaper, more effective and friendlier manner.

I really doubt the health officials are that concerned about the homeless because if they were, they would be working with these shelters rather than standing in their way. There are free medical clinics all across Virginia, including Fairfax and Loudon Counties. If the Fairfax County Health Department were serious about helping the homeless, it would encourage greater coordination between shelters and these medical services.

The thing is, who has more of an interest in seeing the homeless helped? A religious charity staffed by people who are clearly there out of a desire to help others, or a bureaucrat who just rubber stamps a welfare check? Who really wants to trust a government agency with policing itself on something like this, knowing the track record that they have for that sort of thing?

"We're dealing with a medically fragile population . . . so they're more susceptible to food-borne illnesses than the general population," said Tom Crow, the county Health Department's director of environmental health. "We're trying to protect those people."

To help the churches prepare, the Health Department is waiving a $60 fee for certification and is holding additional safe food-handling classes for church volunteers. It is also giving churches that do not have approved kitchens a list of other houses of worship with such facilities.

"We're not trying to come across as being a heavy-handed government," Crow said.

The $60 fee waiver really is a great consolation prize. It sure will go a long way to pay for those pesky fees that they are going to have to pay to remain in compliance with local regulations. They could after all cut down on the restrictions or require the churches to simply throw out food instead of refrigerating it at the end of the day. But... that would limit their power to be a nuisance.

The churches are at the forefront of helping these people out. McLean Bible Church alone gave out enough food to feed about 95,000 people over Thanksgiving. All the government is doing is saying, "if we can't guarantee that you're doing it 100% right, you ain't doing it!" In the mean time, every homeless person in Fairfax County can feel free to thank the county government for erring on the side of starvation to avoid theoretical pestilence.

Well well, it appears that Newt Gingrich wants to make some changes to the first amendment in the name of fighting the War on Terror. Or... does he? It's nearly impossible to tell what he was actually thinking judging from the way that the media is starting to report on what he said. Considering the fact that he opposed the Communications Decency Act and has had sharp words for "campaign finance reform" laws, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss him as another boot-licking statist on this issue just yet.

My guess is that he meant that the United States may have to play hardball and actually start charging Muslims who do the usual jihad song and dance on our soil with sedition--something that I would whole-heartedly welcome. Sedition has never been protected speech under the American legal system, and I cannot think of any modern day action that best fits it here than actively urging jihad against the United States and things like that.

Of course, there is always the slim possibility that he is now so thoroughly shaken in his support for limited government that he is now another closet brown shirt, but we should all wait for him to get a chance to clarify what he actually meant since the media barely delivered a sound bite.

TheAgitator has a long list of cases of the police botching raids, prosecutors holding people to double standards, and all of that stuff that I have bitched about here in the past. I wouldn't be so upset about these issues, were it not for the fact that the public is put in such a terrible position. When innocent people are shot and killed, it's just a hectic situation for the officer, but when an innocent person is the first people to get a shot off and kills the cop, he or she "should have known better."

All of this is incredibly ironic when you consider the fact that in most police raids, the "fog of war" would be primarily a problem for the people inside the targetted house, not the officers who presumably have investigated the household and have a reasonable idea of what to expect. The very logic behind midnight and early morning raids is to catch people when they are sleepy, bleary-eyed and not fully functional. It speaks great ill of the moral character of many police officers and prosecutors that they would blame an innocent, sleepy homeowner for shooting a cop or even just offering mild resistance.

The fact that the government is willing to break down someone's door, enter with military-grade armaments and wreck havoc on life, limb and property over narcotics is the final insult. It is bad enough that such extreme abuses are so routinely tolerated. It's even worse that they are committed to keep idiots from blowing their brains out on narcotics, a petty offense that is a "self-correcting problem" if one ever plagued society.

Since El Borak wondered what I think about this, I figured that I would add my two cents.

U.S. law enforcement agencies are struggling with the threat of lawsuits regarding the conduct of officers.

Officials said the threat has become so acute that many officers would rather die than be sued. They said this has seriously hurt law enforcement and endangered the lives of officers.

Call me crazy, but I really doubt that most cops on the street really fear a lawsuit more than taking a bullet. I think that this sort of thing is more likely than not the kind of propaganda created by people who are ideologically predisposed to not like holding the police accountable for their actions. Yes, police do fear lawsuits for legitimate and illegitimate reasons, but I just find it very unlikely that the average cop would prefer being killed to being party to a lawsuit.

Again, call me crazy, but I just find it unlikely that the average cop would rather lose their life, leave a grieving family behind and a number of devastated friends and colleagues than go to court. However, if I am wrong, I would consider that to be the surest sign of moral, spiritual and intellectual rot in law enforcement that one could ever ask for.

I think that the greatest problem that we face in dealing with law enforcement is one of getting people who are willing to act responsibly with force. There seem to be no end of dumb jock rubbish these days, combined with an unwillingness to accept the fact that losing one's life is a risk that comes with the job.

Look, I don't want to beat around the bush, so I'll just say it. I think a big part of the problem is that many police really are cowards behind the veneer of macho crap. There is no other explanation for why in so many drug cases they will use SWAT units to enforce the law, when all too often it turns out that the offender was not that scary of a person. And you know what? A lot of innocent people get shot and killed by SWAT units every year because drug cops do terrible jobs at verifying their informants' information before rushing in with machine guns blazing.

I think the issue is quite simple. If the governments would end the vile practice of sovereign immunity for the police, holding them fully accountable to the law at all times, most of this would go away. They'd no longer be able to hide behind the face of the bureaucracy when, in cases like Cheryl Noel's, they shoot a woman point blank range and kill her over marijuana seeds that didn't even belong to her.

What is seriously lacking is a willingness to punish people for bad judgement calls. It isn't some mysterious gift from God that only happens when someone has been blessed. Prosecutors expect "mere civilians" to make such judgement calls, but seem uncannily forgiving when the police make bad judgement calls that would get a "mere civilian" in serious trouble with the law. Perhaps I am arrogant, but when I see these bad reports in the news, I can't help but think that if I were in the situation, I wouldn't have made those judgement calls. I think this cuts to the core of issue, really. It just doesn't take a rocket scientist or a lifelong pursuit of arcane moral truths to realize that it's immoral and just outright stupid (to once again borrow from Cheryl Noel's shooting) to send in the Kommando Korps of the Keystone Cops over what is, worst case scenario, going to be a mild pot growing operation.

