Thursday, April 29, 2004
As always when I write about the U.N. I must end with an invitation. I invite you to tell your elkected officials that you want America OUT of the UN!
My brother, please read his post first, in the samll print on the bottom, is wrong that the classic "isolationism" attitude of the past is not only unattainable, but would also weaken and impoverish our country. My wife, who I agured this with for like an hour after reading and agreeing with my brother is also wrong. The only way to continue our international wealth is to stay out of the political agenda of other nations.
I pointed out the aljazerra.net poll a few days back that noted most Iraqis were unhappy with the US liberation and occupation of their nation. Even today I saw a USAToday/CNN poll that says the people dislike the American liberation and occupation of their nation. This means, these people were happy living under a dicator, and it is therefore not our business.
I believe that people are deserving of freedom, and I believe people should fight to bring freedom to themselves.
We should be seen as a client, a customer, and vendor to the world not as a nanny and ATM machine. As long as we continue to fulfill these two functions for the world we will have to host a war on terror. The answer is and always will be POLITICAL Isolationism. In a consitutional confederacy (read your history books that is how this nation was originally organized) states choose to share in your freedom through association. In a imperalist state, people force their nation through military occupation. HMMMMMMM which one do we look like today?
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Anyway, last night she brings me over "Bath Time Ernie" and I read it, then I tell her, "That was a little book, so we can read a few more." Next she brings me "Bed Time Grover" and last she brings "Happy Halloween Blue." It is now time for Bible and prayers, but she begs for "1 more book please" and I cave in. She comes over carrying what but a long, big kid story. DOH... She got 4 books and 1 was a big kid story. Go her!
Monday, April 26, 2004
Don't forget to remind how close she is getting to 30. She is not comfortable with her own geriatric progress.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
FBI wants to watch you type - News - ZDNet
Now I do not share his politics but you must at least agree with his quote, "Maybe they're right. New technologies do present police with new headaches, and perhaps that justifies additional wiretapping powers. But the question will be: Who gets to make that call--elected representatives in Congress or well-meaning but unelected bureaucrats at the FCC?" We can not let power hungry theives steal what little scraps of liberty we are still afforded through backdoors and open floors.
I am a firm supporter of the freedom of the press, and a free press has the right to cover any number canidates it feels makes good press. However when the state department acts as if there are only 2 canidates in this election, that shows even a greater need to cleanup the system.
Truth is usually found in the means
Senator Hagel forgot the context of English occupation that prompted Patrick Henry to say, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery! Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" He, and John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, and George W. Bush, and many more on both sides of the congress across party line are seeking to enslave and chain America's young people to forced labor in a war that is about imperialism and power.
There is only 1 way to end the "War on Terror" and it is not the enslavement of America's youth. It is to adopt a non-interventionst policy in the politics of foreign of nation.
Senator Hagel and others I implore you to fix the problem not the disease.
Quote Source: WorldNetDaily: Republican senator: Bring back the draft:
Monday, April 19, 2004
"In your opinion, which is more important in the development of an application: the design of the interface or the design of the code?"
As I read this question I thought that it was a question that would apply and should be asked everyday by everyone of us before we sit down to perform any task in life.
For those of you with no computer background let me reword the question, "Which is more important, the answer or the presentation of the answer." I have head several friends of mine fired from preaching jobs because they did never focused presentation of the answer. I have had other friends fired for focusing only on presentation and never on the answer itself.
To my brother, a rational linear annalytical thinker, there is only on right answer, the design of the code. The problem is perfect code with no interface that can be understood will only drive people away from the application not toward it.
Allow me the oppurtunity to give an example. Many time people find Legalism in the Bible and are therefore turned off toward Christianity. Is there a black and white unmoveable LAW within the Bible? Yes, of course, but the interface is what shows us the law. My personal interaction with God and time spent learning more about his passionate pursuit of his people, has shown the benefits of the "application." I am sure you have all had this same experience in your lives.
On with applying this in every encounter we have with people. Many hurdles in my marriage, friendships, family, and work life could have been avoided by better "application" on my part. If I had focused on the needs of the other person many times I would have made different choices. At the same time, relationship will hit hard choices, and at times I could have benefited each of these relationships by simply presenting the underlying application within a better interface, (i.e. more wisely chosen words.)
We as people must be both application and interface driven in our personal relationships. We must trust the Lord and our humble submission to his will to show us which choice in more important in the development of each situation we face in lfe.
Friday, April 16, 2004
Friday, April 09, 2004
Thursday, April 08, 2004
"Long before Microsoft learned the 'importance of sharing code,' it learned that to beat any competitor, it should 'embrace and extend' that competitor's technology. Want to take over the Internet? Embrace Web browsing technology with a free browser, Internet Explorer, that's incorporated into the operating system, and extend it with proprietary 'enhancements' that make other browsers look bad. It worked.
So, although some people rave about how great Mozilla, Opera and Firefox are, according to OneStat.com, Internet Explorer this January had a total global-usage share of 94.8 percent. Second place went to Mozilla with an almost insignificant 1.8 percent, and Opera 7 came in with a global usage of 0.8 percent."
MS Open-Source Move is Straight from Playbook
Monday, April 05, 2004
Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet...and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths... When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases —or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text... But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.
It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence
sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.
The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent... did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief... The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller’s weapon—a sawed-off shotgun—was reasonably susceptible to militia use.... We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller’s claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller’s test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.
The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some circles—that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, ... In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence...As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist... A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.
All too many of the other great tragedies of history— Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here... If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars. My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The sheer ponderousness of the panel’s opinion—the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text—refutes its thesis far more
convincingly than anything I might say. The panel’s labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it—and is just as likely to succeed.
SILVEIRA Vs. LOCKYER -05/06/2003 Visit Myth of Sisyphus for very intelligent commentary on the Supreme Court's denial to hear this case.
Aaron Russo is the ONE canidate America needs to be listening to as she seeks to decide her future. We are headed toward the grave ending of Egyot, Greece and Rome. Russo holds to the principles that will turn the tide and save this great nation. If you are TRULY a patriot, you will listen to this message, and vote for Aaron Russo this November.
Friday, April 02, 2004
Thursday, April 01, 2004
There is some offensive material on it, since it is unedited, but if you are willing to overlook the people posting inapropriate pics, it seems to be an intrestesting study in perspective.
You can visit Kevin's Mobog to see a compendium of my post, which is only three so far.