Terri Schiavo is dead. Now what will you do? To my mind, this life lost requires action. Not only because of the life unjustly taken, but also because of the injustice of the system that her case has exposed.

So I ask again, what will you do?

(HT: Drudge)

Recently, I have been having a vigorous inner debate over civil disobedience; particularly as it applies to the Terri Schiavo situation. It has been a very conflicting situation for me. As many of you know (or at least have guessed), I'm a strong believer in the sanctity of life -- be it life in the womb or life in the hospice. I believe that life is a gift from God and should not be taken lightly. After spending a great deal of time thinking about it, I have come to a number of conclusions.

I do not believe that civil disobedience should be practiced in the case of Terri Schiavo. Throughout history, civil disobedience has been practiced when laws have been unjust. In a recent posting by Sue Bob, she tells the story of a group of French Huguenots in the village of Le Chambon who hid and protected Jews from the Vichy government and their Nazi allies during World War II. The Vichy government was cooperating with the Nazis in rounding up Jews for internment (and eventual extermination). The Huguenots of Le Chambon actively resisted the Vichy/Nazis, but without violence. During the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. engaged in numerous instances of civil disobedience to protest the injustice of American law in not providing equal protection and opportunity for blacks. In both cases, civil disobedience was practiced in defiance of unjust laws. Most commentators have made the point that there is no unjust law in Terri Schiavo's case, but instead the injustice comes through the misapplication of the law and the intransigence of the judiciary.

The question can then be asked, why can't civil disobedience be practiced in defiance of any law unjustly applied? Who determines what unjust application of a just law is? We would have little problem with this question if we had a shared system of morals. With a shared system of morals we can then stand on common ground when making decisions about the justice of a given law. But today, a vocal minority of society is rejecting the current moral basis for society. It is well proven that our Founding Fathers used the principles of Christianity and Judaism to create the foundation of American society and government. I won't debate that here. But, of late, these founding principles are now being eschewed in favor of a system of relativist values. Therefore, there is no longer a shared system of values (or at least that system is being continuously degraded). Despite this, America is a society founded on law. In order to secure our society from chaos, the Founders established a system of laws to establish order in society. If we state that civil disobedience can be invoked in a society without a shared moral system, then we are opening the door to the breakdown of an ordered society. If any one person can decide to disobey the law because they feel it to be unjust (based on their shifting sense of moral judgment), then we are passing society over to a future of chaos and institutional disorder.

Instead, I think we who still share a common system of morals must practice Civil Obedience. When a growing portion of society is erring on the side of personal morals and holding them to be relative, those of who shared the desire for an ordered society must stand up for those values which will ensure that ordered society. Many of us are looking at our government and seeing that is rapidly going astray from its founding principles. The judiciary is running away with power that we are giving it. When society allows a judiciary to misapply the law and act with powers that have not been given to it then, as a matter of civil obedience, we must bring that judiciary back into conformance with its founding principles. The same goes for the executive and legislative branches of our government. "We the people" is the opening phrase of the Constitution of the United States. The power to form a government and order society was, and is, derived from "We the People." Therefore, "We the People" are solely responsible for our government's performance. "We the People" are responsible for the runaway judiciary. I ask you, when will "We the People" take this responsibility seriously and reestablish order in society?


Postscript: I want to thank the following people for helping in my inner deliberative process: Hugh Hewitt, Jerri Ward, Don Waddell, Matt Heidt, and my wife.

Ready for a chuckle? According to a report posted in The Guardian (HT: Drudge), we naughty humans are living beyond our means. A report endorsed by over 1300 scientists is saying that we've used up 2/3 of the Earth's resources. The Scientists say that "In effect, one species is now a hazard to the other 10 million or so on the planet, and to itself." These are probably the same scientists who are telling us that the Avian Flu could kill off over 25% of the population of Great Britain.

Don't you just love the world's scientific community? When the world begins to get stale they come along with a real knee-slapper. Thanks guys.

It's bad enough when the United States allows (by one means or another) millions of Mexicans into our country to seek their fortunes. I'm not here to spark an immigration debate. But do we have to stand by when Mexicans disrespect our national soccer team? the U.S. National Soccer team was greeted with boos, thrown objects and chants of "Osama" when it arrived in Mexico City to play the Mexican National Soccer Team in a World Cup qualifying match? It used to be that despite national passions for traditional sporting events, a certain amount of respect was given for competing honorably. But never mind me. I'm just an old-school gentleman who still believes in giving honor and respect where they are due. Even when it is not returned. And sometimes when it is not due. It's the principle that matters.

