It seems the Sith didn't destroy all the young Jedi apprentices in episode three.
Some escaped, and made their way to Earth, disguising themselves as teenage punks with death-wishes.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Your Children Belong to Us
I thought I’d say a few words about the Mormon compound raided in Texas by Big Brother’s jack-booted thugs.
No one should have his (or her) children snatched from his (or her) custody on the basis of an unsubstantiated, anonymous phone call. I expect that brand of behavior from the defunct U.S.S.R., not the U.S.A. Such information may serve as a catalyst for an investigation, but it isn’t evidence, in and of itself. Anyone can call a tip line and say anything.
Constitutionally and legally speaking, Americans are innocent until proven guilty--in theory, at least.
If the government had indisputable evidence of abuse in this scenario, I believe we’d be aware of it, by now. That nothing more compelling than an anonymous tip has been offered as a rationale for this mockery of justice and spittle on the God-given rights of Americans indicates that no more damning evidence exists. The government isn’t in the habit of incriminating itself for wrongdoing, when it has the moral high ground, and can demonstrate the fact beyond doubt. That it has not done so tells me all I need to know about its moral authority, in this particular situation.
At Vox’s blog, I had an exchange with a commenter a few days ago who goes by the name “Former Children’s Social Worker”:
Wes: When the authorities received the initial phone call, how hard would it have been to trace the call & determine if it was, indeed, coming from the compound?
After the trace, how hard would it have been to match the name the caller gave them w/ the residence from which the call came?
If they determined that the name w/ whom the phone was registered didn't match the name given, & that it came from a location outside the compound, how did they have probable cause to raid the FLDS residence?
Why wasn't the caller visited & questioned by the police, prior to raiding & taking children?
Fmr. Children’s Social Worker: It's usually the responsibility of State and County Welfare Agencies to investigate child-abuse claims. While criminal charges can be filed, most child abuse and neglect is classified as a civil, Welfare & Dependency matter. It's assigned to social workers to investigate such claims.
Why don't social workers visit and question referring callers? Most jurisdictions are set up so that people can anonymously report abuse, under the assumption that, while such a system can itself be abused, if it finds real situations of abuse or neglect it was worth it.
Even if a person leaves their name and contact information, the law and the policy of most welfare agencies requires the workers to investigate most every claim they get.
Wes: I'm not so much concerned about which governmental bureaucracy does the investigating as I am that the investigation occurs prior to children being yanked from their parents' custody.
In this particular case, we're not even sure that the call came from inside the compound, from a member of the FLDS. In fact, the available evidence suggests otherwise. Nor are we sure that abuse actually happened.
Most jurisdictions are set up so that people can anonymously report abuse, under the assumption that, while such a system can itself be abused, if it finds real situations of abuse or neglect it was worth it.
Which is a recipe for present & future tyranny, since anyone can make a phone call and claim anything. This is akin to saying: "If the cop pulled you over w/out probable cause, & he roughed you up because you asked why you were stopped, & he searched your vehicle w/out a warrant or your permission--no harm, no foul, as long as he found a loaded firearm in the trunk."
Another example of this brand of mentality is the person who says: "Banning all guns is worth it, if it saves just one life."
Let's call it what it is: an Anti-freedom Initiative.
Even if a person leaves their name and contact information, the law and the policy of most welfare agencies requires the workers to investigate most every claim they get.
The police have methods of retrieving names & contact info, whether the person provides it, or not. I would think that questioning the accuser in person prior to a raid on the accused's residence would be minimal standard operating procedure. Or at least, it certainly should be.
*****
I’m not going to post his response, as it is long and entails more excuse-making on the government's behalf. However, if you’re interested in reading the rest, you can find it here.
Investigation of the tip-off carried out after the fact suggest the call upon which the government rests its case was a hoax.
Had the authorities conducted this investigation prior to raiding the Zion Ranch, as I said they should have done, justification for such an invasion would've evaporated.
