The Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

On September 20th, 2011 the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule in the military was officially ended, allowing gay/lesbian military personnel to serve openly in the United States Armed Forces - without fear of reprisal.

It ends what some call "invidious sexual discrimination" based on sexual preference.  They have compared this to two other major civil rights decisions:  President Truman's de-segregation of the US Armed Forces in 1948, or the landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in Loving vs Virginia in 1967.

And in both of these cases I can clearly understand how these things serve to undermine the liberties we enjoy here in the United States.

However, the whole issue with homosexuality pulls me both ways.

First:  There is the whole "Civil Rights" thing - why should we discriminate against same-sex marriages?

On the other hand:  Though the Bible doesn't speak about segregated military forces, or cross-racial marriages, it does speak very loudly on the subject of homosexuality - for example, there is an explicit reference in Romans 1:27 forbidding it.  At this same site - in the right margin - are a number of other Scripture references forbidding homosexuality.

So, I feel like the crowd in 1 Kings 18:21 where Elijah says "How long halt ye between two opinions?"

So, here's my quandry:

• If I go with my conscience - favoring same sex marriages based on basic civil liberty, I find myself in direct opposition to God's Word.
• However, if I toe-the-line with respect to the Word of God as revealed in Romans 1:27, I find myself in direct opposition to both my conscience and the unbridled liberty that I, as a child of the living God, enjoy in Christ Jesus.
  Viz.:
  John 8:11,
  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more
  Romans 8:39,
  Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
  Romans 8:1,
  Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

So, despite my conscience's belief that same-sex marriages are OK, I still find it difficult to accept homosexuality per-se.

And yet. . . .  And yet. . . .  If Christ does not condemn me, what gives me the right to condemn anyone else?

What say ye?

Jim (JR)

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

I am sure, (actually I am hoping!), that you are familiar with The Sorcerer's Apprentice by Dukas, where the poor fool tries to user the Sorcerer's magic to help him clean up the lab - and he ends up with much more than he bargained for!

Me, I've never claimed to be Einstein and when I screw up, I usually do it by the numbers. . . .

Yesterday, I decided to make a big 'ole pot of Chili - one of my favorites!  Svetlana complained that we had a bunch of bags of beans that "You NEVER use!" so, I decided to use some.

I found a couple of bags that had been opened previously and poured them into a smallish pot - oh, about two cups worth of dried beans from each bag.  Now this is a gallon-sized pot with about 2 kg, (or so), of dried beans in it, filling the pot about half-full.  I thoroughly wash the beans and then put them in the pot, filling it almost all the way to the top with water.  I heat the water to a boil, turn off the flame and, (after putting a lid on them), set them aside to soak over-night.

I remember thinking while I was pouring the dried beans into the pot, though the red kidney beans looked OK, the black beans looked kind-of-small.  When I buy black beans in cans they're usually something like two or three times the size. . . .  Oh well, maybe these are a smaller variety - and I didn't give it a second thought.

After setting the beans to soak, I went back downstairs into my Dungeon to continue trying to figure out how to get my Dell Optiplex 740 to use hardware virtualization.  (I ultimately succeeded, but that's a separate article.)

About an hour or so later, I went back upstairs to do something - and I decided to check on the beans.

WOW!

The beans had begun to push the top off of the pot.  Not to mention that they had soaked up every darn drop of water in that pot.  And, it looked like they hadn't finished soaking either.  (Hmmm. . . .  No wonder those black beans looked so small. . . .)

I immediately transferred them to a larger pot, (about 2x the size!), added more water, reheated, placed a lid on them and let them continue soaking.

This morning I came down to check on them - and darn if they hadn't filled THAT pot too. . .

Well, anyway, they were finished soaking - at least as far as I was concerned - so I got out my big chili-pot and went to work.  I seriously thought about dividing the pot of beans in half, but I had no idea how to store them so they would not spoil.  "Heck!" I said.  "In for a penny, in for a pound.", so I ended up using the whole pot of beans in my chili.