There have been several things that have recently tweaked my ire. Some of them you will no doubt guess. Others you have probably have been able to see in retrospect.

Terri Schiavo is on her last legs. She has been given a second set of last rights in preparation for her passing. There is still a desire within me to call for more vocal opposition to the acts of Terri's estranged husband. But I won't. I still feel that Michael Schiavo is acting without regard for Terri or her family. Michael's only concern is Michael and his own bank account. We cannot allow this incident to pass us by without doing something to keep it from happening again. We must try to establish laws to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Whenever we have such a case, we must ALWAYS err on the side of life.

Last week, here in Louisville, a 17 yr old young man shot a policeman and then turned the gun on himself. Officer Peter Grignon will be buried today after a funeral at Southeast Christian Church. The community has been rocked by this senseless act of violence. The 27 yr old Grignon celebrated his first wedding anniversary only two weeks ago. He loved being on the Louisville Metro Police Department -- it was a life-long dream to be a policeman. We must not let this tragic event pass without attempting to prevent future occurrences. We must take steps to teach our youth that murder is never an acceptable answer to any problem. Human life is too precious to be treated this casually. Parents, retake control of your children's upbringing! You can reshape the future of our society by retaining possession of your children's education and by grooming them for a responsible adulthood. You should not leave the training of your children to people like Tupac, 50 Cent, Snoop Dogg. M-TV should not be the source of your children's morals. We can change our society, but only if we are willing to take responsibility for that society.

Last night, as I was watching television, I watched commercials by the United Church of Christ. While I know that these commercials have been around for a while, I have not yet taken the opportunity to make my commentary about it. The commercial shows a church where velvet ropes has been position at the church steps and is manned by bouncers. The bouncers are selectively admitting people to the church building in the background. Among those who are prevented from entering the church are a male homosexual couple, a young black man, and an hispanic woman. The United Church of Christ is trying to say that they will accept homosexuals where other churches will not. The commercial says that Jesus accepted everyone. But what the commercial doesn't say is that, while Jesus did accept everyone, he required them to change from their sinful ways. The religious leaders of Jesus' time tried to trap Jesus by bringing him a woman caught in adultery for his judgment. Jesus told her accusers that the one without sin should "cast the first stone." But, after her accusers left, Jesus told her "Go, and sin no more." In the same way, Christian churches should welcome homosexuals, but should also require that they give up their sinful lives. The Bible is entirely clear about the sinful nature of homosexuality. But it does not say that homosexuality is any more sinful than stealing pens from the office or murdering a crippled woman. The United Church of Christ is merely trying to increase their attendance at the expense of Biblical truth. They are willing to diosregard certain truths (sometimes painful truths) in order to maintain or increase attendance, and offering levels.

Thus endeth the rant.

Well' it's happened. The Supreme Court has declined to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. The Schindler family has other legal activities brewing, but it looks like all that is left is to watch Terri die. It sickens me.

I hope that people remember where the players have stood. The President and Gov. Bush, the Republican majority in Congress, Sen. Mel Martinez, the Schindlers, members of the Florida House of Representatives. These people have stood for life and its protection. Remember that.

I also ask you to pray for Terri. It's not over yet. Pray for Terri's family. Also, pray for Michael Schiavo -- it's not too late for him. But, at all costs, pray!

I want to recognize someone special. Lana Jacobs is a St. Francis Catholic worker (not sure what that means). Lana attempted yesterday to enter Woodside Hospice -- where Terri Schiavo is being kept -- and tried to give Terri some water. Ms. Jacobs was arrested. If I had to guess, I'd say she will probably be charged with Contempt of Court for trying to give a starving woman some water.

"When you give a cup of cold water in My name...."

UPDATE: I am really struggling with a desire to advocate Civil Disobedience. I really want to encourage people to disobey the court orders and attempt to feed or give water to Terri Schiavo. But if I do, on what grounds can I object to those who commit crimes to oppose war or something similar? I cannot stand those who commit crimes and claim "war is never the answer," or "Bush is Hitler," or bomb an abortion clinic or something similar. I fully understand the moral situation in the Terri Schiavo case. And I would posit that claims of moral justification in the cases cited above are dubious, at best.