It seems obvious to me that the government officials involved in this case never cared about their victims' rights--or the existence of evidence--in the first place. As to their unstated, genuine motives, they're open to speculation. One thing's for sure: now that these kids are in Big Brother's custody and out of the hands of those filthy separatists, we needn't be concerned about them having their heads filled with silly, outdated notions, like a healthy scepticism toward government, or the asinine fantasy that family is paramount.
No one should have his (or her) children snatched from his (or her) custody on the basis of an unsubstantiated, anonymous phone call. I expect that brand of behavior from the defunct U.S.S.R., not the U.S.A. Such information may serve as a catalyst for an investigation, but it isn’t evidence, in and of itself. Anyone can call a tip line and say anything.
Constitutionally and legally speaking, Americans are innocent until proven guilty--in theory, at least.
If the government had indisputable evidence of abuse in this scenario, I believe we’d be aware of it, by now. That nothing more compelling than an anonymous tip has been offered as a rationale for this mockery of justice and spittle on the God-given rights of Americans indicates that no more damning evidence exists. The government isn’t in the habit of incriminating itself for wrongdoing, when it has the moral high ground, and can demonstrate the fact beyond doubt. That it has not done so tells me all I need to know about its moral authority, in this particular situation.
At Vox’s blog, I had an exchange with a commenter a few days ago who goes by the name “Former Children’s Social Worker”:
Wes: When the authorities received the initial phone call, how hard would it have been to trace the call & determine if it was, indeed, coming from the compound?
After the trace, how hard would it have been to match the name the caller gave them w/ the residence from which the call came?
If they determined that the name w/ whom the phone was registered didn't match the name given, & that it came from a location outside the compound, how did they have probable cause to raid the FLDS residence?
Why wasn't the caller visited & questioned by the police, prior to raiding & taking children?
Fmr. Children’s Social Worker: It's usually the responsibility of State and County Welfare Agencies to investigate child-abuse claims. While criminal charges can be filed, most child abuse and neglect is classified as a civil, Welfare & Dependency matter. It's assigned to social workers to investigate such claims.
Why don't social workers visit and question referring callers? Most jurisdictions are set up so that people can anonymously report abuse, under the assumption that, while such a system can itself be abused, if it finds real situations of abuse or neglect it was worth it.
Even if a person leaves their name and contact information, the law and the policy of most welfare agencies requires the workers to investigate most every claim they get.
Wes: I'm not so much concerned about which governmental bureaucracy does the investigating as I am that the investigation occurs prior to children being yanked from their parents' custody.
In this particular case, we're not even sure that the call came from inside the compound, from a member of the FLDS. In fact, the available evidence suggests otherwise. Nor are we sure that abuse actually happened.
Most jurisdictions are set up so that people can anonymously report abuse, under the assumption that, while such a system can itself be abused, if it finds real situations of abuse or neglect it was worth it.
Which is a recipe for present & future tyranny, since anyone can make a phone call and claim anything. This is akin to saying: "If the cop pulled you over w/out probable cause, & he roughed you up because you asked why you were stopped, & he searched your vehicle w/out a warrant or your permission--no harm, no foul, as long as he found a loaded firearm in the trunk."
Another example of this brand of mentality is the person who says: "Banning all guns is worth it, if it saves just one life."
Let's call it what it is: an Anti-freedom Initiative.
Even if a person leaves their name and contact information, the law and the policy of most welfare agencies requires the workers to investigate most every claim they get.
The police have methods of retrieving names & contact info, whether the person provides it, or not. I would think that questioning the accuser in person prior to a raid on the accused's residence would be minimal standard operating procedure. Or at least, it certainly should be.
*****
I’m not going to post his response, as it is long and entails more excuse-making on the government's behalf. However, if you’re interested in reading the rest, you can find it here.
Investigation of the tip-off carried out after the fact suggest the call upon which the government rests its case was a hoax.
Had the authorities conducted this investigation prior to raiding the Zion Ranch, as I said they should have done, justification for such an invasion would've evaporated.