By dinner-time we had a really nice pot of chili.  Though it had a LOT of beans in it.

I remembered that when I saw that first pot, the beans pushing the lid out of the way, it reminded me of the Sorcerer's Apprentice - boy had I ended up with a lot more than I had bargained for!

What say ye?

Jim

"Is America Islamophobic?"

This was the headline on the front cover of the August 30th, 2010 issue of Time Magazine.

The article was a discussion of the controversy surrounding the plans to build a mosque near the Ground Zero site - and there were many capable arguments on both sides.

This blog post is not intended to be a re-hash of that article, but rather a forum where I can express my own thoughts and reasoning on this matter, with a view toward engaging in healthy discourse and debate.

---

First of all, I have absolutely no issue with followers of Islam, the Islamic religion, mosques, or "Islam" in general.  What I DO repudiate are the extremists - of any faith or persuasion - who seek to achieve their ends through senseless acts of terrorism.

I also don't have any issues with mosques in general, even in downtown Manhattan.  If these people can afford the multi-gazillion-dollar per square foot that land goes for these days in NYC, they're more than welcome!

Where I do run into problems, is with the idea of building a mosque all but literally on top of Ground Zero.

I raised this question a while back on Facebook, and I received two broad classes of reply:

• The "Right on, Brother!  Preach it, brother, preach it!!" kind of response.
• As well as the "Don't be so insensitive.  Muslims died in the 9/11 disaster too."

---

Before anyone decides to point the Fickle Finger of Fate and call me "racist"; let me tell you about "racist", having grown up in the South-East corner of Virginia.  This is a place where they practiced both bible-thumping and rabid racism.  (And if that's not a combination gone to seed, then I am no judge!)  This absolutely repulsive double-standard has, if anything, made me even more tolerant of differences in race, creed, color, national origin, etc. etc. etc.

My objection to a mosque at Ground Zero is, not that I object to mosques, but that I believe a mosque at that particular location is singularly inappropriate in light of the events that happened there.

But!  "Muslims died in the 9/11 disaster too!"  Absolutely right.  Along with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Hari-Krishna's, atheists, and people from every possible walk of life - from the blood-poor to the insanely rich - and the memorial planned for that site memorializes everyone that died there that day and in the days thereafter.  Not just the Baptists, or Episcopalians, or whatever - the memorial there represents everybody who died on that tragic day.

The juxtaposition of a mosque at the site of what has to be one of the most tragic acts of Islamic extremism, would be like the Japanese wanting to erect a Shao-lin temple at the site of the Arizona memorial, memorializing the brave Japanese who died that day while attacking Pearl Harbor.

Do I object to the Japanese as a "race" or as a people?   Of course not.  Do I have a bone to pick with the Shao-lin faith?  Absolutely not.  I have every confidence that the descendants of Japanese immigrants fought and died at Perl Harbor, right alongside of the descendants of other more European-like races.

What I do know, and what is a matter of historical record, is that those descendants of Japanese immigrants living in Hawaii were so angered by the attack - by Japanese no less! - that they immediately thereafter took down any traces of Japanese writing, decoration, or anything else associated with Japan, culturally or otherwise.

You could easily say "But Japanese [Americans] died in the Pearl Harbor debacle that day!" and you'd be right.  But the Arizona memorial doesn't memorialize just the "white" race - it memorializes everyone that died that day, be they white, black, yellow, red, blue, purple or polka-dotted.

I am equally sure that if anyone suggested a memorial to the Glorious Nazi Sacrifice during WWII being placed at Auschwitz or Buchenwald, (or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter), they would encounter enormous opposition.

Did German soldiers fight and die during WWII?  Of course they did; and death in battle is probably one of the more gruesome ways to die.  However I believe that a Nazi memorial at the German Death Camps would be as singularly inappropriate as a Japanese memorial in Pearl Harbor, or a Islamic memorial at Ground Zero.