At what point can one rightfully call for civil disobedience? Where do we draw the lines in cases of moral justification for criminal activity? I am not in any way withdrawing my support for Ms. Jacobs (above), but can I call for similar acts of kindness and civil disobedience?

Please let me know what you think?

UPDATE 2: I have posted a piece on Cardinal Coalition in hopes of spurring a debate over Terri Schiavo and civil disobedience. I am truly conflicted on the whole issue. If we do not stand up when cases like this are before us, will moral issues like the value of human life be lost? If we do take action, will being labelled as "radicals" reduce our effectiveness? What is the answer? Is there an answer?

I am currently experiencing a feeling of 'weirdness.' This is the first time in a long while when I have been able to listen to the Hugh Hewitt Show. Prior to the turn of the year, I was able to listen to each day's program the following day through a archival streaming Internet feed from KRLA radio's website. But, as of January 1st, KRLA no longer offers the archival show feed. So I have not been able to listen in. Most of the time, I'm working on MBA coursework. When I'm not working on schoolwork, I'm spending time talking with my wife.

Someone needs to grab KRLA by the collars and shake them vigorously and "encourage" them to reinstitute the streaming archives. PLEASE!

I was just over at Sue Bob's Diary. She has posted the opinion of Dr. Boyle of the University of Miami (FL) regarding a 1996 CT scan of Terri Schiavo's brain. According to Dr. Boyle:

I have seen many walking, talking, fairly coherent people with worse cerebral/cortical atrophy. Therefore, this is in no way prima facie evidence that Terri Schiavo's mental abilities or/or capabilities are completely eradicated. I cannot believe such testimony has been given on the basis of this scan.

The problem is that Michael Schiavo has had the courts seal Terri's medical records. According to the Schindler family (Terri's aprents) lawyers, Michael has refused any attempts to have Terri's true condition officially diagnosed or any diagnostics given.

Again, the truth is being suppressed. Why would Michael do that? Sounds a bit nefarious, to me.

I have long said that Liberals are the champions of double standards. They are proving it once again. I was just listening to a portion of the Laura Ingraham radio program. Laura has been discussing the latest on the Terri Schiavo debacle. She played highlights from Real Time with Bill Mahr. Among Mr. Mahr's guests were Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. On one hand, Mahr asked Murkowski about ending the Iditarod Sled Dog race. Mahr, a member of PETA's board, said it was cruel to dogs. On the other hand, Mahr said we should allow Terri Schiavo to die. In doing so, Mahr also took a stab at Christians by saying "Why is it that the people who love God the most are least willing to go be with Him?" So racing dogs through the Alaskan tundra is cruel, but starving a woman to death for her husband's convenience is not?

I have learned a few more facts about the Schiavo case since I last blogged on it. It seem that Terri's husband, Michael, was given (through legal action?) money for Terri's care and he has not spent it. I have also heard that there are medications that can help remediate Terri's condition and help make her more responsive, have not been used because Michael Schiavo has blocked their use.

So many people evidently think that Terri Schiavo is being kept alive by ventilators or respirators or some such equipment. That by "pulling the plug," Terri will simply pass away. But Terri Schiavo is only receiving food and water. Terri has no life-threatening condition. She just needs food. You and I just need food (I say this while preparing my own lunch) to live. Michael Schiavo, et al, wants to stop feeding her -- take away her food and water. She would then starve to death.

People often ask, how can Terri have any quality of life in such a state? Quality of life is exactly what is being denied to Terri. Her husband has blocked any attempts to treat her condition. There are effective treatments available. But I will go further. Does anyone with severe mental retardation have "quality of life?" Why not stop feeding them? Why not let them die? Or even help them along (Groningen Protocol)?

Another frequent rejoinder is that the U.S. Congress, by requiring federal court review of Terri's case, is usurping state powers. But aren't the courts of the State of Florida usurping Terri's right to live? The only person who is pushing for the removal of Terri's feeding tube is a husband who has been living with another woman --with whom he has had 2 children while still "married" to Terri -- had who has refused to allow Terri any treatment.