It seems obvious to me that the government officials involved in this case never cared about their victims' rights--or the existence of evidence--in the first place. As to their unstated, genuine motives, they're open to speculation. One thing's for sure: now that these kids are in Big Brother's custody and out of the hands of those filthy separatists, we needn't be concerned about them having their heads filled with silly, outdated notions, like a healthy scepticism toward government, or the asinine fantasy that family is paramount.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Epiphany
I think I've figured out why George Bush has kept our troops in Iraq for so long, with no end in sight. I believe he read Luke 19:13, and the words therein jumped out at him. Being a good fundamentalist, he took them literally. Unfortunately for us, he also took them personally:
"Occupy till I come."
The place of occupation is Iraq, and the occupation's duration is until the final trump sounds.
Expect longer tours of duty in the near future.
"Occupy till I come."
The place of occupation is Iraq, and the occupation's duration is until the final trump sounds.
Expect longer tours of duty in the near future.
Pope Benedict’s Prayer for “Immigrants”
Bless thy ninos and ninas as they swim the turbulent river separating them from jobs Americans just won’t do.
Bless them as they do the crawl-stroke, back-stroke, and, yea, even the doggy paddle.
Bless them in the rapids and the shallows, oh Lord of Fruit Pickers and Burger Flippers.
Bless them as they brave the desert sun, following “how-to” books and maps provided by their benevolent presidente.
Bless thy brown children as they gnaw the fleshy innards of cacti, for hydration’s sake.
Bless thy rattlesnakes who do not bite, and thy scorpions who withhold their stings. Bless the white man who treats them to his largesse, as they ransack his house while he’s at work.
Bless them as they creep and scuttle over mountain and sand dune, avoiding all the dreaded snares of the Border Patrol gringos. Hide them from the aerial drones’ sight, make virtual fences visible, and lead them through thy underground tunnels for righteousness’ sake, oh Lord of Unlawful Entry.
Bless them with forged birth certificates, fake social security numbers, and matricula consular cards found acceptable in thy sight, oh Lover of Truth.
Yea, though they walk through the Valley of Nativism, they shall fear no evil; for thou art with them. Thy anchor baby and expired visa comfort them.
Thou preparest a job for them in the presence of bigots. Thou anointest their heads with tequila. Their mamacitas' bank accounts in Mexico runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow them all the days of their lives, and they shall dwell in the occupied territories of Aztlan forever.
Amen.
Bless them as they do the crawl-stroke, back-stroke, and, yea, even the doggy paddle.
Bless them in the rapids and the shallows, oh Lord of Fruit Pickers and Burger Flippers.
Bless them as they brave the desert sun, following “how-to” books and maps provided by their benevolent presidente.
Bless thy brown children as they gnaw the fleshy innards of cacti, for hydration’s sake.
Bless thy rattlesnakes who do not bite, and thy scorpions who withhold their stings. Bless the white man who treats them to his largesse, as they ransack his house while he’s at work.
Bless them as they creep and scuttle over mountain and sand dune, avoiding all the dreaded snares of the Border Patrol gringos. Hide them from the aerial drones’ sight, make virtual fences visible, and lead them through thy underground tunnels for righteousness’ sake, oh Lord of Unlawful Entry.
Bless them with forged birth certificates, fake social security numbers, and matricula consular cards found acceptable in thy sight, oh Lover of Truth.
Yea, though they walk through the Valley of Nativism, they shall fear no evil; for thou art with them. Thy anchor baby and expired visa comfort them.
Thou preparest a job for them in the presence of bigots. Thou anointest their heads with tequila. Their mamacitas' bank accounts in Mexico runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow them all the days of their lives, and they shall dwell in the occupied territories of Aztlan forever.
Amen.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Pucker Up
I was reading at World Net Daily about how Jimmy "Nuts" Carter met with and kissed a Hamas terrorist. Cute, huh?
The article tells us: Carter hugged Shaer and kissed him on each cheek. . .
