The Low

I find my blood pressure spikes every time I read stories of people like Shawn Glans, the bully thug in a police uniform who assaulted & battered a citizen unaware he was being recorded.

Official United States Bully, Shawn Glans

You can imagine how I felt reading yet another similar story, this time from Alabama. A Police Department Training officer named Eric Parker and his trainee came across a supposedly suspicious person whose crime started and ended there. I have yet to see where it is a crime to be a suspicious person in any ordinance or edict in any city or state.

"Found guilty of being a suspicious person, Abraham Lincoln of Springfield Illinois was today sentenced to two months' jail time. He was rigorously reprimanded & the accused promised never to be suspicious in the future."

Eric Parker will end up costing the citizens of his city millions of dollars, but worse, he will solidify the visceral hatred of the police that ordinary citizens continue to harbor. The chief of police stated that Parker did not exhibit the "high standards" of that city's police department. Sure, chief, that's why he's a training officer.

How dare you be a suspicious person!

If you don't know, (now ex-) Officer Eric Parker accosted an Indian grandfather who had been reported as suspicious. The law requires that a crime be currently & actively investigated before an officer may detain a citizen and in this case, that crime was being suspicious, you see. Alas, the frail Indian gentleman did not understand he was committing this crime, and after he added on the veritably hateful inability to speak English, paid for it by having his neck broken in a takedown befitting the felony crime of being suspicious.

As bad as that is, there's something far, far worse at play here, and is the reason these two jerks acted the way they did. I've already touched on this topic in my other post, In Mala Fide. It is characterized by the following statement: someone somewhere once did X therefore everyone is guilty of X until they prove otherwise.

These officers are trained to ensure that every interaction with the citizenry holds within the potential for violence. Because of this, it conditions these simpletons--and I use this term advisedly, because for too many police officers it is unfortunately true--to act as if the citizen is already guilty of the crime of executing a police officer and it is their job today, right now, to stop their own murder from commencing.

They deal with citizens in bad faith, assigning the worst intentions to every person until that guilt person has proven otherwise. This is the same thing the TSA does: everyone is guilty of trying to blow up airliners until they've proved they won't. Someone once tried to blow up an airliner by smuggling a bomb in their shoe therefore everyone thenceforth is guilty of trying to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb and must prove they won't by taking off their shoes for inspection.

Once you think of it like that, everything snaps into focus. The Newtown board set up to Do Something about the shooting there just came out with even more restrictions to be placed on the sale & transfer of not only firearms but cartridges as well. None of this would have prevented Newtown from happening, as even a laudatory ("courageous!") newspaper editorial points out. Nevertheless, proceed full speed ahead, guilty citizens one and all.

Seen through the filter of bad faith, it makes sense why these simpletons would call for further restrictions on erstwhile law-abiding citizens. Let's see how it fits into our bad faith template: Adam Lanza committed a crime with guns therefore every citizen in his state is now guilty of committing a crime with guns and must prove they (i) have not (ii) are not now (iii) will never commit a crime with guns. The burden of proof lies with them.

Aside from the fact that it is in a 180-degree direction from how our system was designed to operate--the presumption of innocence, in case you missed it--it is actually a completely worthless approach to law enforcement & safety. This is likely the reason why our Founders designed the system in that way! Who would've thought. While it is straightforward to prove I have not committed a particular crime, it is quite difficult to prove that I am not currently committing said crime and further, just about impossible to prove I will never commit that crime.

We treat each other with the basest of assumptions, assigning the worst possible to our intent, locking us away in virtual jail cells until we have each proven to one another that we are not guilty. If you want to exercise your Second Amendment rights, you are guilty of trying to murder someone. So you must prove you haven't and aren't currently by undergoing a background check. If not that bad, then you are certainly guilty of negligence. You will leave your weapon unattended and someone will get hurt. You will kill your wife and children with that weapon. You will shoot up the local elementary school.

Some other examples, in passing: men who sit with their legs open in subway cars are guilty of patriarchal oppression and must be shamed & punished. A mother brings in a child to the ER who hurt itself falling off a high chair; she's guilty of Munchausen-by-Proxy until she proves she isn't. That guy who made a joke about Asians is guilty of racism and must be prove to our collective sense of justice that he is not a racist; until then he is to be punished. Eric Eich once gave money to a cause therefore he is guilty of hating homosexuals and must prove his innocence; until then he is punished.

Someone suspicious once walked the streets casing houses for later burglary. Therefore the frail Indian gentleman is guilty of both being suspicious and casing houses therefore he must prove to Officer Parker's finely honed sense of justice that he is not guilty of that crime, but in the meantime, will be handled like a guilty criminal until such time as he has proven he's no threat.