I am still outraged by all of this. Why aren't you?

On Monday, I posted a piece on the Chinese Parliamanet's vote to go to war if Taiwan attempts to assert it's freedom from the PRC. Today, news comes that Russia will join with China in a military exercise that will rehearse the invasion of Taiwan. While I would expect such behavior from China, I was not expecting Russia to join in such an outrageous and provocative act.

This makes me begin to question what Russia's asperations are vis-a-vis its neighbors and its general foreign policy. If Russia is rehearsing the overthrow of the democratic government of Taiwan, will it not pursue its own despotic courses at home? Will Russia seek once again to stretch its hands of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Central Asia? Will Vladimir Putin pursue the reestablishment of revived Russian Empire?

(HT: Drudge)

I just heard over the Internet that Congressman Rob Portman has been nominated by President Bush for the office of U.S. Trade Representative. I interned for Rob in in his Washington, DC office in 1995 during the "Contract with America."

For those of you who do not remember the CWA, it was the policy platform put together by the Republican leadership (under Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich) of the House of Representatives after the GOP took control of the House in the 1994 elections. The CWA listed 10 issues on which the Republican leadership promised it would act in order "to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives."

I truly enjoyed working with Rob. I was fortunate that, as an intern, I had a great deal of access to Rob in advising him in areas where interns usually have little influence -- foreign policy, defense policy and the intelligence community. I was even able to help Rob with speeches and crafting the language of amendments to bills being considered by Congress. All in all, I had a wonderful time working with Congressman Portman.

Congratulations, Rob!

While browsing Drudge Report I found this story out of the U.K. (no, not Univ. of Kentucky, you b-ball nuts!) about a late-term abortion performed because the baby had a cleft lip. A CLEFT LIP! A simple operation will fix the defect and few will notice afterward. There is at least some rationale in abortions for reason of serious disease or malformation of the baby -- though I don't condone ANY abortion. But an abortion performed because of cosmetic malformation like a cleft lip is unconscionable.!

The article focuses on the abortion's late-term nature and completely glosses over the evil reason for the abortion. Pray for the world. Pray that there consciences will be restored. There are few things more evil than the taking of another's life for mere convenience. Pray!

Earlier this week, I posted about the Christian witness of Ashley Smith to escapee Brian Nichols. This morning I received my daily Opinion Journal e-mail and found that columnist Peggy Noonan has provided the transcript of Ashley Smith's interview with the press after the ordeal. I just thought it would be good to hear her description of the events of this past weekend.

I'm sure you've heard about how hot liberals can get when you posit teaching that evolution is anything other than fact or propose teaching other origin theories other than evolution. But according to a new article I just received from a friend (thanks Chip), policymakers are beginning to question the science behind the theory of evolution.

While I am encouragement by this movement to call into question the underpinnings of evolution, I am even more heartened by the idea that intellectual diversity is being introduced in the classroom. While I am a conservative and a Christian, I form my opinions not by kow-towing to a "party line," but by investigating issues and options and coming to position through a reasoned approach. Even when I take my opinions from the Bible, I do not do so blindly, but strive to understand God's plan for my life. I don't want thinking and debate to become lost practices. If we allow anyone to merely give us our opinions, wisdom will cease to be. I define wisdom as the judicious application of knowledge to a given issue or problem. We must continue to think -- I mean really think -- about the issues that confront us individually and collectively or we will be slaves to those who control public information (the MSM).

Well, I just received a phone call from a company I recently interviewed with for a position in distribution channel development (marketing). Sorry, we hired someone with more experience in the industry. I had really hoped this one would come through for me. I realize that God has something in mind for me, I just wish I had some clue about what and when.

So, if you know of a company looking to hire a marketing professional with an MBA, drop me a line. Prayers are also welcome.

The Associated Press has reported that China's Parliament has enacted a law authorizing the use of military force in order to prevent the island nation of Taiwan from pursuing formal independence from mainland China. The previous day, China's President called for the Chinese military to be ready for war and also increased the military budget by 12.6%.

In 1957, President Eisenhower committed the Seventh U.S. Fleet to the Straits of Taiwan and prepared to defend Taiwan from what looked like the begining of a Chinese invasion of the island. The U.S. was unknowingly on the brink of war with China. We had faught the Chinese years earlier during the Korean War. Are we ready to do it again?

