Scottish style Battle-Hymn of the Republic

While reading a selection on William Wallace in Scotland: The Story of a Nation last night, I stumbled across this verse.

Scots wha hae wi' Wallace bled,
Scots, wham Bruce has often led,
Welcome to your gory bed,
Or to victorie...
Lay the proud usurpers low!
Tyrants fall in every foe!
Liberty's in every blow!
Let us do or die!

Somewhat stiring eh? Legend has it that this was part of the speech Robert Bruce gave to his men on the morning of June 24, 1314 just before the Battle of Bannockburn.

Free "Speech"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

- Amendment I, The United States Constitution

That is the text of the First Amendment. Unfortunately, over the years, "speech" has been gradually tranformed in the national dialogue to "expression". This unjustified transformation has allowed things like pornography, sodomy, flag burning, etc to come to be protected under the umbrella of the First Amendment. This is ridiculous bullshit. It's exactly this type of idiot thinking that allows much of the societal decay we see in our culture today to go on unchecked. When an artist puts a crucifix in a jar of urine it's protected because he's expressing himself. When NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) is permitted to exist, it's because these perverts are expressing themselves (even if that expression is through sodomizing minors). When some hippie burns the American flag in protest of war he probably knows nothing about, he's expressing his dissatisfaction with the government. My point is, there has to be a line somewhere. We have laws against public indecency. What if I decide that, to express myself, I want to stand on a busy street corner in the nude? Are the laws against public indecency then unconstitutional since I’m exercising freedom of expression? Of course not. That type of behavior is stupid. It's not hurting anyone, but it is stupid. Much the same can be said of burning the flag. Doing so doesn't hurt anyone, at least not physically (unless they're wrapped in it at the time), but that behavior is aberrant. If flag burning is going to be a protected form of expression, then beating the hell out of anyone burning the flag should be a protected form of expression as well.

In recent weeks, there have been two attempts by Congress to get amendments to the Constitution passed in the Senate and House and eventually on to the States for ratification. The first was aimed at defining marriage. It failed to even come to a vote in the Senate. The second, which failed to pass in the Senate by one vote yesterday, would have given Congress to power to make laws prohibiting the desecration of the flag. Now, while I am vehemently opposed to homosexual "marriage" and flag burning, I think it's a good thing that these proposed amendments failed. Amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. Added to that, I don't think that these two issues even fall into the jurisdiction of the federal government. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nowhere in the Constitution is mention made of marriage or flag burning and thus, powers to regulate marriage and flag burning should be left to each state. It's bad enough that activist judges have played fast and loose with the Constitution. We don't need Congress messing with for issues such as these. Each state must be left to its own devices as to how to handle gay marriage and flag burning.

Palestinian leaders appear eager to sign their own death warrants

The tenuous cease fire that has held between Israel and Palestine for the last several months has been all but ended by the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier. Israel holds the Hamas-led government of Palestine responsible. Afterall, it was the military wing of Hamas that carried out the raid and kidnapping. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has threatened military action if the soldier is not returned alive to Israel post-haste. The mind-numbing stupidity of the Palestinians never ceases to amaze me. Hamas officials are doing nothing other than setting themselves up to be the targets of Israeli assassinations. Many world governments have refused to recognized the Hamas-led Palestinian government until they officially recognize Israel's right to exist and remove Israel's destruction as one of their stated party goals.

Somehow though, all of this will turn out to be Israel's fault. How dare they exist? They should roll over and let Hamas and other terrorists (read Muslims) crush them and wipe them from the face of the earth, right? Wrong. Israel should go after those responsible with an iron fist and demonstrate that they are not going to allow their people to butchered by Palestinians who, by the way, have more to thank Israel for in the last 30 years than any of the so called "concerned" Arab nations that surround them.

Finally, an answer to this burning question

I'm not sure if this guy has too much time on his hands or is some kind of comedic savant. Worth a look if you're a Monty Python fan.

Random ramblings

Food poisoning sucks. I spent all day on Memorial Day alternating between the couch and hugging the toilet. I have new respect for how Melissa dealt with four months of morning sickness. Speaking of pregnancy, we're at T-six weeks until D-Day and we're both pretty excited for the big event to happen. The last lamaze class is tomorrow night (thank God) and we'll be getting a tour of the new maternity wing at the hospital.

Church softball starts tonight and I'm starting to get that excited/nervous tickle in my stomach. I've been waiting for this all winter and spring and now that it's finally here I feel like I can hardly wait another four hours until game time.