Do you see how nefarious this is? Low-trust societies do not survive long yet this is exactly what we're positively encouraging each other to do. It is brutal if you're the person caught in the headlights of the oncoming Guilty Train for the simple reason that it is very difficult if not sometimes impossible to prove a negative, to prove something isn't there. Asking me to prove there are no black swans requires an extraordinary amount of work on my part because I must search every corner of the earth for a negative, as you sit there actively punishing me.

Guilty of rara avis!

Bad faith.

Restraint

Watch then think what you'd have done. I'd have lit the fucker up.
Kudos to the kop.

Also, we all need cardiovascular exercise.

Post by Evansville Police Department.

The White Rabbit Rides Again

Every summer it seems the gods decide to put me through an Olympics: “you, athlete (ha! Athlete!) prepare thyself for competition … with yourself.” Boom!

Here it comes—I picture a lightning rod upon which rides the gnarliest of viruses. This  year, it was these little beasties that landed with a thud:

These things decided to take up residence in my throat and turn it into a bachelorette's eve of Roman orgy proportion. And wouldn’t you know it, right in the middle of an Exchange Server 2007 to 2013 migration. The gods, they have a funny sense of humor.

Not knowing exactly what microbe had caught a ride on Thor’s lightning bolt, I decided to rest as much as possible and eat, only the latter of which I do rather well. When it became clear that it was strep throat, I felt like I should let my body (rest and nutrition, remember!) fight the infection rather than asking for help with antibiotics. Yes, this can be dangerous. Strep is no laughing matter, and people have died from it. However, at my age, I’m not particularly sure rheumatic fever or whatever other strep-related problems could take me out. So I (weakly) girded my loins and hung on for the ride.

I’m happy to report that though these bastards rained steel on the old stockade, it held strong. Though not without some very interesting hallucinations—you’ll have to remind me some time to select a few special ones for publication. One reason I felt I could withstand the onslaught without antibiotic aid is that I was still able to move about on my own steam, however slowly. I could still concentrate for a good hour or two. And so it was that Friday last, I went in to work with the idea of gathering up the remnant “action items” for the Exchange project I wanted finished this week. Silly Rabbit, projects are for healthy kids.

Nevertheless, as I scurried up the data I decided to check in on the governing document: the Exchange 2013 Deployment Assistant. This rather well-structured bit of work goes through and models out a project and task list for either a new installation or an upgrade from the various Exchange editions to 2013. When I had completed it the last time three weeks ago, the list printed out to 23 pages or so. This time, Microsoft had added enough information to make it now a 33-page monstrosity. Great!

This is a problem I’ve found with using on-the-cusp technology, especially Microsoft on-the-cusp tech. Things change, but enough to generate an additional ten or more pages?

Guess who took time off to get better?

By the way, at the first sign of strep infection, try this excellent recipe:

Le Chandail De Hockey

This is hilarious!

Control Your Body, Control Your Mind

I think you'll find this interesting:


If not, I'm currently frowning at you.

Hecho A Mano

Will You Still Love Me When I'm 65?

Lovingly Shot

A Portrait: Olli Salumeria from Bureau Of Common Goods on Vimeo.

Toy Samba

Superb!

God Bless Ye Merry Swaddled Gentlemen

Too many guys don’t understand how clothes should actually fit. Here’s an excellent video I found on the subject:

Alan Flusser’s featured in it. Don’t know who he is? Get to!

Gentlemen, Shall We Join The Ladies

Margaret, Baroness Thatcher. Iron Lady. A truly remarkable woman.

We're Slugged

G'bye men and thanks for all the sperm.

The Difference

Between a conservative and liberal “protests,” in a paragraph:

Just remember that when conservatives organize into grassroots movements, it’s almost always about protecting their own property and individual liberty.  When leftists decide to start grassroots movements, like OccupyWallStreet or Barr’s example of leftist populism, it almost always involves seizure of property, threats of violence, and eventually re-education camps and the guillotine.

They can’t help it:

Dear (Humanoid) Woman

I’m Sorry!

Backwards Pawns, A Love Song

Sing-along … Chess!

Flying Wild Alaska

Come Fly With Me

This is damned hilarious!

FlyLO

Alvin Plantinga: Science & Religion

If I had a quarter of the brains Dr. Alvin Plantinga has, I’d be a philosopher instead of a Windows systems administrator! :-D

If you’re up to it, this is an hour and fifteen minute lecture on where the conflict between science and religion really lies.

The Creator

Where Have All My Heroes Gone?