This would potentially be the biggest foreign policy test for any U.S. President in the history of our nation. The People's Republic of China has the largest military in the world -- 380 million service-age men. There is also the military dictum to "never fight a land war in Asia (Gen. Douglas McArthur?)." The potential for war with China, either on the island of Taiwan or on mainland China, is daunting to say the least. I am certain that such a war would require the complete focus of the American military, the American economy, and the American people. I think such a commitment would dwarf our experience in World War II. I would support such a war. On any scale. There are certain things that must be defended -- even at the cost of our lives.

But what if the people of the U.S. do not support fighting to keep Taiwan free? How can we maintain the mantle of defender of freedom and democracy if our public takes no concern for what is going on in the world outside American borders? I am afraid that the American public no longer has ideals. Nothing is worth fighting for. The tendency for our society to engage in relativism (moral or otherwise) will be the downfall of our society. If we can no longer stand on principle, what can we stand on?


UPDATE: Now, the U.S. has found evidence of China's transferring WMD technology to Iran. We have to do something!

No doubt that by now, if you've been watching the news, you have heard about the resolution of the Brian Nichols shooting spree and his surrender to the authorities on Saturday. Escapee Brian Nichols ended up taking Ashley Smith hostage for 13 hours before surrendering to authorities. Many have the question, "Why did Nichols surrender without a bit of animus after having shot at least four other people?" The answer is that Brian Nichols surrendered because of the power of the Holy Spirit to act through the life of one Christian woman.

During the 13 hours Nichols held Smith hostage, Ms. Smith read to Brian Nichols from both the Bible and Rick Warren's The Purpose-Driven Life. The Bible tells us that God will give us Christians the strength we will need for every situation in life through the Holy Spirit. There are too many examples of how God empowered people to achieve in His name to be listed here. Among them are Moses, Abraham, Joseph, Esther, Peter, and Paul. Each of these people opened themselves up to being led by God and empowered to do his will in the most hostile of situations. And yet we often don't think that we can live up to the examples of these great people of faith. They are nearly mythic. But, what Ashley Smith did on Saturday morning was no less God-empowered than these "heroes of the faith."

People will ask, though, why didn't God do something about the church members who were shot to death in Brookfield, Wisconsin? I don't know. Plain and simple. I can only speculate. It must be remembered though that, for Christians, death is not a terrible circumstance. For Christians, death is merely the first step in going to be with Jesus -- the goal of our Christian lives. For those Christians who were shot, they are standing beside Christ right now. But we will not know on this side of Heaven what God's plan is for the Brookfield church.

What should we learn from these events? First, God acts through His people and He empowers them to accomplish His goals. Be open to His leading in your life. Also, be aware that God's plans are not always evident. We cannot see as God sees. But trust in God will always be rewarded.

I praise God not only for His witness through Ashley Smith, but I also praise Him for showing His power through everyday people -- everyday heroes of the faith.

It would seem that Michael Schiavo is determined to have his ex-wife, Terri Schiavo, put to death. He has recently rejected offers of $1 Million and $10 Million to give up his rights to decide his former wife's fate. Recently, Judge George Greer denied the request of Florida's Department of Children & Families to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect being made against Michael Schiavo. Mr. Schiavo has repeatedly turned down offers by Terri's parents and family to take over her hospitalization and care.

I just learned that the judge who denied the request of the department of Children & Families is a Christian. Judge Greer attends a Southern Baptist Church in Clearwater, Florida. Members have begun calling Judge Greer and sending him e-mails in attempts to sway him. His response to the attempts by his fellow Christians is to stop attending his church and to quit giving to the church. How can Judge Greer not understand his Christian duty here? Doesn't he understand his duty to God is of greater importance than his duty to the courts? And he could accomplish his duties in both respects without compromising legal or moral ethics. He could end the whole fiasco by ordering Michael Schiavo to accept the requests to assume guardianship by Terri's parents.

How can anyone not see that Mr. Schiavo is determined to murder his ex-wife through the guise of legal action? It reminds me of the Baby Doe case from 1982. Care was available and cost was not an issue, but the courts ordered the hospital to allow the infant child to die from starvation. How can we stand back and allow an obvious murder?