Missing from the story, however, was the most relevant information of all: when he planted his smooch, was the man's naked backside exposed, or did he merely give some love to his fully-clothed keister?
The article tells us: Carter hugged Shaer and kissed him on each cheek. . .
Missing from the story, however, was the most relevant information of all: when he planted his smooch, was the man's naked backside exposed, or did he merely give some love to his fully-clothed keister?
This Land Ain't Your Land
I hope everyone paid those income taxes in a timely fashion. After all, we have muchos millions of illegal aliens to support.
Since they're just like us, we should be proud to foot the bill for them, in all things. Right, pendejos?
Monday, April 14, 2008
There's No Reason Like Unreason
Atheists portray themselves as paragons of logic, while theists—particularly Christians—are characterized as silly, superstitious dunderheads. This is nothing more than illogical sleight-of-hand; let me demonstrate why.
We have two basic options when it comes to explaining the origins of life and the universe: (1.) they are the work of a Supreme Being, or (2.) they came into existence on their own. Claims about aliens from Shazbot seeding the Earth don’t answer the question; they merely move it off-world. You still need an origin for the little green men.
The notion that “Once upon a time, nothing existed, and then ‘Poof!’ there it was” violates the laws of logic. Ever heard of the Law of Non-contradiction? It states that a thing and its contradiction cannot both be true at the same time, in the same relationship (A cannot be non-A at the same time, in the same relationship).We see evidence bearing this out on a daily basis. A man can be a father and a son, but not in the same relationship. If I say “The man is fat, but he is also skinny,” I’ve violated the Law of Non-contradiction, because the man may be fat or skinny, but he cannot be both at the same time, in the same relationship.
Materialistic evolutionists, believers in naturalism—whatever you want to call them, they share a common belief: that if you go back far enough in time, you will find that life arose from non-life, order coalesced out of chaos, information came from non-information, and something came from nothing. All of this happened without benefit of a Creator.
This is an obfuscatory way of saying that the universe and everything in it is, ultimately, self-created. But the very notion of self-creation violates the Law of Non-contradiction. For something to be self-created it must have existed before it existed. Reread the italicized part, again. How can something exist before it exists? To create itself, it had to be here already; to be created it couldn’t have existed at the time of its creation. So self-creation requires a thing’s existence and non-existence at the same time, in the same relationship. This is a nonsense statement accepted entirely on blind faith. It contradicts—there’s that pesky word, again—observable evidence and common sense. A belief in self-creation renders logic itself null and void. If logic is meaningless, how do we determine if something is factual, or not? How do we acquire knowledge? If you throw out the Law of Non-contradiction, you also toss Reason to the curb. If you eject Reason, you also expel the scientific method, for the latter relies upon and assumes the former.
So it’s amusing that the people who dismiss me and my fellow Christians as nutty, anti-scientific zealots have embraced an idea that takes a wrecking ball to the foundation of Science and Reason—the very bedrock upon which they claim to stand.
We have two basic options when it comes to explaining the origins of life and the universe: (1.) they are the work of a Supreme Being, or (2.) they came into existence on their own. Claims about aliens from Shazbot seeding the Earth don’t answer the question; they merely move it off-world. You still need an origin for the little green men.
The notion that “Once upon a time, nothing existed, and then ‘Poof!’ there it was” violates the laws of logic. Ever heard of the Law of Non-contradiction? It states that a thing and its contradiction cannot both be true at the same time, in the same relationship (A cannot be non-A at the same time, in the same relationship).We see evidence bearing this out on a daily basis. A man can be a father and a son, but not in the same relationship. If I say “The man is fat, but he is also skinny,” I’ve violated the Law of Non-contradiction, because the man may be fat or skinny, but he cannot be both at the same time, in the same relationship.
Materialistic evolutionists, believers in naturalism—whatever you want to call them, they share a common belief: that if you go back far enough in time, you will find that life arose from non-life, order coalesced out of chaos, information came from non-information, and something came from nothing. All of this happened without benefit of a Creator.