Scott Berkun’s books have been a favorite from the first one published. I particular enjoyed reading the latest, “Confessions of a Public Speaker.” What I liked about them most was the clear, common sense and funny approach to his subject.

In addition, reading his essays especially #53 “How to detect bullshit”, replete as it is with references to logically refuting “bad” thinking, I was impressed and put him on my list of intellectual heroes. Here was a guy with a steely-eyed grasp of things, someone I could aspire to be like.

Until I locked horns with the human being and that house of cards came tumbling.

It started when Berkun posted a video about Freedom and The Mosque:

I replied:

Quote: “However the point I was trying to use OKC to make is a valid one. Just because Fred and Sally commit do something horrible “in the name” of X, Y or Z does not mean we discount or reject the interests of American citizens who believe in X, Y or Z.”

Hello Scott. I really enjoyed your ‘Confessions of a public speaker’, by the way.

However, yet again I meet someone who doesn’t understand the tenets of a religion bent on the abject subjugation of ALL those who don’t agree with those tenets. If Fred and Sally do something horrible BECAUSE X, Y, or Z specifically permits it, it is right, nay ABSOLUTELY vital to our (American) interests and safety to look askance at AND YES, REJECT, those who profess to hold X, Y, or Z beliefs.

Islam is not a religion of peace or love. It permits and COMMANDS its adherents to overthrow BY FORCE any government other than one based on Islamic law. That any Muslim doesn’t throw on the suits of armor and go fighting for Islam against the American form of government is because that Muslim has willfully forgotten or chosen not to propagate those tenets of that religion.

Unlike many, I have lived in a country under the jackboot of Sharia law. It is not fun, it is not free, and it most certainly is not fair. Were it left to those who believe in the same principles as those building this whatever in NY, you couldn’t do a third of the things you do today with your time and effort.

If you value your very freedom to like or not like things that make you angry, as you put it, it is your very duty to oppose Islam. Read Nomad by Ayaan Ali Hirsi, see what this religion promotes, protects, and pursues.

Your point (#5) about the Bill of Rights is inappropriate. Congress–the United States government–is not making or passing any laws restricting the building of whatever they’re calling it. People, private citizens, free to say what they want, are raising a hue and cry about this. I’m sure you’ll permit them the same rights to free speech that you have used here.

Then he replied:

> However, yet again I meet someone who doesn’t
> understand the tenets of a religion bent on the
> abject subjugation of ALL those who don’t agree
> with those tenets.

1. There is no religion on this world completely unified in its beliefs. All religions, including Christians, are heavily factionalized. Christians have Protestants, Catholics, Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses and people who call themselves Christians who don’t align neatly with any group. It’s also notable how much factions tend to hate each other, including Christian factions that have gone to war over their differences. Some groups will always be more militant and fundamentalist than others. Any argument that hinges on lumping 100% of people of a faith, or nation, into a singular simple mindset is very hard to agree with.

> Islam is not a religion of peace or love. It
> permits and COMMANDS its adherents to overthrow
> BY FORCE any government other than one based
> on Islamic law

I am not an expert on Islam. But I’ve read enough of the Quoran, and the Christian Bible, to know they are both filled with love and hate. There is plenty of smiting of infidels in Christian scripture and in Christian history. You can extract from most sacred book calls for love or calls for violence, if you look hard enough for what you want to find.

> Were it left to those who believe in the
> same principles as those building this
> whatever in NY, you couldn’t do a third
> of the things you do today with your time and effort.

I could say the same about the DMV. Or McDonalds. Or the Catholic church. There are many organizations who, if put in control of a nation, would enact stupid, draconian or backward ideals. But they are all allowed to own private property provided they break no laws and fit in with their community.

> If you value your very freedom to like or not
> like things that make you angry, as you put it,
> it is your very duty to oppose Islam. Read
> Nomad by Ayaan Ali Hirsi, see what this
> religion promotes, protects, and pursues.

It is my very freedom that makes it impossible for me to reject an entire system of belief. I want to be free to think whatever I want, and I realize I have accept other people’s freedom to do the same. Some people believe in UFOs. Some people believe I’m going to hell. As long as they mostly keep it to themselves, they can believe whatever they want. They have that right.

Have you looked for books about peace written by Muslims? Are you truly convinced not a single Muslim in the history of the world has ever advocate peace?

60 seconds on the web found this: Muslims for peace. http://www.muslimsforpeace.org/.

So if the people who made this website were to move in to Park 51, and you believed they were sincere, would it then be acceptable to you?