It seems that whenever Kim Jong Il thinks things aren't going well for his hostage nation in the international arena, he takes it out on North Korea's people. Reports have come out about a new crackdown. Public executions, people being sold into labor- and sex-slavery.

When are we going to get serious about North Korea?

As many of you know, I belong to an online arts group called DeviantArt. While browsing recently, I came across a posting someone made of a characature entitled "Is This America?" The primary text on this characature is:


We've heard this before. And it is not unusual to find this sentiment on DeviantArt (DA). So I took up the gauntlet, and answered "No, it's not." Please go view the piece and look at the conversation that followed (it will be near the bottom of the page). While the author of the piece replied with ad hominem attacks, accusing conservatives (and myself) of being ignorant, I tried my best not to respond in kind. Name calling has replaced any reasoned debate on substantive issues. Although I've stated this point in the past, I greatly lament this degraded state of things.

I would be interested in your comments as well as a translation of the author's final comments (in German).


UPDATE: Someone requested that I post the transcript of the aforementioned conversation (if you can call it that) I had with the artist known as ReptileCartoons. here ya go.


Transcript (GD = GotDesign, RC = ReptileCartoons)

GD: No, it's not. (in response to the title of the piece -- Is This America?)

RC: unfortunately it is

GD: Prove it. Just because you don't care for the policies of the current administration does not make it de facto either racist (as indicated by the KKK hood) or under some kind of relifious control (cross on the flag). You're only falling for the rhetoric that is being thrown out by those who are angry because they no longer have the majoritarian position in government.

RC: sorry, i gave up discussing with conservatives about the bush administration a long time ago. i can't stand the ignorance anymore.

GD:

Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence

2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
- ig·no·rant·ly adverb
- ig·no·rant·ness noun
synonyms IGNORANT, ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not having knowledge. IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <>. ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a relative inability to read and write <>. UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the knowledge gained by reading . UNTUTORED may imply lack of schooling in the arts and ways of civilization . UNLEARNED suggests ignorance of advanced subjects <oetry not for academics but for the unlearned masses>.

Source: Merriam-Webster Online

Sorry, conservatives are not ignorant. They have a different position on social, cultural and political issues. Disagreeing with your opinions does not make them ignorant. To claim so is merely an attempt to avoid dialog and the dialectic process. What happened to the "open mind" of liberals?

RC: no, disagreeing with me doesn't make me ignorant. but being a religious republican does.

GD: That's twice you've misused the term ignorant. And while I have not called you ignorant, you continue to level ad hominem attacks at me. You're only confirming my point. Instead of debating or countering my arguments with reasoned critique, you call names. Liberals used to delight in debate because they felt their ideas were better. It's a shame that's no longer true.

I hope that you will open your mind to reasoned debate instead of unwarranted attacks. The Germans used to be among the best philosophers in the world.

RC: Die Ignoranz ist eine Verhaltensweise. Sie zeichnet sich dadurch aus, dass eine Person - der sogenannte Ignorant - etwas absichtlich nicht wissen will, etwas also ignoriert. Das Wort ist im Deutschen seit dem 16. Jahrhundert belegt und geht auf das lateinische Substantiv ignorantia = Unwissenheit, Dummheit bzw. das Verb ignorare = "nicht wissen", "nicht kennen" zurück.

my ideas are better and i know that you wouldn't understand them. have you ever seen a man talking to a chimp? looks crazy, doesn't it.

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, or a willful lack of desire to improve the efficiency, merit, effectiveness or usefulness of one's actions. Ignorance is also a "state of being ignorant" or unaware (not knowing).

GD: OK. Deny any discussion by switching into German. Then cast aspersions again and repeat the definition of ignorance. When you're ready to debate ideas, get back to me. Otherwise, have a nice life.

RC: thanks.

You're standing at an ATM machine located on a corner in the fringes of downtown Somewhere. Suddenly, you feel the barrel of a gun poke you in the ribs. "Give me your cash," a disturbed voice calls. You begin shaking. Your mind races. You pull the cash you've just withdrawn from your coat pocket and slowly and shakily extended it to the thief. As you hear the thief begin to turn and run, you clear your throat. "Here, have some more bullets as well." You pull out a box of 9mm ammunition and offer it up.

