whoop (there it is)

Last night (among the other shows) I watched South Park and their interpretation of the relationship between the Resurrection of Christ and the Easter Bunny. Suffice to say I was amused, of course had I been Muslim and the topic having something to do with Islam I probably would've just gone out and bombed some people and blew up a few buildings.
Of course we posed this question in Kuwait in 2004 and our new soldier, John-Mark, gave us an answer. It sounded plausible and plus he's old so he must be wise. Right? I mean he's OLD, like he watched Return of the Jedi in the theatres! OK, enough with the teasing of old people. John-Mark explained Easter/Easter Bunny like this. In the old days when Christianity was spreading, in order to get people interested (or whatever, convert) the missionaries would often integrate pagan rituals into the religion. The pagan fertility ritual nearly coincided with the presumed date of the resurrection of Jesus and so they two were combined. So Jesus and the Saxon goddess Eastre joined forces. Jesus, a man, and Eastre, whose icon was a rabbit join to form a guy in a rabbit suit. And now Christians around the world go to church and then go find painted eggs the someone held the night before. A good ol' time is had by all.


Onto the news!

Moron hires fetal hitman. OK, I made that sound worse than it is. The hitman isn't fetal, the target is fetal. The hitman was actually an undercover cop. Three grand to rough up your ex-girlfriend so bad it forces a miscarriage? More than just bad advice there Sparky, that's just plain stupid. Although I give props to him for originally (pre-hitman) wanting to help raise the kid. In the end though, none of it happened.

OK, there's got to be more than what's being reported and so I checked out Wolf's site. Got his point of view. Now I've got a clearer picture. Yes, the prosecution was trying to build a case, but the testimony of a journalist taping a crime scene just reeks of lack of credible evidence. Everybody is wrong though, nobody is right. If I shot a video of a crime scene you better believe that I'll turn in it, but as far as testifying? What am I going to say? "I don't know." is what. The only reason I wouldn't turn in a video of a crime is not the First Amendment but more along the lines of the Fifth. Still, in lieu of Wolf not turning in the video, yes a subpoena is required. However, to subpoena a testimony of a bystander is extreme. Usually people can be convinced to do it on their own without the need of a subpoena. I understand that Wolf felt uncomfortable that it was "secret" grand jury that he was meeting in front of, but do you understand that there's security precautions involved? You're talking about people willing to burn things to get their point across. Do you really want it to be public knowledge that people are attempting to put them in jail are meeting in this very public, accessible building? Yeah, that's smart. Go put your padded helmet on before you knock yourself out.


Aw, it's like a techno-twist to a real life homeward bound. See? Computer chips can help animals too. Happy news!