What say ye?

Jim

What I believe. (At least in part)

One of the things I have been re-assessing is precisely where I stand personally, morally and politically.  If I’m going to have a soap-box, I’d darn well better know where I’m standing when I get up on it.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that I am probably a lot more “conservative” than people might think.

Of course my definition of “conservative” may not jibe very well with the definitions held by Rush Limburger or Pat Robbingson.  And no, if you disagree with me, or do something other than what I might suggest, you are *NOT* “un-saved” and you are *NOT* going to hell as a result of it.  Regardless of what your – or someone else’s – pastor may say about it.

First of all:  I believe in my absolute and total liberty in Jesus Christ.  I also believe in my absolute and total responsibility for the things that I do.  “All things may be lawful, but they are not all expedient.”

Second:  I believe that a rule should “lay flat” and apply to everyone equally, or apply to none at all.

I believe that the various rules and laws should apply to everyone in equal measure – be they individuals, businesses, or governments – everyone should be playing by the same rules.  Be they black, white, red, yellow, orange, blue, purple, or polka-dotted.  Regardless of their race, creed, color, gender, or sexual orientation.  Regardless of their being rich, poor, or somewhere in between.  Rules should apply to everyone in equal measure – and if they cannot do that, then they should be repealed.

For example, if the government is going to give trillions of dollars to Bank of America to bail them out – Bank of America should not be allowed to turn around and slit the throat of people who are being crushed by the economic down-turn by foreclosing their houses out from under them – and then gloat over the “record profits” they claim to have.  If Uncle Sam is going to toss trillions of dollars at Bank of America, General Motors, Goldman-Sachs, and God Only Knows Who Else – then I believe I have a right to expect that Uncle Sam will throw gobs and gobs of money my way to bail out my own turkey ass as well.

I believe that both Governments and Businesses have a moral responsibility toward the “little people” who support them.  It is morally, (and should be legally), a crime for some company to, actually and literally, impoverish an entire city or town by moving all the jobs to Sri-Lanka in the name of increasing their already obscene profits.  And if they DO want to do that – as is their right – then the government should exercise its right to withhold perks, credits, tax incentives, bail-outs, and other government money they may be expecting.  Or demand an immediate refund – plus interest – at the bank's own obscene Credit-Card rates, of course!

I absolutely oppose things like “gun control” for the same reasons.  The Constitution grants us the right to “keep and bear arms”.  It doesn’t say anything about what kind of arms, how they should be “kept” or “born”, or whether you agree, disagree or just don’t give a damn.  It simply says we have that right.  Period.  This reminds me of a sign that I saw when I was working at Gull:  It said “Perform exactly like the specification, or get the specification officially changed.”

The other side of that is this:  If, while “bearing arms” you commit a violent crime using those arms – be it a mugging, a robbery, rape, or whatever – the law should come down on you like a ton of brick.  Period.

I believe that we, as members of human-kind and as citizens of this country, have the right to expect to be treated graciously, reasonably, and with respect.  I also believe that as members of human-kind and as citizens of this country, we have the unflinching responsibility to treat others in that exact same way.

Sadly, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are on the same page with me.

What say ye?

Jim

The Shadow Knows!

This posting was inspired by an e-mail thread with a friend of mine.  This individual was unhappy with the fact that this blog does not, (did not - I've changed it), allow anonymous comments.

Far be it from me to stand on my soap-box, perched precariously atop my Ivory Tower, and send thunderbolts from on high to smite the mere mortals gathered below to worship me.  [ ;-) ]  Since this appears to be an issue - I figured that maybe this was something that I should post up here and open for discussion.

My other blog, QA Tech-Tips, allows anonymous comments by default.  So far the QA Tech-Tips blog has not gained enough traction to attract spam-bots yet.  So, anonymous comments are not really an issue.