Witness the final stage of public education, not previewed in a charter school:

Not that the students had to go to any of these sessions. At this school, students don't get grades, don't have homework, don't take tests, don't even have to go to class. Unless they want to.

"You can do basically anything at any time, and it's just a lot more fun because sometimes when you need a break at regular schools you can't get it," said Sophia Bennett Holmes, 12, an aspiring singer-actress-fashion designer. "But here if you just need to sit down and read and have time to play, then you can do that."

Lord of the Flies, meet hippie idealism!

Seriously, though, I think the fundamental problem with this school is one that is largely overlooked in the article. Kids need to be pushed to learn things that they don't want to learn, and this school won't do that! Learning is not always fun, and they had better start slowly learning to deal with that as they get older.

I think the school will fail to impart much of what is sorely needed ranging from critical thinking skills to any sort of strong background in the sciences. History and literature can be worked on alone by most students, but a gentle guidance is needed for technical subjects. Logic in particular is one area in which students need mentorship to constantly correct them to think properly.

The most telling point is this:

Students will soon have to meet a set of graduation "requirements," where they must present a portfolio showing proficiency in the areas such as communication, investigation and reflection.

But the definition of proficiency, like much of the school, is flexible.

Brave Sir William is off of his meds again:

American society is changing for the worse because of the machines. In the past to flee the real world people usually chose drugs or alcohol. now you don't have to do that, Now all you have to do is have enough money to buy a machine...

Now, most people would find this to be a positive development since it means that presumably fewer kids are going to blow their brains and livers out on controlled substances. Apparently Bill is a traditionalist and culture warrior from a very selective era, choosing to encourage kids to go back to the olden days were LSD, Heroin and bath tub whiskey were the drugs of choice, not a game console. Who'd have thought.

Basically what you have is a large portion of the population, mostly younger people under the age of 45, who don't deal with reality - ever. So they don't know what day it is; they don't know temperature it is; they don't know what their neighbor looks like. They don't know anything because they are constantly diverted by a machine. Now what this does is it takes a person away from reality because they've created their own reality.

It's ironic that a man working (and presumably living) in New York City would cast aspersions at anyone for such things as "not knowing what his neighbor looks like." I mean, really, the middle aged citizens of that illustrious pseudo-city state are world-renowned for their hospitality, home-spun charm and general feel-goodedness toward their common man. Yankee bashing aside...

What's incredibly ironic is that the very age group whose alleged virtues he is extolling is filled with some of the most irredeemably, reality-phobic people in American society. These are the sort of people who blindly trust authority figures and live in a fantasy world where fundamental aspects of American society have not changed. I ask, who is more out of touch with reality? One of these vile gamers or a late boomer or World War II generation American who thinks that America is a good, decent country when young people today are more promiscuous than any period in America's history? Give me the gamer anyday because at least his delusions are relegated to a game console.

The have-nots are growing. Why are they growing? Because the skill set that is necessary to earn a decent living is being deemphasized in a fantasy world of football games and shooting zombies and all that. Now you have the "knows" and the "know-nots", because if you spend all your youth being prisoners of machines... you're not going to know anything. You're gonna fail.

Ah yes, blame the machines rather than the more likely culprits:

• Corrupt educational bureaucracies.
• Antiquated group education approaches.
• Helicopter parents.
• Race baiters and poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
• The NEA.
• No Child Left Behind.
• A culture that celebrates athletic achievement to the exclusion of academic achievent (except when it's something radical like building a breeder reactor in your tool shed).

What's especially amusing about this rant is that there is evidence that our military desparately needs more video gamers! Apparently a lot of the newer weapon systems are in fact more effectively handled by young men whose hand-eye coordination is honed by intense video game playing.

I don't own an iPod. I would never wear an iPod. If this is your primary focus in life - the machines- it's going to have a staggeringly negative effect, all of this, for America- did you ever talk to these computer geeks? I mean, can you carry on a conversation with them? I really fear for the United States because, believe me, the jihadists? They're not playing the video games. They're killing real people over there.

Well, he should be in good company because O'Reilly's infamy is derived in no small part from his extreme rudeness in dealing with his guests. In fact, it is generally hard to have any clue as to what is being said because of the way that O'Reilly shouts down every little thing they say when they dare to get uppity with him.

You know, some people will be offended by this, but what O'Reilly has done is just proved to me that he and so many people of his era like him don't get it. There is an extreme cognitive dissonance between attacking "computer geeks" and screaming like an under-medicated lunatic about the need to build up "knowledge skills." I remain dubious as to what sort of skills O'Reilly brings since blustering doesn't count. He has demonstrated repeatedly a weak mind matched by a weak education, mated with weak logic skills and a total divorce from reality.

And you know who he really reminds me of, now that I think about it? The Voice of Fate from V for Vendetta, only a little milder. Chew on that one for a moment...

As Isaac is quick to point out, feminists of all stripes and nationalities share more than a few unsavory habits in common:

Many in the newly formed group, the Womens Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality, or WISE, said strict sharia law was not divine because it was created by men and should be changed to incorporate womens rights.

Wait a minute! I thought it was a "stereotype" that Islam oppressed women. One would only need to provide valid information about Islam to counter this "stereotype"--not change the woman-loving Islamic law.

It is inconsistent to call for the modification of the gender apartheid laws of Islam while simultaneously calling the Westerners, who say that Islam is indeed oppressive to women, misguided or uninformed.

Like good feminists, they contradict themselves. Islam is not inherently oppressive they say, but they openly admit that they are going to have to "change Sharia" (HAHAHA good luck with that!!) in order to make it not be oppressive to women. It is pretty obvious that this is a tacit admission that Islam is a really bad religion in how it treats women. This is not unlike the tendency that Western white feminists have of giving any dark-skinned misogenist a free pass for virtually ever slight, insult or act of violent misogeny (provide he's not a decent black man who unabashedly defends Western ideals).

See, we're not misguided or uninformed. You, ladies, are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Some may not have heard of the recent incident in Egypt where roving bands of young men systematically, viciously, sexually assault a hell of a lot of young women on the streets. Here's a good summary from the New York Times which is finally officially reporting on it:

Recently, reports surfaced on Egyptian blogs, on television and in newspapers that groups of men had roamed the city streets during a holiday weekend and attacked young women - actually chased them down in packs. There were accounts from witnesses and victims.

