Bill of Rights [Revised]

Amendment I
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 II
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.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
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.

Any further edits?

Boxes Are My Friends

I like boxes. Boxes are my friends. It pains me dearly to every dispose of a box, unless it no longer is capable of holding its shape or its cargo.

I even like empty boxes. I store them under my desk at work. I stack them one inside another and pile them in my garage at home.

Empty boxes are the ultimate in the "you never know" mentality. You never know if you might need a box just that size tomorrow, next week, next month. It could be for anything. Containing a stack of loose-leaf paper for delivery, carrying some food to a potluck, storing mementos for long periods, or disguising a Mothers Day or Christmas present.

Empty boxes are beautiful in their universial usefulness.

I'm a bit of a pack rat, so throwing anything away can be difficult for me, but oftentimes the object in question has no merit. It has no purpose in life, other than a tenuous connection to a memory of days gone past.

Boxes, though, are all about the future. They will become useful and necessary in your future. You will need a box sometime soon.

And so I collect them, waiting for that day.

Don't worry, little cardboard box. Your day will come. Your day will come.

News from Thailand

The Thai military is having some problems with their coup d'etat, but not the kind you'd expect.

Last week they required their soldiers to smile. This week, Thais and tourists have been taking pictures of the soldiers and tanks, posing for pictures with them, and dancing for them.

The leaders ruled that tourists are "no longer permitted to handle weapons when posing for photographs with troops still deployed in Bangkok." Makes good sense, I think.

Thai go-go dancers entertained the troops on Monday, but today, the military leaders ruled that such provocative dancing is "not appropriate."

And the best line from the article? It comes from Lt. Gen. Palangoon Klaharn, a military spokesman: "We have to maintain the seriousness of the coup."

What if we had a coup and nobody cared? Party on!

Here are the dancers who provoked this ruling:

United Dictators

Quick! Who has a grenade?



It's three of your favorite dictators meeting together with all the rest of them in Havana. Left to right, that's Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Lukashenko of Belarus, and Chavez of Venezuela.

This one's an odd pairing, though:



That's India's Prime Minister Singh hugging Iran's President Ahmadinejad. I guess it's just proof that the Non-Aligned Movement isn't prejudiced against non-dicatorships.

Here, this one's more like it:



Musharraf of Pakistan and Raul Castro of Cuba, of course.

This next one must be photoshopped, because Fidel is dead, isn't he?

Never Forget

I'm proud to be an American,
Where at least I know I'm free.
And I won't forget the men who died,
Who gave that right to me.

And I gladly stand up next to you
And defend her still today,
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land.
God bless the USA.

Places You Don't Want to Live

Freedom House yesterday released a list of the most repressive countries in the world. It's really just the same-old, same-old, but it's worth remembering.

Belarus
Burma
Chechnya (Russia)
China
Cuba
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Haiti
Laos
Libya
North Korea
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tibet (China)
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Western Sahara (Morocco)
Zimbabwe

And to think the worst I have to worry about is my boss asking me to move to Portland for two months. . .

Why not Seattle?

In a Vermont town called Brattleboro, teenagers (of both sexes) have been hanging out in the nude all summer. There are no laws against public nudity, but some locals are concerned it will give Brattleboro a bad name and drive away business.

But I wonder, if teens in a rural blue state like Vermont feel free to walk around town naked, why does this not happen in an uber-blue city like Seattle? I mean, we don't even have any clothing-optional beaches!

This city is a lot more conservative than it thinks it is.

Killing Is Wrong

A simple answer to complex problems, good for many political debates: Killing is wrong.

Use liberally when discussing abortion, Islamic fascism, euthanasia, gun control, capital punishment, etc.

For example: "Killing is wrong, therefore good people need to carry guns to protect themselves from bad people who otherwise might kill them."

Or: "Killing is wrong, therefore if you kill somebody, you forfeit your right to exist."

It's true that not all debates can be argued this way. For some, you'll have to revert to "All men are created equal" or "humans are more important than other species." But those aren't as definitive, so try to stick to arguments where you can use the "killing is wrong" slogan.

Go India!

Happy Independence Day, India!

It's been 59 years since you shucked off the yoke of British rule and you're doing quite well for yourself. You're the biggest good country on the planet!

Your neighbor, Pakistan, celebrated independence yesterday, but they're not so cool. Military dicatorships can do that to a country. You're much better.

Yay, India!