Sometimes I wonder why people spend so much time over-intellectualizing Christianity. To me it seems pretty straight forward. The Bible says to love God, recognize the Christ died for me and love others. I'm pretty sure that if people needed to have a college degree in order to be able to fully understand the Bible, God would do something about the price of college tuition.

History repeats itself

Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines is running her mouth again. One would think she would have learned last time when her remarks about President Bush during a 2003 concert in London sent the Chicks' career into a nose dive. In the last tree years, there has barely been a peep from the group. Apparently not. Maines and fellow band mates purport not to care what people think and claim they would rather have a small group of loyal diehard fans than fans who also like other country artists. Natalie Maines is certainly entitled to her opinion and should feel free to voice it in whatever formum she desires. One thing that she and other celebrities who spout off need to remember is that this is America and, while they can voice their opinions (of whatever political bend they may be) they need to keep one thing in mind--fans are entitled to their own opinions as well. As the Dixie Chicks learned, alienating your fan base can have pretty drastic consequences for one's career.

When will they learn

One has to wonder, do the people who are raising such an outcry against the Da Vinci Code realize that the louder they protest and the more the demonize the movie and book, the more it makes others want to see the movie and read the book? I'm sure there are many people who, without all the hype, couldn't have cared less about the movie or the book. But now, they're going to see what all the fuss is about. There's TV specials refuting the "facts" presented in the book. There's boycotts and protests planned. I've even heard people claim that no one who reads the book can be a Christian. This is retarded. I would venture a guess that the rubes making the loudest fuss about it haven't even read the book. They also seem to forget the fact that in any bookstore you go into, The Da Vinci Code is in the fiction section--it is not in the religion or historical section. Many also don't seem to realize that this is a golden opportunity to talk to people about Jesus--the real, historical, Son of God Jesus. There will be a lot of people who have questions about who Jesus really is after watching the movie or reading the book. Those of us who have a relationship with Him can use this opportunity to introduce Him to others. That presupposes that most Christians actually understand who Jesus is. The way so many are running around like Chicken Little, one gets the impression they're scared that the Da Vinci Code might change their view of who He is.

Ann has a point

I know most of you probably don't read Ann Coulter. Well, I do and her column this week is the kind of thing we should be hearing from the media in light of Duke, Natalie Hallowell, et al. But we won't. In this age of moral relativism, we can't comment on the actions of others. For the most part, this article is non-political. She does take a couple shots at liberals, but I think it is worth reading. So, before you spout off about her political bias (which I freely admit) and send me links to liberal columns or Sojourners, read it and see for yourself.

I'm sure we're all very surprised

Yet another suicide bombing by a Palestinian nut job against a civilian Israeli target was carried out earlier today. Although Islamic Jihad claimed responsiblity, Hamas leaders (the official Palestinian government as of 2 1/2 weeks ago) called it "a legitimate response to Israeli 'aggression'". Doesn't that just give you a big warm fuzzy? A government sanctioning the murder of men, women and children whose only "crime" is being a Jew ought to raise alarm bells all over the world. But what will we hear from the "mainstream" media? That Israel deserves it, the poor Palestinians are just defending themselves and so on ad nauseam.

Terrorists who abusively invoke Islam who until recently were Islamic terrorists

The phrase "Islamic terrorist" is becoming taboo. "Terrorists who abusively invoke Islam" is the new phrase that officials in the EU are pushing for. This is the important work that the EU is busy with--making sure that news reports and government communications can refer to Islamic terrorists in a "non-emotive" way. I'm sure this will change everyone's outlook on terrorism. I for one will certainly no longer have any emotional reaction whatsoever the next time I see a news story that a terrorist who abusively invokes Islam has blown up yet another school or that a terrorist who abusively invokes Islam has beheaded more captives. Look for the EU Newspeak lexicon due out later this year.

Islam: The religion of peace

How much longer are we going to be fed this "Islam is a religion of peace" crap? This is yet more proof that Islam is definately not a religion of peace. Threatening to riot because one man converts to Christianity and isn't killed for it doesn't speak volumes about the peaceful leanings of Muslims in Afganistan. What's next, rioting if the weather isn't what they want?