I bring this up for a few reasons. Number one, this is the quintessential behavior that makes your average feminist wring her hands in abject fear of men. Second, it's a perfect example of what is very, very wrong with Islamic societies today. If you don't believe me, you can take a look at this post from The Big Pharaoh, which links to a Pakistani government report that should be making the 82nd Gynadier Division of the Militia Etheridge pack up for war:

A woman is raped every two hours and gang-raped every eight hours in Pakistan, according to the country's independent Human Rights Commission

One woman is gang-raped every eight hours. That's the official count, and knowing the fact that traditional Muslim men tend to blame the woman, the number could easily be--and most likely is--much higher in reality. The fact that such violent sexcapades happen in the open in major population centers, across ethnic boundaries, in the Islamic world is noteworthy in and of itself. The fact that they also put the lie in the feminist propaganda that Western, Judao-Christianized men tend to treat their women like trash, is also firmly challenged by such considerations.

Now what would the feminists expect us to think about these things? That American women live in genuine fear of the police and the sort of stigma that Muslim women face? Only a weak, decrepit mind could actually make such an argument, but I have seen it made time and again to imply that America is a fundamentally backward country. This is, of course, only a convenient way for feminists to ignore the fact that everything they fear is made manifest in popular macho Muslim male culture. Everything from the rapist tendencies to the general misogeny

It's all there. The presence of good, decent Muslim men does not negate the fact that there has to be a certain degree of broad cultural acquiescence to fundamental evil that would tolerate broad daylight gang raping in urban areas. I think it goes without saying then, that the existance of such men as those who helped protect the women speaks only to the individual morality of those men rather than to the broader moral health of a country where such attacks not only happen, but happen with some sort of impunity and the state's only reaction is one of apathy.

Again, as I have said, feminists, meet the embodiment of what you fear. You have two choices. Accept the fact that Judao-Christian culture is the last, best hope for women being treated as human beings or face your fears-made-manifest alone.

It is one of those sad, but schadenfreude-inducing facts of life that some of the most violent, psychopathic individuals in the world are the moralizing element. Take this, for instance. Homes invaded by the Kommando Korps of the Keystone Kops because the men and women inside decided to blow some of their money on a friendly game of Texas Hold'Em. One would think that the hallmark of a civilized society is that it would not unleash such martial force on peaceful, victimless criminals, but then there is a certain rank hypocrisy inherent to the legalists.

Ironically I have been called violent, merciless and a whole host of names by moral legalists because I whole-heartedly believe that there is nothing morally wrong with blowing someone away for attacking you with serious intent to injur or who breaks into your house. Yet the moral legalists never see anything askew with sending in the local Kommando Korps because someone might flush a dimebag of marijuana or a few rocks of crack down the toilet. I guess it begs the question of how much value they place on human life in the first place if they are willing to risk such serious loss of life over such a petty crime.

What's worse is that in cases like Salvatore Culosi's death, the gambler wasn't even a big time offender until some local pig from the vice squad kept manipulating his ego into betting higher and higher with his buddies. They started out at $50 or so a night, but the local pig got them up to thousands of dollars to make his quota, then called in a SWAT unit to deliver the warrant--and the offenders were all white collar professionals.

I just got back a little while ago from the evening sermon at McLean Bible Church, and this one was on the "radical freedom" that we enjoy through our relationship with Jesus Christ. The pastor pointed out something very interesting that gets lost with the legalists, which is that we are quite free to be sinful as Christians, but we cannot escape the fact that even for us the wages of sin are death. In other words, God has already forgiven us, but we will face the torment and judgement for our actions on this side of eternity as surely as anyone else will. In fact, we may face it a little harder because of our relationship with Christ due to the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Which brings me to a very simple point, really. If you never feel a pang of guilt when you do something you know that is dishonoring to God, you're probably not saved. Some people may say that this grace thing is just a license to be sinful, but that's not what it's about. If you are free, you won't really want to sin anymore. As he said, sure you can go out and have a one night stand after church. It's not going to affect your position of salvation, but it will affect your physical, mental and spiritual well-being on this side of eternity. A believer can indeed kill himself or herself through that sort of thing like anyone else because we are still bound to the fact that on this side of eternity, sin results in destruction.

Jesse Lee Peterson wrote an outstanding column that I think is very much in the spirit of truth that is sorely lacking in many churches. Perhaps Ted Haggard would not be where he is today if he could have disclosed his problems and used them as a tool for ministry instead of having to hide them away. I think it might have worked well for them to see a gay man living a happily heterosexual life with his wife in service to Jesus and the fact is, a church focused on grace should have given him the comfort level to come out and seek encouragement from his brothers and sisters in Christ.

I think we can all relate to such problems. I know that many times I have wanted to do what is right, but the sin in me has prevented me from doing them. Grace is what frees us to be able to pursue these things. God levels the playing field for us, and now we get to choose which side we want to be on. No more harsh rules, no more elaborate rituals. Two choices: are you for Me or against Me?

If you haven't seen his blog, check out Isaac Schrodinger. As the tagline on his blog says, he's a "pakistani-born ex-muslim refugee-claimant pro-usa" and he tends to write some very interesting things about his former religion. He's in a bit of legal danger right now, as he is seeking refuge in Canada and might be sent back to Pakistan. God willing, he'll continue to get the kind of legal services he needs to keep his case going and win. Pablo, this guy might be of particular interest to you.

Next semester, I am going to be taking a class on Assembly Language at the local community college. Why would I take a class on something so archaic you might ask? Well, the reason is simple. I don't want to be one of those guys who can only code in Java or some .NET language (I can handle several, but all save for C are high level). I know I can handle a course in Assembly Language, and it'll be one step closer to getting my Masters degree in Computer Science or Computer Architecture and Networking.

Last, but not least, the Tower Records going out of business sale has been a real boon for my girlfriend and I. We scored probably about $600-$700 of stuff today for about half the cost. I got:

• Gungrave DVD 7
• Flowing Tears: Razorbliss
• The Offspring: Ignition
• The Guitar Tribute to the Offspring
• The Cure: Distintegration
• The Cure: Lovesong
• The Gathering: Almost A Dance
• Android Lust: Stripped & Stitched
• Johnny Cash: American IV
• Johnny Cash: American V

Only I would buy The Cure and Johnny Cash at the same time, right?