This is an obfuscatory way of saying that the universe and everything in it is, ultimately, self-created. But the very notion of self-creation violates the Law of Non-contradiction. For something to be self-created it must have existed before it existed. Reread the italicized part, again. How can something exist before it exists? To create itself, it had to be here already; to be created it couldn’t have existed at the time of its creation. So self-creation requires a thing’s existence and non-existence at the same time, in the same relationship. This is a nonsense statement accepted entirely on blind faith. It contradicts—there’s that pesky word, again—observable evidence and common sense. A belief in self-creation renders logic itself null and void. If logic is meaningless, how do we determine if something is factual, or not? How do we acquire knowledge? If you throw out the Law of Non-contradiction, you also toss Reason to the curb. If you eject Reason, you also expel the scientific method, for the latter relies upon and assumes the former.
So it’s amusing that the people who dismiss me and my fellow Christians as nutty, anti-scientific zealots have embraced an idea that takes a wrecking ball to the foundation of Science and Reason—the very bedrock upon which they claim to stand.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Can You Hear Me, Now? Good!
It’s funny—and scary—how technology changes society and personal behavior. One phenomenon I’ve noticed of late is that of full-grown men walking around in stores jabbering on cell phones. Business-related phone conversations I understand, but how about the chatty ones?
I was at Wetback-Mart the other day, buying a few groceries, when I saw two unrelated men—one of whom was of grandfatherly age—talking on cell phones. They wandered aimlessly down the aisles, with no buggy or visible merchandise, chatting. I especially enjoy when such folks block aisles and get in everyone’s way as they meander. Sorry, but when I’m in a hurry, and I’m weaving my shopping cart between Julio and Santa Anna as they stuff tv dinners down their pants and have their pregnant wives and twin broods of twelve children standing lookout, I’m not interested in hearing about how it made you feel when Bubba laughed at your favorite for a shoo-in at the local tractor pull. Or about that time on your annual hunting trip when a bear carved its initials in your backside because you forgot which end of the rifle goes “BANG!” Or your thoughts on re-mortgaging the house and selling the wife and kids to the Sudanese so you could buy that new-fangled “road hawg” for which you’ve been pining. See, I don’t give a Woodsy Owl hoot about your personal life, total stranger. However, I do care about the fact that I can’t get to the milk, as you lean on the cold case and sigh in reminiscence with Billy Bob about drinking everyone else under the table during Tuesday’s happy hour at Bazoonga’s Bar and Grill. Get a handle on reality, “guys.” You’re in a public place. The world is not a deserted stage for you and only you to play upon. This ain’t I Am Legend, and you ain’t Robert Neville.
Before the advent of cell phones, I never saw men standing around in public places—malls, grocery and department stores, and the like—involved in inane conversations on pay phones. Such luxuries were for calling someone for a ride, or other important purposes. Not getting the skinny on last night’s episode of American Idol-worshipper from Butch.
Now don’t get me wrong; I have nothing against cell phones; they’re useful tools. But remember the maxim everything to its season. There’s a time and place for it, fellers. How about sitting in your car in the parking lot, rather than shuffling along, head-down, in the middle of the walkway in a crowded store? There’s a revolutionary idea, dummy. It’s sad that you can’t run in Wetback-Mart and buy a six-pack and the new selection in Oprah’s Book Club (yecch!) without dialing Leroy’s house for some chitty –chat.
When I was a kid, we had a name for people who spent loads of time on the phone embroiled in ephemeral conversation, who seemed to have the receiver surgically attached to their ears.
“Girls”, we called them. I still do.
Now all you need is some bubblegum, Hank.