A win for the good guys redux

In light of Casey's comment, perhaps some clarification is necessary. First, I have the utmost respect for anyone, regardless of their orientation, who desires to serve this country in the Armed Forces. I think the military's don't ask, don't tell policy is a good one. Soldiers have to trust their fellow soldiers with their lives. One of the concerns behind don't ask, don't tell is how openly gay soldiers could potentially prevent that trust for forming. I'm not saying that is a certainty, but it presents enough of a concern that the policy exists.

To answer Casey's question, I don't think this is a victory for people who are "anti-gay" or a loss for institutions that support anti-discrimination policies. It's a win against the elitist intellectuals who think they are entitled to the government's (read taxpayers') money while thumbing their noses at the government by preventing the military from recruiting on campus because they disagree with the military's policy on gays. They are not entitled to my money or Casey's money or any other taxpayer's money. The government doles out grants for research and such to colleges and universitys. If said money comes with some strings attached, the institutions don't have to take the money if they don't want to deal with those strings. My guess is that, even though these professors and the institutions they represent are arguing based on their "principles", not a single one of them will take a stand and refuse to accept government money in order to continue to keep recruiters off campus in occordance with their "principles".

A win for the good guys

It's nice to see the liberal law professors take it for a change.

Israelis join the fray

Several Israelis have decided to up the ante on the Iranian sponsored anti-semitic cartoon contest. The prizes being offered should draw cartoonists from all over the world.

My boy

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Here is the pudding. This is one of the ultra sound pictures we got last night showing definative proof that we are in fact having a boy.

Warped Christianity

The Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church has recently gained nationwide infamy with their despicable displays at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. The signs that these people hold and the messages they are presenting are beyond indecent. As repugnent as their demonstrations are, they are regretably within their First Amendment rights to demonstrate. An unfortuante problem with the First Amendment is that people seem to forget that their rights end where the rights of others begin. In this case, whose rights trump whose? I would say that the families whose loved ones have given their lives for this country have the right to a bury their family members in a solemn ceremony free from the invectives and hatred of these protesters. The First Amendment defines one of our most basic freedoms. It should be tempered though with common sense and consideration of others. Someone will always find a way to be offended by the speech of others and we should not limit free speech because of that. But this is quite different. I would contend that this constitutes hate speech. If we're going to have those ridiculous hate crimes in the books, we may as well put them to good use. Charge these protestors with a hate crime and lock them away.

The saddest part of this whole affair is that, inevitably, these sewer rats will be held up by the media as "mainstream" Christians. This just adds fuel to the fire of those who view Christians with derision. Every whacko that claims to be a Christian is paraded before the country as a typical right-wing religious zealot. So instead of all the good things that Christians are and represent, we are shown only the nuts that constitute the smallest fraction of those who claim to be Christian. One has but to look at how these people conduct themselves to see that they're anything but. Somehow, I have a hard time seeing Jesus at one of these protests holding a sign that says "Thank God for dead soldiers".

Islam is indeed a religion of peace

We've been hearing this tripe ever since 9/11. Islam is a religion of peace. Those who promote violence are just a fringe extremist element. So what then is the reasoning for the violent protests and calls for vengence over the cartoons that were published recently in several European papers? Must be a lot more Muslims in the fringe than we all thought.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183686,00.html

Free Drugs

The story at the link is about a program being implemented in Canada (big surprise). With socialized health care, it was only a matter of time before tax payers had to fund the habits of junkies.

Free Drugs!

The Palestinian Persuasion

With the recent elections in Palestine, the general mood of the Palestinian people has been finally uncovered, as if most of the world didn't know it already. Hamas is now the majority party in parliment. Hamas, whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel. Hamas the terrorist organization. Both the United States and Israeli governments have already said they will not work with a Palestinian government controlled by Hamas. And nor should they. If Hamas can prove that they can function like a normal, civilized govenment and assume the functions of such a governement--diplomacy, co-existence with neighbors, trade, etc.--then at that point we should explore normal relations with them. Until then however, they (Palestine) should continue to be viewed as nothing more than a terrorist group/state. The people have spoken and have basically said, "We're terrorists."

Put a gun to my head please

The absolute worst part of my job is serving as a subject matter expert for technical documentation. I'm currently sitting in a technical review meeting. I would rather stick needles under my fingernails than be forced to take part in these meetings. Non-technical people writing about extremely technical aspects of the system sucks. Some of the questions posed to me indicate such a fundamental lack of understanding about how the system works, it's amazing that these people are even able to write about it. That's obviously why documentation for our product is crap.