> Your point (#5) about the Bill of Rights is
> inappropriate. Congress–the United States
> government–is not making or passing any
> laws restricting the building of whatever
> they’re calling it. People, private citizens,
> free to say what they want, are raising a
> hue and cry about this. I’m sure you’ll
> permit them the same rights to free speech
> that you have used here.

How is it inappropriate to quote our bill of rights? It might be irrelevant, but I think it’s useful for people to know the law. Especially when we talk about fighting for the rights of Americans. The bill of rights defines those rights.

I certainly believe people have the right to protest.

But I have the right to explain why I think their protest is misguided, unfounded, poorly-informed and contradictory to their own beliefs about America. They are clearly angry, but they are directing that anger in a way I suspect they will regret when they talk to their grandchildren.

Just for fun – it’s ironic, but the WTC itself was protestedwhen it was proposed.

Uhoh—this is still “fun” as he ends his reply, but the road doesn’t look that bright. So I penned the following quick reply:

You say you’re no expert on Islam, but you know enough about the Qu’ran and the Bible to know they’re both filled with love and hate. All right, but here’s something you don’t seem to know and that’s forgivable since you’re no expert: there’s a major difference– whereas Christianity does not countenance violence, Islam does. Explicitly so, in fact.

Any Christian who takes up the sword to drive before himself or herself unbelievers is doing so in utter and complete disregard of all the rules and tenets of Christianity, regardless of sect. And by the way, just because there are Christian factions doesn’t mean anything. 100% of Islamic ideology advocates a certain way of living, factions or no.

Your freedom, granted under the auspices of a Judeo-Christian aegis by the way, does indeed afford you whatever you like to think, unlike what would be extant under Sharia Law. However, understand that I am not looking at Muslim discussions on the vagaries of Islam. I’m looking at the Qu’ran itself directly. There is very little wiggle-room for Muslims intent on just living peacably in a representative democracy: either you are working to formulate the Islamic Caliphate or you’re not. Any other nuanced translations or whatever else is in direct contradiction of the Hadith and the Qu’ran.

I use “inappropriate” appropriately. Your quoting the law is not germane, but hey, we live in a free country! :-)

So here I have taken up the bait, hook, line and sinker and suddenly gone into Christian defense mode. When did the discussion suddenly turn on Christianity? I thought we were discussing Islam?

His salvo was even more confusing:

Fred:

> Any Christian who takes up the sword to drive
> before himself or herself unbelievers is doing
> so in utter and complete disregard of all the
> rules and tenets of Christianity

By that definition the U.S. was founded on a disregard for those rules and tenets. Columbus had similar disregard. There were “unbelieving natives”, who we call Indians, that we killed and subjugated en masse for decades. The history of North and South America is littered with similiar disregard.

Taking moral high ground on the basis of any religion leads to these contradictions. All major religious histories are filled with violence and awfulness, as well as benevolence.

> 100% of Islamic ideology advocates a certain
> way of living, factions or no

I’ll say this for the last time. Any argument that claims 100% of any group numbering in the 100s of millions all believes the same thing is impossible to agree with.

Unless you can look at your own religion (e.g. Catholic vs. Unitarian), or nation (Republican vs. Democrat), and see it as 100% believing in anything, how can you sensibly apply that assumption to another religion or group?

If nothing else the fact that you and I, both Americans, disagree about the Bill of Rights, a few paragraphs of text, should suggest there might more range of belief and ideas among other faiths and nations than you assume.

I pointed you here, but you offered no comment:
http://www.muslimsforpeace.org/

There are similarities between the above initiative, and the group at Park 51:
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/

Hm. What’s that about how the US was founded? What?

Here, I thought, maybe I wasn’t clear … but I’ll keep it light and free, just in case:

Scott:

I don’t understand why you’re bringing up how the US was founded or what happened with Columbus. It’s not germane to my statements about the tenets of Christianity. Surely you see that.

It’s not my argument that 100% of Muslims ACT in a certain way. It is my argument that 100% of Islamic ideology fully supports the violent overthrow of any government not Islamic, fully supports the furtherance of their religion by violent means, fully supports the defense of that religion by violent means. That your muslimsforpeace.org refers to those Muslims who prefer not to take up the sword as their religion authorizes means nothing more than those particular folks are peaceful people, period.

The moral equivalence hypotheses people fling out at the slightest provocation is lazy thinking and stops us from seeing things as they are: the fact is, in an Islamic society TODAY, women are chattel, there’s no freedom of religion, there is no room for discordant thinking, there is death for homosexuals, there is death for (female) adulterers, etc, etc., etc. ALL THESE are EXPLICITLY allowed by the Qu’ran.