I was at Wetback-Mart the other day, buying a few groceries, when I saw two unrelated men—one of whom was of grandfatherly age—talking on cell phones. They wandered aimlessly down the aisles, with no buggy or visible merchandise, chatting. I especially enjoy when such folks block aisles and get in everyone’s way as they meander. Sorry, but when I’m in a hurry, and I’m weaving my shopping cart between Julio and Santa Anna as they stuff tv dinners down their pants and have their pregnant wives and twin broods of twelve children standing lookout, I’m not interested in hearing about how it made you feel when Bubba laughed at your favorite for a shoo-in at the local tractor pull. Or about that time on your annual hunting trip when a bear carved its initials in your backside because you forgot which end of the rifle goes “BANG!” Or your thoughts on re-mortgaging the house and selling the wife and kids to the Sudanese so you could buy that new-fangled “road hawg” for which you’ve been pining. See, I don’t give a Woodsy Owl hoot about your personal life, total stranger. However, I do care about the fact that I can’t get to the milk, as you lean on the cold case and sigh in reminiscence with Billy Bob about drinking everyone else under the table during Tuesday’s happy hour at Bazoonga’s Bar and Grill. Get a handle on reality, “guys.” You’re in a public place. The world is not a deserted stage for you and only you to play upon. This ain’t I Am Legend, and you ain’t Robert Neville.
Before the advent of cell phones, I never saw men standing around in public places—malls, grocery and department stores, and the like—involved in inane conversations on pay phones. Such luxuries were for calling someone for a ride, or other important purposes. Not getting the skinny on last night’s episode of American Idol-worshipper from Butch.
Now don’t get me wrong; I have nothing against cell phones; they’re useful tools. But remember the maxim everything to its season. There’s a time and place for it, fellers. How about sitting in your car in the parking lot, rather than shuffling along, head-down, in the middle of the walkway in a crowded store? There’s a revolutionary idea, dummy. It’s sad that you can’t run in Wetback-Mart and buy a six-pack and the new selection in Oprah’s Book Club (yecch!) without dialing Leroy’s house for some chitty –chat.
When I was a kid, we had a name for people who spent loads of time on the phone embroiled in ephemeral conversation, who seemed to have the receiver surgically attached to their ears.
“Girls”, we called them. I still do.
Now all you need is some bubblegum, Hank.
Creeping Death
Regarding Israel, why don't we forget all the talk of peace, the gatherings of witless politicians around tables, and the shuffling of important-looking but meaningless paperwork? Let's forget the Clintonian Legacies and the Piece In Our Time gibberish. Let's set aside the hanging on every word of Arab statesmen, even as we listen to the bombs ticking under their kaffiyehs. Why all the pussyfooting around? I have a simple solution to the trademarked Israel Problem: let's round up all the oppressive zionist entities--known as Jews in the vulgar--and confine them to a "ghetto," as it were, in Jerusalem. Heck, let's build it just beneath the Wailing Wall; how fitting is that? Call it a Final Solution.
Meanwhile, give back the land to the "Palestinians;" you know, the ones who peopled it in their countless millions, before the Zionist bacteria infected the "body terrorist," and relegated it to savagery. Remember what a paradise Israel--I mean, "Palestine"--was before the dreaded Jewish Blight? Remember the industry, the civilized refinery, the land flowing with milk and honey?
And the dirty Jews? Well, they're the reason Allah invented concentration camps, after all.
Meanwhile, give back the land to the "Palestinians;" you know, the ones who peopled it in their countless millions, before the Zionist bacteria infected the "body terrorist," and relegated it to savagery. Remember what a paradise Israel--I mean, "Palestine"--was before the dreaded Jewish Blight? Remember the industry, the civilized refinery, the land flowing with milk and honey?
And the dirty Jews? Well, they're the reason Allah invented concentration camps, after all.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Charlton Heston, R.I.P.
I just learned that he passed away Saturday. He was one of the few remaining great actors. This is a sad occasion, and I'll miss him.
Charlton Heston, 1923-2008
God bless and keep him.
Charlton Heston, 1923-2008
God bless and keep him.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
In Lighter Vein
Why does the Iraqi Navy have glass-bottom boats?
*****
So they can see their Air Force.
*****
So they can see their Air Force.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)