Italy has been the focus of a good portion of the world press due to the recent wounding of an Italian journalist and the death of an Italian intelligence agent. But this is not the truly troubling issue. In the heat of an ongoing battle with terrorist thugs, it is understandable that mistakes might be made and people innocently harmed. The true issue worthy of concern is Italy's paying of ransom to terrorists. Ransom goes way back in history. Shakespeare's Falstaff collected French nobles in battle in order to profit from ransoming them back to their country and loved ones. It was a shame, both to Falstaff and to the family of the nobles. Paying ransom encourages the taking of hostages. It also provides funding to terrorists to continue their fight.

Now, I can understand the desire to go any lengths to repatriate your fellow man. But there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed. Terrorists are not the most trusty of people. Why should they honor an agreement on ransom? Why not take the money and run? Or take the money and hold out for more?

Terrorists should never be rewarded for their thuggery. People who enter a war zone should be responsible for themselves. They should know, especially with the history of hostage taking (and killing) exhibited in Iraq, that by visiting a volatile region they run the risk of falling victim to the forces of chaos. If Italy wants to repatriate its citizens, begin negotiations while planning a rescue mission. Distract them with talks while striking them with special operations forces. You can protect your citizenry without give aid to terrorists.

Be responsible.

Some of you may have noticed that I've slowed down the pace of my blog postings. Part of it is a lack of interesting topics to blog on (from my point of view). Another thing is that I've had a very creative spark recently so I have spent more time on graphic design projects (see links below). In the meantime, I will continue posting, albeit at a slower pace. If you just have to have the GotDesign point of view, drop me a line and I'll post my opinion.

Just keeping you informed.

My Latest Designs
Typography 01
Typography 02
Typography 02B
Typography 03
Typography 04... completed

Let's think about this. An unmarked vehicle speeding toward a security checkpoint on the primary road to the Baghdad International Airport. Hmmm, sounds fishy. Flag them down. Stand in their way. Wait, they're not stopping! Light 'em up! Couple of shots into the engine block to stop the vehicle ought to do.

Results: one dead Italian intelligence agent, one wounded Italian journalist. Wait a minute! Where did all of these Italians come from? Why didn't they stop for the checkpoint? Poor communications.

And now, the Italian journalist (who reports forItaly's Communist daily, Il Manifesto) blames the U.S. What's up with dat?

Come on, all of you scientists, just say it! Repeat after me, "We...don't...know." Scientists found a skull in Indonesia. Only the skull. But they have already built an entirely "new species" of humans around this one skull. The AP report states that the scientists worked with "powerful imaging computers" to put together the entire skeleton of the species they're calling "Hobbit." It must be an extremely powerful computer if it can create an entire body from just the skull. Why can't they just say, "we don't know?"

Can you remember when you were in elementary school? It seems that every school had at least one kid with an apparently oversized head. Or the kid who was only 8, but was the size of a 14-year old? One of the wonderful things about human development is the extreme variety that is seen. Just think of the famous variants in human development. Growing up, I remember the wrestler (although I have never followed wrestling) Andre "the Giant" Roussimoff. I've even seen a Biography on Andre. On the other hand, there is Verne Troyer who played Mini-Me in Mike Myers' Austin Powers films. While Mr. Troyer may not be the smallest man, he is generally representative of those who are popularly called "dwarfs." From just a skull, there is no practical way to determine the former owner's height, weight, etc. Now, I'll admit that educated guesses can be made, but just remember the variation mentioned above.

Another big giveaway these scientists really don't know is the dating of the bones that were found. Scientists dated the bones to between 95,000 to 12,000 years ago. Earlier this week, I was listening to Hugh Hewitt talking about World Health Organization figures for the potential death toll from a worldwide outbreak of avian or "bird" flu. The WHO (not the rock group) estimates a death toll between 2 and 50 million people. Hugh's comment was that any time the number range is greater than 100%, they really just don't know. So, come on, between 95,000 and 12,000 years ago? Just tell me you don't know.

Just saw this posting via PowerLine. It seems that Liberals are pitching a fit and taking some action. The New York Times (the vehicle of choice for this sort of thing) is outing gays with ties to Republicans. I should have expected it. Maybe the gay community should sit up and take notice of the actions of folks they normally support.