What in God’s green earth do these things have in common? Well I’ll tell you, Firefighter Tennie Pierce. Here’s the news article.

Now my first question is, “is this prank racially motivated?” I don’t think so, but lets move on. Is that worth $2.7 million of tax dollars? 2.7 where no bodily harm was done.

Lets put some more perspective on this. A fire department investigation says the October 2004 incident was intended to be a prank to “humble” Pierce after a station volleyball game where he had said, “You guys keep feeding the Big Dog.” This seems to me to be a clear line between what he has said and the prank. Nothing, I repeat nothing to do with his race or the color of his skin.

Well then this must have been an isolated incident an he was singled out for a practical joke. NO!

This is a culture within the LAFD, good or bad it has nothing to do with race. Pranks appear to go round and round.

So why should tax payers be forced to pay that kind of money without a fight? Why didn’t city council choose to fight it? Why after seeing the photographs was there a tied vote of 6 to 6, denying a fight?

This is a dangerous paradigm made by our current society. If one is a minority, then there must be mistreatment because they are a minority and must be treated with extra care. This is incredibly dangerous. We see this in Universities, Lawsuits, and almost everywhere else in our culture. This is inherently racist and sexist, just dressed up differently. Think about it, you are no longer judging a person by merits, but by their race or sex. Sounds like racism and/or sexism to me.
This disgusts and depress’ me. What’s the solution?
If we start holding people accountable, we’re racist/sexist. If we bring attention to it, we’re racist/sexist. If we call down the monarchs of race and sex, we’re racist/sexist. If we let it be it sets a standard for racism and sexism, therefore we’re racist/sexist.

Guess we just have to do whats right and take the heat. Call people down for what they are really doing, intentionally or not.

One of the ironies of those seeking to increase the levels of “tolerance” in our community is how little tolerance is allowed for the intolerant.

tol·er·ance (tŏl’ər-əns) n.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
2. 1. Leeway for variation from a standard.
   2. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
3. The capacity to endure hardship or pain.

Our society currently favors a definition of tolerance that says, “Everything must be tolerated except for beliefs or a world view that says some choices are wrong.” That seems to be one of the many messages coming out of a controversy in Houston centered around a landscaping company refusing to provide services to a gay couple. The short version of the story is this: a gay couple solicited bids from various landscapers to do work. One company refused to submit a bid, writing a letter that explained that they did not serve homosexuals. The gay couple sent a copy of the letter to two hundred email correspondents who in turn circulated the letter around the world. Shortly thereafter the landscaping company website was flooded with hate mail, including violent threats to sodomize the owners and their children.

I don’t think the real story here is one of the radical fringe of the homosexual community. I recognize that the radical fringe, those who would threaten violence - especially against children - is a small group, though they get a disproportionate amount of the attention is situations like this. It’s also not a story about ignorance - ignorance is not the same as intolerance.

Rather, I see this as a story of the intolerance of tolerance, how the requirement for tolerance is itself intolerant. The requirement for tolerance of homosexuals is intolerant of those who would see the homosexual lifestyle as something not to be supported. While I don’t agree with the actions taken by the landscaping company, they are within their rights to refuse service to homosexuals and I can tolerate their views. There is a lack of understanding of what true tolerance is in the homosexual community when the response to bigotry is to say, “You must tolerate us - or else you’re ignorant and intolerant.”

None of this is really news - accusation of intolerance has become the tool de jour of activists seeking advancement of an agenda. Nobody on the receiving end of the “intolerance” attack has yet been able to eloquently demonstrate the hypocrisies of tolerance enforcement, so these attacks will continue in recognition of their effectiveness. Rather, what distresses me about this particular story is the assertion by the landscapers that they are refusing service to homosexuals because they are Christians. This makes total sense because as Christians we are called to model Christ in our lives. We all know that Jesus was somebody who didn’t deal with sinners, ever. He didn’t hang out with tax collectors or adulterers or worse. He certainly didn’t seek to effect change in his society through engagement at all levels. Wait a second…

Jesus never condoned actions he disagreed with, but he understood that the good news he was bringing about the love of God and the promise of freely given salvation wasn’t just for the righteous - the message was for everybody (landscapers and homosexuals alike). Jesus took his message to a level beyond tolerance - his message was love for mankind, not simply tolerance. The inability of the conservative Christian community to show love is a blight on the legacy of Jesus and I am shamed when I hear stories like this. Yet all sides must realize that forcing people to tolerate one another through external compulsion will not have the effect of creating a truly tolerant society. We need to follow the higher examples shown to us by Jesus - love beats tolerance in effecting hearts and minds and certainly does more good than laws, regulations or coercion ever will.

When did the Romans figure out that they were in trouble? Was it when their armies stopped pushing the frontiers of the Roman Empire further and further out? Was it when the barbarians sacked Rome? Was it when the Republic was undermined and replaced with Emperors? Was it when the Holy Roman Emperor was forced to move his capital to Constantinople?

The truth is that the Romans never really figured out that they were in trouble, even to the last, and so were powerless to stop their slide. If they had put the pieces together before the Seven Hills were burning they could have done something about it. Who could have stood against the might of the Romans, had they decided to act?

But instead of seeing the collapse of their civilization and their way of life coming, they chose willfully to ignore it. Decline over hundreds of years is difficult to measure and, it’s even more difficult to incite a popular response to something that seems impossible. The Romans didn’t do themselves any favors though - to speak of weakness and decay was criminal in ancient Rome. The truth of the matter was that the Romans had forgotten what it was to be Roman (foreign conquest and administration, excellence in sciences) and became focused on what it took to wrestle power and advantage for themselves within the confines of what had already been built over the proceeding centuries.