I guess it's only a curse depending on your perspective:

Growing numbers of Japanese women are afflicted with an illness that gives them orgasms virtually 24 hours a day. And with suggestions that it could be deadly, the women hardly know whether they're coming or going, according to Shukan Post (11/24).

"If a guy simply taps me on the shoulder, I just swoon. Even when I go to the toilet, my body reacts. I'm a little bit scared of myself," one woman sufferer tells Shukan Post.

Another adds: "When I got on the train one day, I could feel blood gushing toward a certain part of my body and it felt so good I almost let out a moan. It was sheer murder when everybody got pushed into the carriage."

In related news, most of the feminist blogosphere was reported booking flights for Japan. One was reported to have said that she was eager to become a test subject in the fight to further understand this elusive disease. When asked what her motives were, she said that she wanted to bear her sister's suffering after a lifetime of never sacrificing too much for them.

"I'm going to take one for the team," she said. "I want to experience what too many of my sisters have been forced to deal with. If even just one has to go through this, then by Goddess we'll all help our sister out! It's all about solidarity and bringing down the patriarchy!"

When asked what they expected it to be like, none of them had any comment.

Never let it be said that the lefties don't like to legislate morality:

The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one's car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.

The actual language of the law still needs to be drafted and will likely come back to the council either in December or early next year.

"We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law as we can, I would like to make it illegal," said Councilman Dave Warden. "What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter."

Welcome to the latest expansion of the War on Drugs. Proving that legislating morality is by no means the exclusive domain of the religious right, the left is going to get in on the act in a big way by conducting its own little war on controlled substances. So now, how long before we see paramilitary raids on people who are caught smoking in ways that are not allowed under this ban?

Notice how they use the "if it just saves one life" argument. That tired, sore, brutally raped argument that anyone who gets causality knows is patently absurd. I think it's one of those signs that someone just isn't smart enough to take part in a polite discussion if they cannot appreciate the fact that a single decision can have multiple consequences. Causality is often a one-to-many relationship. You may save a life, but end up costing several because of the measures needed to save one life.

I think the left is just touchy about losing out on the "fun parts" now that they are relegated to fight wars against stogies and Starbucks...

Others:
Attitude Central.

This should be the sort of ruling from the 9^th Circus that any decent person can get behind:

The facts are remarkable. Plaintiff, Susan Frunz, and her two guests were in Frunz's home in Tacoma, Washington, when police surrounded the house, broke down the back door and entered. The police had no warrant and had not announced their presence. Frunz first became aware of them when an officer accosted her in the kitchen and pointed his gun, bringing the barrel within two inches of her forehead. The police ordered or slammed the occupants to the floor and cuffed their hands behind their backs-Frunz for about an hour, until she proved to their satisfaction that she owned the house, at which time they said "never mind" and left.

The officers point to the exigency of the situation, but there was none. Normally, when officers suspect a burglary in progress, they have no idea who might be inside and may reasonably assume that the suspects will, if confronted, flee or offer armed resistance. In such exigent circumstances, the police are entitled to enter immediately, using all appropriate force. But it was clear from the information available to the officers here that they were dealing, at worst, with some sort of spousal property dispute. Even if it was technically a burglary-and it's far from clear that the officers had probable cause to suspect this-it did not present the same risk of confrontation or flight as a break-in by strangers. The fact that the suspected intruder had a personal relationship with the person thought to own the house raised the possibility that she was there with his permission or had gained possession as a result of the legal proceedings between them. The officers also knew that Staples had watched Frunz drive up to the house, park out front and open the door to a visitor. These signs of open and lawful occupancy made it far less likely that what was going on was a burglary and materially diminished the risk of violent confrontation. Staples, moreover, not only identified Frunz by name, sex, race and age, but also gave the description and license plate number of her car. Had she managed to flee the 900-square-foot house that was by then surrounded by at least five police officers, she could easily have been found by contacting her ex-husband or her divorce lawyer, or by tracking her car registration. The fact that it took the police forty minutes to respond to Staples's second call confirms the absence of exigency. The delay was no doubt caused by the low priority the communications officer assigned to the call by coding it as a "security check" rather than a "burglary in progress."

Not so. While the information provided by the neighbor suggested that unauthorized people may be in the house, it also made clear that this was not a break-in by strangers. Staples identified one of the occupants as the neighbor's ex-wife, describing her by first name, race and approximate age. The officers confirmed that there had been no break-in when they inspected the property during their first visit, and nothing had changed when the officers stormed the home an hour and a half later. During this first visit to the property, the officers did not draw their weapons, did not call for back-up and did not break down the door. Quite reasonably, they knocked and sought to have a conversation with whomever was inside.

The amusing part of this case is that Judge Kozinski and crew have set up the distinct possibility that the cops involved will face increased penalties for filing a frivolous appeal on immunity grounds. Score one for the good guys on this one because police immunity too often gets in the way of holding the police accountable for patently bad judgement that no reasonable person would allow--or be allowed--to get away with.

The most dangerous aspects of these case is the unwillingness of the police at the scene to behave in a civilized manner. In this case, the police made not one, but two, visits to the property to check it out. The report that they were given said that it was the recent ex-wife of the previous neighbor, and that should automatically have reduced their risk assumption given the possibility that there might have been a court ruling in her favor or maybe it was just a simple property dispute.

What never ceases to amaze me is how many people can justify this sort of treatment. Holding a gun two inches away from someone's head is not a law enforcement tactic--it's an executioner's tactic. Cheryl Noel serves as a sobering reminder of why this is not a legitimate police tactic, as she was effectively shot at point-blank range and killed by a SWAT officer in Baltimore during a similar botched raid. It takes a very cold heart to say "it happens" like "hey, it's ok, we have to let people be human."

No, we don't. We have social standards for acceptable violence and the militarized police forces that exist today routinely violate them. Carrying a badge and being on a government payroll does not give you a waiver for that.

There are those Bush supporters who would have us believe that the USA PATRIOT Act is neither dangerous nor has it been fundamentally abused. Well, how about them apples?

A couple's ill-concealed sexual play aboard a Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles got them charged with violating the Patriot Act, intended for terrorist acts, and could land them in jail for 20 years.

As James Joyner rightfully points out, in most situations the average stewardess is basically a glorified cocktail waitress, and the last thing we need is to be getting them seriously involved in security matters. I can't help but wonder if it would not be more beneficial for security and order for there to be a larger Air Marshal program, one that could guarantee marshals on every major commercial flight, so that a trained law enforcement officer could dispassionately and professionally handle these situations. Odds are that this would not have even happened if the guy who asked them to stop flashed an Air Marshal badge at them instead of an airline insignia. Besides, the clear benefit of having Air Marshals on every major flight would be to raise the basic risk assumption for any terrorist or hijacker trying to hit an American airline.