Baghdad Jim

Three weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed a resolution (HR 921) which supported Israel's right to defend itself against its enemies (Hezbollah, Hamas). I noticed that my representative (who I would never vote for) voted against the resolution. He was one of eight "no" votes.

So I asked him why.

He finally responded today. Here is his reply, in full:

Dear Mark:

Thank you for your recent communication regarding the conflict between Israel and the terrorist forces of Hezbollah and Hamas. These attacks make it even more urgent for our government to pursue an even-handed foreign policy in the Middle East, a goal that has yet to be embraced by the House of Representatives.

Recently, the House voted to pass House Resolution 921, which guaranteed American support for Israeli military action anywhere in the Middle East. One clause in the resolution said that we "support Israel's right to take appropriate action to defend itself, including to conduct operations both in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it." I have unwavering support for Israel, its safety, security and right to exist, but I also know from experience how this kind of language can be interpreted. I voted against this bill because it is a blank check that could include such rash actions as a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

A resolution in the House of Representatives will not change what the world already knows about U.S. support for Israel's right to exist, but it might encourage what the world already fears: a wider war with greater casualties, undermining fragile but crucial support for Israel among Arab nations, and further endangering Israelis and other innocent civilians across the region.

As rockets continue to kill innocent civilians in both Southern Lebanon and Israel, lasting peace in the Middle East might seem like a pipe dream. The United States, however, cannot sit idly by and condone further killing on both sides of this conflict. At the recent talks in Rome, American diplomats failed to support a cease-fire proposal that was supported by the majority of the 15 other nations participating in the talks.

It is with this in mind that I have signed on to co-sponsor H. Con. Res. 450 calling for an immediate cessation of violence. We must use our influence as the world's only superpower to foster peace in the world's most violent regions.

Thank you for writing and I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as the 109th Congress continues.

Sincerely,
Jim McDermott
Member of Congress

Maybe I should ask him what he thinks of Frank J's proposal.

Nah. Here's the response I sent him:

In the world, there are good guys and there are bad guys. Do not treat democratic, free nations as equal to repressive, theocratic regimes. If you truly want peace in the world, you must defeat the bad guys. Otherwise, we're just their dhimmis, bowing our heads till they chop them off.

Mark Knoke

My Geopolitical Analysis

The Good Guys:
United States of America
Israel
Australia
United Kingdom
South Korea
Taiwan

The Bad Guys:
Iran
North Korea
Syria
Saudi Arabia
China
Russia

10:30

By the middle of the morning on a Monday, I am quite ready to leave work. I get a taste of freedom (the weekend) and three hours here is too much!

Live Free or Die

Well, that's the wrong state's motto, but it fits the story. A self-proclaimed State of Washington citizen (not a U.S. citizen!) is being locked up for eight years for failing to pay his income taxes. Mr. Stephenson has declared that the IRS has no authority to collect taxes. I guess he missed that particular Amendment to the Constitution.

I once heard (and it quite struck my fancy) that if you try to live freely and don't pay your taxes, the government will kill you. Mr. Stephenson is well on his way to this result. He has already taken the first few steps by not paying taxes and being imprisoned. Now all he needs to do is try to escape and live freely. After the trial, he declared the proceedings a "sham conviction," so I wouldn't put an escape attempt past him. And that's when the feds start shooting.

Maybe I shouldn't post this. . .

I was reading an article on Freedom House's website, translated from Spanish to English via Google, and came across the following sentence: "The report talks about to the 2005 like an equally lethal anus for the journalists whom the 2004 and the assault wave happened in April describes."

Um. . .

Screed

I have in my head ideas for a long essay about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and how they relate to things like comas and rape abortions, but I just haven't found the time yet to write it. Planning a vacation is more fun.

Freedom in the World

In which of the following countries would you rather live:

Burma
Cuba
Libya
North Korea
Sudan
Syria
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Tibet
Chechnya

These are the countries (and territories) ranked as the least-free places in the world by the Freedom House, with a maximum 7 score in both Political Rights and Civil Liberties. I guess the real question isn't whether you want to live there, but what should we do to improve democracy and freedoms in these lands?

Just so you know, the best countries (with a minimum 1 score in both categories) are:

Andorra
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Canada
Cape Verde
Chile
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Kiribati
Latvia
Liectenstein
Lithuania
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Micronesia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Palau
Poland
Portugal
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Puerto Rico

More Mars!