Even given obvious signs of collapse as early as 200AD, it’s fascinating that it took another 200 years for the collapse to be fully realized. The momentum that Roman culture was able to generate was mind blowing.

Wikipedia for more info

Elections are times of reflection for me whether the candidates that I prefer are elected or defeated. I consider the state of our nation as a whole and the tone of the debate and I ask myself, “Are we the Roman Empire yet? Are we a nation that is cruising on inertia, whose motor has stopped running?” This election has solidified in my mind that yes, we are.

Political debate during the election cycle this year could have dealt with substantive issues for our nation, but they didn’t. We could have had a real dialogue about the consequences of and response to illegal immigration - of large parts of our society purposely and willfully existing in violation to the law. We could have had a debate on how we are going to power our growth as a nation without being tied to foreign despots. We could have had a debate on how better to kill terrorists. We could have had a debate on how to be better Americans, spreading peace, freedom, truth and light to the darkest corners of the world. But we didn’t.

This election instead was a referrendum on personality, it seems. Our politicians are satisfied with turning their attention inward, to making politics about personality rather than prinicipal and we the polity are foolishly encouraging and allowing this. We have lost the perspective to independently see things in their appropriate context and instead accept information and issues as portrayed by activists. With activists controlling the tone and tenor of a debate - activits who don’t seek truth or wisdom but only seek victory despite the cost - we all suffer.

With our nation turned in on itself, fighting battles for power instead of principle, I don’t expect that we will remain #1 in the world for long, though that has a lot to do with who will stand up to displace us. Sadly, this is likely a fatal slide we’ve abandoned ourselves to - I can’t think of a single nation in the history of this earth that has been able to reassert itself once its motor of purpose and principle has shut off. Just like size and success leads to stagnation in corporations and familial dynasties, nations seem unable to achieve beyond a certain point and period in time.

But we’re still #1 for now. Hurrah.

This is unbeleivably sick. Under the guise of celebration they are teaching racism; Demonizing Israel (Jews) and all associated with them. Another underlying message is that this “truth” is so obvious (how evil Israel & the Jews are) that even a child can see it.
The music makes me ill.

When do we decide that enough damage is being done to the U.S. in Iraq?

I have been in agreeance with the War from the beggining. We did not know what we know now. I even have agreed that we needed to stay and defend Iraq. But I think we have messed it up beyond repair and we’re not wanted. If we’re worried about losing Iraq to terrorism, I think we already have.

So I ask “at what point do we pick up our toys and leave?”

I think the time is here.

With the war on “terror” my mind has wondered through ways of getting information. One common way of doing this is torture. There has been much hubub as to whether torture is neccesary. I think it is, though it should be used in extreme cases (McCane has taken much heat over this). Where that line is, I don’t know. The circumstances are rare that we know whether or not there is solid information. I also would like to note that results could be grim; when and if this were to happen I expect the world community to understand.

Here is a compelling argument that torture does not work. I feel the article overlooks whether the information has been gleened. For a low man on the totum pole the information is probably not worth much, but the higher & higher one gets… Any truth gleaned is invaluable. Though, this truth must be verified and cannot be taken at face value.

Ultimately torture is of little use to those whome one doesn’t know how much they know and have little to no access to crucial information. Making more subtle methods practical.

For me, currently, a common practice of torture is worthless and not good for American policy. But I do believe in the option of resorting to it in those rare cases of great need. Torture is not a happy feel good subject, nor should it be. But it can still be neccesary.

I will post one more article on this Kerry event. This article here details some clear and home-hitting ideas that outline the real reasons Kerry’s comment was so unacceptable and how this one comment might hurt the democratic party in next week’s elections. My favorite line is this one: He (Kerry) accomplished in one unguarded moment what Republicans have been trying to do for the last several months: make this election a choice between competing candidates and not a referendum on Republican rule.

Senator Kerry is the public servant I am talking about. Politics aside, he said something which offended me and I am sure, many others who are serving or have served our country. I am not one to get all up in arms over comments about the Military. Sure, the Military has its weaknesses. I know, because during my time in the Military I saw weaknesses and strengths. Listen to what Kerry said, here. Regardless of what he said before or after that comment, I care nothing about. The fact remains that he said what he said. And, he refuses to say he is sorry. Many college graduates, non-graduates, Officers and others serve our Military. Not all of them are smart (however or whoever defines intelligence), sure, but most have one thing in common - preserving our freedom, that most Americans hold quite dearly. His comment suggests that only “losers” go to Iraq. As in, only dumb people sign up for the Military. Of course, he tried to peddle backwards through a news conference he held yesterday (about two minutes long) here. How arrogant he is to stand there and say, “Now, if those 140,000 people serving really believe that what I was saying was directed at them, then they are crazy. I was directing my comment at the President. It was a botched joke.” Ok, let’s dissect “botched” from an etymological standpoint. Botched means to ruin through clumsiness, to bungle. So, if I get this right, he directed a bungled and clumsy joke towards the President which used as its main subject this: that only uneducated people go to Iraq or serve in the Military. Mmmmn, doesn’t sound like this is directed towards the President to me. Oh, and Senator Kerry, this is posted by a Navy Veteran and college graduate. But then again, I guess you are correct, because I cannot even spell!