The short term solution is clearly to get rid of the USA PATRIOT Act or at least to very, very clearly definie terrorist and to define all investigative powers to be only applicable to a specific terrorist act, not any other criminal activity that may have been committed, even if by the terrorist. The reason for that is simple. Terrorists commit lots of crimes, and terrorism comes in a myriad number of flavors. You can find them in every criminal category, so naturally every category of crime is subject to the USA PATRIOT Act unless things are changed soon.

Our wonderful criminal "justice" system at work. Tell me the name of another civilized country that does this stuff:

After an eleven-day trial, a jury acquitted defendant Michael Ibanga of all of the drug distribution charges against him and one of the two money laundering charges against him in the Indictment. The single count of which defendant Ibanga was convicted typically would result in a Guidelines custody range of 51 to 63 months. However, the United States demanded that the Court sentence defendant Ibanga based on the alleged drug dealing for which he was acquitted. This increased the Guidelines custody range to 151 to 188 months, a difference of about ten years.

What could instill more confusion and disrespect than finding out that you will be sentenced to an extra ten years in prison for the alleged crimes of which you were acquitted? The law would have gone from something venerable and respected to a farce and a sham.

Let's see, how many constitutional rights does that violate? We all know that it is incredibly hard to gauge the constitutionality of an action. The brightest legal minds would be vexed by a question as challenging as "should an acquitted man be punished, even after the jury finds him innocent?"

To say that this would instill confusion is inaccurate. It would instill bitter hatred of the legal system, and no decent person could be part of it as a prosecutor or a cop. The rule of law would become transparently meaningless to the general public, though the astute among us have seen that coming for years.

You know why I am quick to call people like these law school-trained scoundrels genuinely evil people? They know what they're asking for is dead damn wrong. It's the sort of thing that no decent person would ever think to do or at least bring himself or herself to ask. It's the sort of dark thought that no good lawyer would ever utter, and if they slipped, would be ashamed.

No, my friends, it takes a genuinely person to ask for something like this or to support someone who asks for it. There is no middle ground, no room for debate. You are either with justice or against justice on this issue.

Sometimes I am a real hypocrite. I confess this, freely. I do what I know is wrong, I do not follow the things that I know to be true, but I still know that they are what they are regardless of what I do. Sometimes I get angry at a stupid drive, and sometimes I wish them harm. Then I do something stupid and feel God tapping me on the shoulder, saying in the language of spiritual emotion, "how does it feel to play kettle to the pot, Mr. Charred Cooking Container?" I get enraged at the police when they bust into someone's house with a mock commando unit euphemistically called a SWAT unit and kill someone over a joint of pot. Then I realize that I am not perfectly just and I feel a little ashamed because once again, I am not perfect.

Still, I try to train myself a little here, a little there. To never take joy in seeing an evil person punished, to see that I have done everything that has in the past gotten me mad at someone, and to experience pity and sorrow for my enemies. Though I sometimes fail, I have realized something important. If hypocrisy denies us a right of action, then who will stand up for what is right? And that's why I say only reflect in a way that makes you better, not that disarms you, because you never know when self-assuredness might be what saves another person from misery or harm. Someday, every person very well may face a day where they will have to act with confidence, knowing full well that they are hypocrites sometimes.

This is a proper attitude toward punishing others:

"He's a young man, only 19-years-old," Lambert said. "He has a full life ahead of him. He can recover from this and go on to become a productive citizen."

Lambert says he's forgiven the man, but wants him to seek help. "I also want to thank him. I want to thank him for putting down that gun and not forcing me take action."

I think this guy's attitude comes pretty close to how I would say that a Christian attitude toward punishing others should be. In this case, the nineteen year old came in and waved his gun after getting pissed off at Lambert, who would have been well within his moral and legal rights to shoot him if he didn't stop waving the gun. After all, it would be irresponsible for him to not shoot a crazed guy with a gun who refused to put the gun down, since the lunatic might shoot some innocent person with it. There are a few qualities about how he handled it that are important:

• A controlled willingness to use force--including deadly force--to save lives from possibly imminent violence.
• He gave the teenager the option to peacefully surrender without harm.
• He takes no pleasure in having to possibly punish someone for a violent crime.
• He hopes to see the teenager turn his life around.

This is my primary beef with groups like "Perverted Justice" and others. They care more about punishing someone than making them right again. There is nothing noble in that, nothing honorable and worthy of being followed. That is just revenge plain and simple.

Heavy-weight thinker Rosie O'Donnell has just delivered unto us mere plebs a spendid way of looking at the terrorism issue. We can choose to not be afraid of terrorism for the simple fact that many terrorists are moms and dads. She is quite right that terrorism is an equal opportunity employment path, especially suicide bombing. Palestinians are leading the way on that one with their progressive-minded affirmative action program for women who want to make a proud, life-long career in suicide bombing.

"You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world, or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking. And I think that this country ... ."

To which Hasselbeck interjected: "Well, I'm a person of faith, so I, but I also believe ... ."

"Well then, get away from the fear," interrupted O'Donnell. "Don't fear the terrorists. They're mothers and fathers."

Google wants to foment a series of secessionist revolutions in Iran. Who knew? Apparently the Iranian intelligence services have gotten wise to the Google Super Intelligence's devious plot to break up the Islamic Republic as a precursor to the creation of its dominion over humanity. Our comrades in the Middle East do us all a favor by opposing Google now before humanity is too divided to stop Google's march toward total control.

The text of a tourist film on the site has drawn accusations that the US-owned search engine is deliberately trying to undermine Iran's territorial integrity by fomenting separatist sentiment in the mainly Turkish-speaking province.

Valiallah Azarvash, an Iranian MP, said: "An Iranian never accepts such slights. Since the second millennium BC, eastern Azerbaijan and Tabriz have never been separated from the body of Iran. How can they now belong somewhere else?"

The information technology ministry has branded the entry an attempt to intervene in Iran's internal affairs and has urged Iranians to flood Google with emails.

"This act is a typical example of interference in the affairs of another country," said Samad Mohmen Bela, the IT ministry's representative in parliament. "The simplest, most effective response is for all Iranian users to reflect their objection to Google's management."