A very cool website courtesy of the folks at Google: Mars. Sure, they may trample on free speech to cozy up to China, but at least they can make pretty pictures available to all.

You can click on spacecraft up at the top and it will pinpoint all the robots that have crashed and/or landed on the ruddy planet. See if you can find where the Polar Lander died.

The main map is false-color topographical, but you can also select "visible" (black and white) and "infrared," which someone will have to explain to me, but it's actually the one I recognize the best. Zoom in on the crater of Olympus Mons. (Do a search for Olympus.) Volcanic craters upon volcanic craters.

Parts of the Koran are good, but. . .

The suras of the Koran can be separated into two basic groups: Mecca and Medina. Proper Koranic scholars divide it up further, but there's no real need. The division of the suras is not obvious, because early in the Koran's history, somebody (an engineer, probably) decided to arrange them by length, from longest to shortest. So the earlier Mecca writings are shuffled in with the later Medina writings.

In Mecca, Mohammed's writings were somewhere between Jesus and Karl Marx. Everybody can get along, nobody should be poor, etc. He said he was transcribing God's words, and I believe he believed that. I, for one, have had days where the words just flow out of my pen seemingly without imput from my brain. I've called it a muse, but if you're writing religion, it might as well be an angel.

In his early days, Mohammed's followers were the poor and downtrodden. After all, he was promising them a better life. A new world order. Everybody's equally rich.

As for what he thought of different religions, here's sura 63: "O ye unbelievers, I worship not that which ye worship, Nor are ye worshipping that which I worship. Never shall I be a worshipper of what ye worship, Nor will ye be worshippers of that which I worship. Ye have your religion, and I have my religion." We can all get along.

But then he gained military and political power. He fled to Medina and became the city's ruler. His writings changed tone. For some reason, God began caring more about civil administration. The Medina writings are the basis of sharia law. I would guess that Mohammed no longer had his muse at this point, but had to keep writing to basically finish what he started.

And what did God now think of unbelievers? Sura 4.74: "Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward." Sura 4.76: "Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of Satan. Fight therefore against the friends of Satan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak."

There are many inconsistancies in the Koran, on a variety of subjects. Apparently the people in charge decided long ago that God was capable of changing his mind, and so later writings supercede earlier writings. This helped them out, because they didn't have to give up their power per Mohammed's communist Mecca writings. But this also means that the jihadists today completely ignore the love-thy-neighbor parts of the Koran.

In the 1950's, a Sudanese man named Mahmoud Muhammad Taha espoused the concept that Muslims should reject the Medina rules and return to the Mecca teachings, and how about some democracy while we're at it? But Sudan has gone steadily downhill since then. Taha was executed as a heretic in 1985. Arab nations don't seem to have changed much in the past 21 years. . .

The World Does Not Agree with You

Everybody in the world does not agree with my beliefs. Everybody in the world does not agree with your beliefs. It's a fact of life. Get used to it.

And no amount of yelling and screaming and killing is going to change anybody's minds or hearts. That's just not how to win an argument. Perhaps your opponent will back down, but you won't have changed their minds. They'll still disagree with you--and they'll hold a grudge.

The way to win arguments is by calmly and rationally presenting the facts in a manner that is twisted to suit your beliefs. Throw in a few "therefores." Those always sound good. . . . Not to say you can't be passionate. Passion works real good, too. But it has to be positive passion, that includes your target, not negative passion that attacks them.

For example, compare the success rates of Christian missionaries to Islamic jihadists. And by "success rates," I do not mean body counts. I mean conversions.

Or you could just control the media. That's how dictatorships do it.

Blasphemy

Is it just me, or do Muslims take their religious too seriously? If somebody were to draw cartoons of Jesus in an unflattering manner, do you think Christians would riot, kidnap foreigners, boycott products from certain countries, and threaten suicide bombings, attacks on embassies, general murder and mayhem, etc. etc. etc.? No, they would just bring legal charges against the artist for blasphemy and try to have his home country arrest him. A much more civilized way to go about it, if you ask me.

Oddly enough, I was actually in Greece when an appeals court struck down the blasphemy conviction. I didn't hear a word of it. The news was all about Macedonia's name and the pope elections.

UPDATE (Feb 3): In Indonesia, they've actually followed through on their threats to attack embassies. And Muslims in London are threatening a European September 11, carrying signs saying, "Free speech go to hell!"