However, this blog didn't allow anonymous comments - and I did that for several reasons:

• The spam-burden from registering for these blogs is de-minimus, if my own experience is any indicator.  I have not seen an increase in the level of spam-mail since signing up and creating these blogs.
• This blog can be, (and should be), controversial.  It seems to me that requiring people that post to have some kind of an identity - be it only an avatar - would help promote sane and respectful debate.  Especially since blog comments are absolutely not moderated at all.
• I hope that this blog gains more traction than the QA Tech-Tips blog did.  If and when it does, both trolls and spam-bots could become a real issue.
• The ranking, rating and ultimate visibility of this blog is strongly influenced by the number of registered users who both view and participate, as well as the number of "followers" that this blog has.  (Hint! Hint!)
• And the biggest reason of all:  I forgot to check and adjust the blog settings when I set this blog up!

Because this seems to be an issue that bears discussion, I have allowed - at least for the time being - anonymous comments.

I am opening this issue for comments, anonymous or otherwise, with the following two questions asked:

1. Why not sign up?  (That is, what issue or issues prevent you from wanting to do so.)
2. What benefits - if any - would this blog see if anonymous comments were made a permanent feature of this blog?

Bottom line:
I would like all the readers of this blog to vote by commenting below, either yes or no, to the question "Should this blog allow anonymous comments?"  Of course, you can vote anonymously if you should so wish.  (chuckle!)

What say ye?

Jim

Jim Speaks Out!Huh? What's all the shoutin' about!?

If you've come to visit my (relatively) new blog, thank you and welcome!

"Wassup with the new blog?" you may say.

Well, it's kinda' like this. . . .

I already have an existing blog - and it has become, perhaps a little-bit, famous (or infamous), as the case may be.  If curiosity overwhelms you, you can find it here:  http://www.qatechtips.com/

However, sometimes I have things I want to say that really aren't "Tech-Tips" - and it's really not reasonable, or appropriate, to put them there.  Especially if it's me standing on my soap-box ranting and raving about some apparent stupidity that I've seen.

So!  I created this blog whose sole purpose in life is to give me a bully pulpit to speak my mind on whatever I darn well please.  Be it the completely crazy weather in New England, my views on the state of affairs - politically, that is - or whatever else I decide to talk about.

I promise to do my best to make each post as engaging as I can.

In essence, it's me "editorializing" on something I believe needs to be said.  If you're not interested in editorials, you can stop reading now and I promise not to be offended.

It is also possible that you might agree, disagree, or even be offended by my posts.  Rather than send me an e-mail with your views, I heartily recommend that you post a comment to this blog.  This way everyone who reads it can benefit from what you have to contribute.

You may have noticed my tag-line at the bottom of every blog post: "What say ye?"  It's not there just because I like it - it's an open invitation to join the fun and make your own views known.

Another thing:  I am a firm believer in freedom of speech, and the right of every participant in this blog to speak their mind.  Regardless of whether or not they agree with me.  Because of this comments to this blog, (as well as my other blog(s) ), are never "moderated" - what you say gets seen by everyone else instantly.

The other side of that liberty is this:  Though you have the perfect liberty and freedom to speak your mind as you see fit, you also bear absolute and complete responsibility for whatever you say and however you say it.

Because this is "my" blog, (and I am ultimately responsible for it's content), I do have to add one or two caveats:

• I promise not to remove comments solely on the grounds that they disagree with me - perhaps even strongly.  I actually want to encourage healthy and respectful debate.
• However, if I believe the comment is not productive, not germane to the issue being discussed, spam, obscene or inflammatory, (etc.), I entirely reserve the right to either edit it for content, or delete it outright.  Either when it is first submitted or at some future date should it becomes necessary.

If you have ever seen any of the other blogs, list-serves, BBS's, or other fora that I have moderated in the past, you will know that I try to be as soft a touch as possible - and only hit the "smite" key if it is absolutely necessary.

So!  Feel free to join in and let the fur fly!

What say ye?

Jim