It just wouldn't be politics in America if the issues were about something substantive such as civil liberties, taxes or the role of government. That is why Laguna Beach is paving the way toward a new low in rich American politics by focusing on something that only a rich city could afford to focus on while everything around it goes to hell: MTV. Yes, MTV. They are focusing on MTV because it gives them a bad reputation. Now, you will notice that nowhere does it say whether or not MTV is making stuff up or just presenting life as is. They're just pissed off that MTV is making them look bad and of course, they are pulling out the trump card: internet sex offenders.

One after another, the candidates savaged the television network and its gauzy reality show "Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County," blaming it for everything from presenting local youths as rich brats to making the city a potential target for sex predators.

Laguna Beach High School, where many of the students on the series attend class, recently ranked No. 1 for alcohol and drug abuse in Orange County, according to the California Healthy Kids Survey.

Why?

"It seems obvious to me that this ranking is the direct result of the image MTV has set for some of our kids," said candidate Jeff Elghanayan.

Ain't he just the cutest widdle gay fascist:

"From my point of view I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it," he said. "I love the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it, which I loved in Sunday school and I collected all the little stickers and put them in my book. But the reality is that organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

Elton further elaborates:

Elton John said organized religion "turns people into hateful lemmings."

In the name of protecting the hateful lemmings and preventing them from propogating, he has decided to cut off all organized religion. It's a good thing that people like Elton John still haven't reached a critical level of power. Anyone else see the irony in an openly gay man who complains about bigotry saying that if he had his way, he'd use state power to eliminate the belief systems that make him uncomfortable? Might as well just go ahead and confirm the worst suspicions of every "homophobe" out there and get it over with.

The fastest way to convince religious people to impose the harshest aspects of religious law on homosexuals would be to go after freedom of religion. While I would oppose such a thing, I can't say that I wouldn't derive a bit of schadenfreude from watching all who would follow Elton's advice getting strung up by a Mosaic Law or Sharia court in retaliation.

Some would say that I have a knack for expressing myself with colorful language. Unlike a lot of geeks, I get a sometimes flair for rhetoric from my mom's liberal arts-dominated side of the family. I know exactly how I am most of the time when doing it, so I am eschewing any pretense of innocence here.

You know what? Sometimes you need to use such rhetoric when dealing with stupid people, highly illogical people and highly emotional people. It just has the wonderful habit of reacquainting them with their inner idiot or providing them the sort of catharsis that normally comes from rough, angry sex or hard drugs. Most of all, it can provide a clear extreme point for a discussion about an idea, and extreme points are needed. Here's an example.

"When you agree with Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan, you need to question which side of the fence you're sitting on."

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm sure most people could find a lot in common with Cindy and Michael on the question of whether or not it is moral to murder children and flambe their pets using the child's blood as a marinade. Did I just make you gag and think "what the hell is wrong with this guy?" If not, good, let's continue.

You see, in this situation, it's easy for your average Republican to say "you're just a damn liberal because the liberals I hate agree with you." Now, the value in the extreme wording and example giving is that it if done correctly, you are playing the same verbal sport in the same field, but being extremely vicious in how you play ball. It exposes an ugly truth, which is that on some level we all agree with other sane people on something, thus we are all damn liberals and damn reactionary religious right fundie whackos who hate children, puppies and gay martians (the Democrats are already dispatching voter registration cards for the next lander craft to carry).

I agree with Karl Marx that workers should not be exploited. Taking the (il)logic of such ideologues at face value, many a reactionary Republican would call me a damn commie by association. Problem is... I'm not a communist because agreement on a single issue is generally not enough to provide a coherent framework to judge someone's beliefs by. One can say "I think Mohammed was the 'Seal on the Prophets'" but they are hardly a Muslim if they believe such things that Mohammed flew to heaven on a purple unicorn that shot rainbows out of its butt to make the skies over Mecca pretty everyday. Logically, it is even simpler to say that merely agreeing on a single instance of minutia hardly provides a context for a relabeling or hell, often a labeling at all.

Now none of this is intended to imply that it is wrong to question a person's intelligence or moral character because of something they say that puts them on common ground with idiots and scoundrels. That is simply a matter of discernment that the person is possibly daft and dastardly. However, it makes no sense to come up with complex labels based on a tangential point of commonality. I mean really, the reason I (intend to) call this the "dead child and roasted animal" logical fallacy of politics is that beliefs are beliefs. As absurd as it is to ask someone what they think about blood-battered beagles and other cruel culinary machinations, the reality is that it is different in degree, not nature, to asking someone what they think about tax policy or any other political issue.

So there.

The final sign that the War on Drugs has failed:

Among the legions of home delivery customers is Chris, a 37-year-old salesman in Manhattan. He dials a pager number and gets a return call from a cheery dispatcher who takes his order for potent strains of marijuana.

Within a couple of hours, a well-groomed deliveryman - sometimes a moonlighting actor or chef - arrives at the doorstep of his Manhattan apartment carrying weed neatly packaged in small plastic containers.

"These are very nice, discreet people," said Chris, who spoke on the condition that only his first name be used. "There's an unspoken trust. It's better than going to some street corner and getting ripped off or killed."

When wealthy, well-connected people are having their Mary J delivered to their door like a Domino's Pizza, it's time to give up, drug warriors. When it's being delivered by a call center, clean-cut deliverymen and has a slogan of "service with a smile," it's time to call the whole drug war a deadly farce. Give up now before these guys start having the narcotic equivalent of a tupperware party.

You know how they say that we need to keep the war on drugs going because we need to keep drugs away from kids? When was the last time that you heard about a beer home delivery service? The simple truth is that the drug warriors have been more successful at killing their fellow American citizens than keeping drugs off the street. It's over people, just admit it. When urban professionals are this bold about buy drugs, there's nothing left to fight over.

All we need is a black hispanic muslim in love with an asian pacific islander transexual midget who is hounded by an atheist were-seal added to the equation to make the mavens of political correctness' heads explode:

Several haredi MKs received a letter on Wednesday threatening to rape girls in the haredi community if any marchers in the upcoming Gay Pride Parade were harmed.

"For every marcher you hurt, 10 religious girls will be raped," the letter said. "We swear to take revenge on you with the full gravity of the law. You have been warned."

The letter was signed by an unknown group claiming to be associated with the gay community. United Torah Judaism (UTJ) MK Moshe Gafni submitted a complaint to the Knesset Guard.