I’ll repeat:

ALL THESE ATROCITIES are EXPLICITLY ALLOWED FOR, and in some cases, COMMANDED by the Qu’ran.

The sad reality is, much as I’d laud those Muslims who choose the path of peace, they’re doing so by turning a blind eye to the very tenets of their religion. The vast majority of Muslims act in direct accordance with the dictates of their faith which includes violence and terror. I will ALWAYS be opposed to such a line of thinking.

And by the way, while you and I disagree about the Bill of Rights, the fact remains you’re wrong, I’m right. :-p

To which, my hero, Mr. Berkun becomes pissy:

> I don’t understand why you’re bringing up how
> the US was founded or what happened with Columbus.
> It’s not germane to my statements about the tenets of
> Christianity. Surely you see that.

All I see is your comfort in double standards of convenience. If you tell me “any Christian who takes up the sword to drive out unbelievers is incomplete disregard of all the rules of Christianity” then you make Christians germane. Our history as Americans and Europeans is chock full of atrocities and horrors committed in the name of god, with support from our churches.

> ALL THESE ATROCITIES are EXPLICITLY ALLOWED FOR,
> and in some cases, COMMANDED by the Qu’ran.

You can justify nearly anything from any book of scripture if you look hard enough for it.

The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, dozens of wars in europe, the near genocides in North/South America, were all justified or funded by the church, rallied with quotes from scripture, and seen as holy missions.

If you want me to see how evil the followers of Islam are, I might consider it if you acknowledged how much evil is in the history (and perhaps present) of Christian and other faiths.

> The sad reality is, much as I’d laud those Muslims
> who choose the path of peace, they’re doing so
> blind eye to the very tenets of their religion.

Ok – this is where I call bullshit.

You have not lauded anyone on this long thread. You have not said a single positive thing about “those Muslims”, or acknowledged “those Muslims” will occupy this building. Honestly, I don’t think you’d laud them at all.

You’ve harshly criticized a billion people on grounds your own history is guilty of, without any Christian remorse or compassion.

As has been my point, the specific group of people choosing to build this particular place, have the right and deserve the benefit of the doubt to create this place and to be judged on what they actually do there, rather than what our fears imagine they might. You have an opportunity to laud them by supporting their right to reside there.

If you want to continue to disparage and entire religion please go elsewhere. It’s a pointless debate to have in this forum.

Oh boy. Well, we’ll chalk this one up to the “Interrant” and call it good. Doesn’t seem we’ll be drinking buddies anytime soon!

Scott:

You’re jumping all over the place like a Mexican bean, assigning words and meanings to things I’ve said and things I’ve never said. Here, e.g.:

I said: “I’d laud those Muslims…” as in, “I WOULD laud those Muslims”, I DIDN’T say “I HAVE lauded those Muslims,” yet you accuse but whatever …

I have never contested the RIGHT of those building the Ground Zero Mosque to build the mosque. Of course they do. The wisdom of doing so, however, is what I take umbrage at. If we did everything we had a RIGHT to do, we’d not long survive as a society much less as individuals. Japanese-Americans have a right to build a temple to the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor right on private land next to Pearl Harbor, but they don’t. When Catholic authorities in Poland were planning to build an institution for nuns, years ago, and someone pointed out that it would be near the site of a concentration camp that carried out genocide, the Pope intervened to stop it.

He didn’t say that the Catholic Church had a legal right to build there, as it undoubtedly did. Instead, he respected the painful feelings of other people. And he certainly did not denounce those who called attention to the concentration camp.

–

I have never said evil has not been done in the name of Christianity; as a matter of fact, it has, but as we’re actually NOT talking about Christianity but Islam, that sorta makes sense, but apparently only to me. You keep insisting on pointing out the moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity when even your video doesn’t discuss Christianity or any other religion at all. Not Germane.

Here is what I HAVE said:

Islam is a religion that suppresses freedom (I notice you haven’t bothered to respond to those accusations). Islam is a religion which authorizes violence–another assertion you haven’t bothered to respond to.

Instead, you cry havoc and let loose the dogs of moral equivalence. Indignantly asking “… and what about you?” is not a valid defense of an action.

Continue erecting your straw men, Scott. Unfortunately, yet another hero of mine falls: after reading all your essays on clear thinking and logic, I’m quite amazed to get in what I thought was a friendly exchange of ideas only to see you devolve into a pitiful emotional display in defense of a religion that factually, you couldn’t bear to live under.

If you were intellectually honest, you’d see this. You’d read this. You’d post this. Then you’d respond without resorting to all those logical fallacies you think you have a handle on.

Too bad, I actually like Scott.