Flaming homosexuals attacking Jews, threatening to rape ten girls for every one gay that is attacked (or perceives being attacked). Three protected groups for the price of one!

Gotta say that I am entirely sympathetic to the orthodox Jews on this one. It's bad enough that the gays are threatening violence after provoking the orthodox Jews (they ought be afraid of the Muslim faithful as well), it's even worse that some of them are threatening to rape orthodox Jewish girls.

So where are the feminist attacks on this latest outrage from homosexual activists? Where is their shrill screaching about women being turned into dehumanized sex objects? Just replace, "we'll rape ten of your girls" with "I'll shoot ten of your dogs," and I think you'll get the picture.

But what do you expect from feminists these days? They're compromised by their other causes like "anti-racism" and "anti-homophobia" wherein they find it supremely difficult to call out a non-white wife beater, rapist or a queer rapist. Seriously, is there any type of rape that would more perfectly embody the feminist argument that rape is about power than a gay man raping a woman? But then, their track record on Islamic mysogenists is no better.

And this is why [that] "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

A London woman is dead after being bitten by a snake during a Sunday church service, the Laurel County Sheriff's Office said yesterday.

Neighbors near East London Holiness Church on Smith Brewer Road, which officials said the 48-year-old attended, said the church practices serpent handling.

The name of the woman was withheld yesterday as the Laurel County Sheriff's Office investigated the death, which police described as accidental.

Ya just haaaaaaad to test Him, didn't you? This reminds me of a time in college when a friend of mine had turned an old bathtub into an elaborate fish tank in the house that he was sharing with a number of guys from college and church. It was out in the main hallway on display, and we joked that he should have put Pirhanas in there, then invited some snake handlers over. Sad part is that they probably would have taken us up on the offer!

I just never understood how someone could read Luke 4 and be a snake handler...

After staying up until 12:40AM playing Dirge of Cerberus and being in a state of exhausted pain, losing half of my breakfast due to sleep-deprived clumsiness, I think I realized where my problem began... Yes, that was the cash register's display for my order in the cafeteria this morning! What a lucky way to start the day, right? Time to get some coffee, take a few minutes of personal time and not end up killing myself before lunch time...

I just got started playing Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII, and it's an awesome game. Not quite as epic as maybe something like Halo or the original Final Fantasy VII RPG, but it's a really, really good game so far. The controls are incredibly natural for a game of its type, and if you put the targetting system on automatic, well, it just works. Since it's not a first person shooter like Halo you need the automatic targetting in order to have a better chance of actually killing your targets. Oh well, it's a great take on Final Fantasy as an action game instead of an RPG. It'd be cool to have a game where you could be either Cloud or Vincent.

And you know what's coming to my collection after this? Final Fantasy XII, oh yeah!

Glenn Reynolds can't quite bring himself to really admit that conspiracy theories aren't inherently the domain of the psychopathically paranoid:

But this sort of talk -- destructive and self-serving as it is -- merely underscores a point I've made before: An election system that is less than transparent is one that's open to conspiracy theories and fear of fraud, whether or not fraud is actually present. And I've heard quite a few other Democrats echoing Pelosi -- and quite a few Republicans speculating that a Democratic Congress will ride in on a wave of votes from dead people and illegal immigrants. That sort of thinking seems much more common among respectable members of both parties than it was a few years ago, and I think there's reason to fear it's getting worse.

I know that Glenn is known for his "moderate tone," but really, this begs the question of just how much "respectable members of both parties" really can be trust to see "the big picture." They may huff and puff and scoff at such "outlandish ideas" as a Diebold systems being flawed by design with some malicious intent, but that does not make their opinion reasonable, informed or realistic. In fact, examined in a broader context, it is precisely those individuals who are quick to be dismissive of the capacity of power-seekers to engage in evil and corruption whose opinions should be regarded with the deepest of skepticism otherwise reserved for those who see a Zionist Occupation Government or White Blue-Eyed Devil conspiracy behind every social ill.

Voter fraud has been a problem in at least every modern democratic state, including the United States. It is also not a stretch for people to combine many issues together to see the distinct possibility that there is some grand conspiracy to effectively destroy the democratic system. I think that reasonable people could have come to the conclusion that there is a problem and possible conspiracy from a variety of issues ranging from an increasing sense that America is becoming an authoritarian state (and all of the historical baggage that that implies) to the eagerness that governments around the country show to use electronic voting machines, despite the myriad number of problems with them.

It seems to me that Glenn Reynolds is having a hard time accepting the possibility that the paranoid conspiracy theorists might have been right to some important degree on an issue of great importance. While I don't share many of their views, preferring the Bible's view that evil is banal and universal,

I see nothing inherently paranoid about the assumption that the leadership of Diebold may be part of some great conspiracy. It would not be without historical precedent in human nature with respect to voting or sufficient motivation. Such a position would give them not only great wealth but the status of powerbroker, something that is quite attractive to ambitious people. The bureaucrats would be effectively "liberated" from popular pressures as they could keep pesky politicians out of office unless they were popular enough that few would believe that they had been legitimately defeated or they had a cadre of brownshirts willing to throw down with the government.

If you accept the "iceberg theory of crime," the belief that the government is only about to catch at best a significant minority of criminals in a given area of law, there is no paranoia here either. With the recent arrests of ACORN staffers and the discovery that at least 77,000 dead people are still registered voters in New York, the question is now really one of just how bad have things become?

Yet another case of law enforcement using the maximum amount of force to handle the smallest drug crime. Here are some choice quotes for y'all to enjoy. Read them and weep at the sorry state of American law enforcement:

"As far as this team knew they were executing a search warrant on a single white female with no violent history, who had sold one time a minor amount of drugs," Burgess' memo said. "If they had had background information I am sure they would have approached it differently."

The wonderfully twisted logic of modern drug policing on display for everyone. They knew that they were dealing with a single woman with no violent history, so the worst case scenario is that they might catch her trying to flush the evidence down the toilet. The odds that she would knowingly resist arrest with force were low enough that sending a SWAT unit into her home was a violent, uncivilized abuse of authority. A few uniformed cops showing up at her door would more than suffice, but the sheriff says it best:

"I didn't want to see this happen, but I didn't want to see my officers get shot, either. That lady pointed a loaded gun at them," Seagraves said. "I'm a human being. I don't want anybody to lose their life, but at the same time, we had a job to do."

Seagraves obviously doesn't have the honesty to admit that the very reason his officers were put in this position was their rank unprofessionalism. It's part of the basic job description of police officers to find out as much as they can about those they suspect of a crime, and to deal with them using the minimal amount of force necessary. In this case, as often happens these days, they disregarded civilized standards of conduct and went for the full militarized effect.

Any reasonable person can look at these types of drug cases and realize that even at the time no reasonable person would authorize such force to be used. If you sign up to be a cop, you know that you might get shot serving a warrant. It's part of the job description. That does not justify using overwhelming force on the majority of offenders out there. It's uncivilized and unbecoming of our society that we tolerate SWAT units being deployed against all but the most violent offenders.

Well, at least they don't pretend to be profilers:

"We were searching the house, not serving an arrest warrant," Seagraves said. "We didn't know what we were dealing with."

Don't you just feel safer knowing that investigative work is just like... sooooo passe with drug officers? Heaven forbid that they conduct some surveillance, discretely interview neighbors, etc. They might have actually come to the conclusion that no civilized human being would stomach a SWAT raid over two prescription drug pills.

What makes me so angry about cases like this is that there is no excuse for authorizing deadly force to be used in self-defense. The SWAT officers had military-grade armor and armaments, giving them a daunting and overwhelming advantage. She could have fired an entire ammo clip into them and probably not maimed, paralyzed or killed a single one of them. The odds that she would have even tried that after being partially surrounded by SWAT officers are even lower.

This makes me ask a simple question. What is wrong with this country that there are no criminal sanctions for such poor uses of judgement? Surely reasonable people can conclude that no intelligent human being with a modicum of decency would have taken the risk that they did over such a probably small criminal offense.

Hat tip: The Agitator.

It's very telling where their priorities are:

"I have to be mom and and wife and there are times when I should have, you know, hung out with my kids, and I just said, "No, I need a massage. I'm gonna do that instead. You know? And I'm gonna be selfish."

Of the three comments that were posted on the page, only one of them actually pointed out the obvious... Madonna totally sucks as a mother unless you judge parental quality in terms of ability to provide wealth. Then, she's a great mother. Two women come to her defense:

I praise her for being so honest and I think a lot of mothers could learn from her maternal skills. Keep up the good work, Madge. Don't forget she saved a young kid from a life of poverty and disease, people seem to have forgotten that. Why is it succesful women irritate people so much? Male celebrities would not be questioned about this.

and

She's not saying that she doesn't want to be a wife and mother, she's saying that she doesn't JUST want to be a wife and mother - she wants to be a person in her own right. I completely respect her for that - women don't cease being just because they have a partner and children.

Whatever principles "old feminism" may have had, for the new generations, it has become a thinly veiled excuse to do whatever you want and a more acceptable way to say "if the boys can do it, the girls can too." Never mind the fact that society already looks down on men who impregnate women, but don't take responsibility as fathers. Instead of correcting the problem of men behaving badly in this respect, let's exacerbate the situation by giving women an equal "free pass" on the issue.

In those three comments, you see the usual talking points of modern feminism:

1) If we think the boys can do it, then we should be able to do it too. No matter what it is, even if it is morally horrific, we ought to be permitted to go to the lowest common denominator rather than raise the public standards.

2) Men inherently despise successful women. It is impossible for a man to despise a successful woman because she is of contemptible character and hurts her own children. The fact that most men would be equally disdainful of such behavior by other men is completely irrelevant here. Successful women are beyond approach as long as they dump material goods on their families to compensate for not being a mother emotionally full time.

3) You can have it all, and the only side that really matters in this consideration when it comes to parenting is the woman's side. The children are just ungrateful shits if they think their mother is a selfish bitch who, having earned obscene amounts of money for anyone, regardless of gender, would rather earn more money than spend time with them. If a woman allows her kids to become latch key kids, not because she's struggling to support them, but because she's so caught up in her job, it's really the child's fault. They should have thought of that before they were born. If they didn't like it, they could have just strangled themselves in utero with their umbilical chord.

If even half of these things attributed to Sam Harris are true, it is quite clear that the man has not even a teeny, tiny ounce of common sense when it comes to the state of culture and politics today. Who actually believes it is controversial in most of the country to attack organized religion? Hell, in most of those "yeehaw red states," the religious folk consider it an anomaly when someone who considers himself to be "a bright" or "free-thinker" is a-ok with organized religion. We're used to being called idiots, bigots, charlatans, etc. (This is despite the fact that secular Socialism is the ultimate charlatan trickery).

At any rate, I have considered it to be just a given that your average secularist is going to assume that religion is a bunch of faery tales, given how little he or she knows about it in most cases, the dearth of experience with it and a mind that is too hostile to be analytical. For example, the average secularists, and I severely doubt that Harris is excluded from this, can't consider the fact that if God did create the universe it's one hell of an engineering job. As a Christian and code monkey, I am totally not surprised by the discovery that there appear to be "morality circuits" in the human brain. To an engineer, this would just make sense as a way that moral reasoning would work considering how it must function with respect to other parts of the brain.

The irony of being afraid of religion causing wars of annihilation is that it is precisely religion that stands as our firmest barrier against wiping ourselves out. A healthy fear of God makes a leader think twice because there is a bigger, badder leader who will without mercy kick his butt regardless of who "wins the nuclear war." An exception might be made for Islam with its jihad teachings, but Christianity in particular stands as the last, best hope against the future that Harris' fears.

And I will say this, there are indeed people who will do unspeakable evil while claiming to love God. These people are at heart no different than those who have no god(s) and live by their own hearts without concern for others. They are not a problem that plagues the church, but rather a problem that plagues humanity.

And now for a good bit of news about Islam in Europe. Apparently, the rate of apostasy, especially to Christianity, is on the rise among Muslims in Europe. The Greater European Mission has bee spear-heading this effort and after checking them out, they look like a pretty good organization to support. Wouldn't it be ironic if the Islamists ended up finding hundreds of thousands or millions of their fellow Muslims abandoning their faith right as the Islamists try to colonize Christendom?

As this shows, and the previous links point out, people are moral by biology first and foremost. We are hard-wired to be that way. For many people, Islam is very lacking because it takes everything that was wrong with first century conservative Judaism and multiplies it. Now that they are free from Sharia, hopefully this will become a trend and more people will look to the true religion of peace for guidance instead of the religion of the peace of the grave.