Jon's blog

Most of the how-tos out there on this topic have you adding URL redirects to your webserver config, but this isn't really necessary--symbolic links work just as well, if not better. The standard caveats apply: Be sure your Mac OS X Server is not using itself for DNS; otherwise, you'll never get any new updates in the Software Update service, and all your clients must be using your Mac OS X Server for DNS; otherwise, they'll always hit Apple's update server instead of yours.

The best reason to use DNS spoofing is that you don't have to reconfigure anything on client machines. It won't matter who connects to your network, whether they're a guest or not, everyone will be using your internal SUS for fast updates instead of saturating your internet connection. When they leave your network, they'll go right back to using Apple's SUS. Their computer will never know the difference.

1. Set up Mac OS X Server, and enable the Software Update, Web, and DNS services.
2. In the DNS service, add a master zone named "swscan.apple.com." (with the trailing dot!)
3. Create an A (machine) record that maps "swscan.apple.com." (with the trailing dot!) to the IP of your Mac OS X Server.
4. Create two CNAME (alias) records that point "swcdn.apple.com." and "swquery.apple.com." to "swscan.apple.com." (with the trailing dots!)
5. In a terminal window, run the following script to create all the necessary directories and symlinks:

# Create required directory for 10.5.x/10.6.x catalogs
sudo mkdir /usr/share/swupd/html/content/catalogs/others/
# Add symlink for 10.6.x updates
sudo ln -s /usr/share/swupd/html/content/catalogs/index.sucatalog /usr/share/swupd/html/content/catalogs/others/index-leopard-snowleopard.merged-1.sucatalog
# Add symlink for 10.5.x updates
sudo ln -s /usr/share/swupd/html/content/catalogs/index.sucatalog /usr/share/swupd/html/content/catalogs/others/index-leopard.merged-1.sucatalog
# Add symlink for 10.4.x updates
sudo ln -s /usr/share/swupd/html/content/catalogs/index.sucatalog /usr/share/swupd/html/content/catalogs/index-1.sucatalog
# Add swupd symlink to default webserver directory
sudo ln -s /usr/share/swupd/html/content /Library/WebServer/Documents/content
# Add symlink for stats engine
sudo ln -s /usr/share/swupd/cgi-bin/SoftwareUpdateServerStats /Library/WebServer/Documents/WebObjects/SoftwareUpdatesStats

Does this new setup actually work?

I was in the market for a game camera and found the Wildview Xtreme II to be the lowest-priced option (under $100). It seems to be a well-built unit, and a reasonably good deal for the money; however, it has two significant shortcomings, and one minor one, that are not explicitly spelled out in any of the online literature.


First, the unit loses all internal data--date/time setting, data stored on the internal SDRAM--when the batteries are removed. It really ought to have either a secondary battery or a short-term capacitive circuit that would maintain the data during a battery change. One workaround might be to carry a battery pack to the field and use the external power jack to power the unit while changing the internal batteries (Wildview sells a $60 external battery kit as well), though I have not tested the unit's ability to switch between power sources without losing data. The external jack purports to be for a 12V DC power source, but I used a 9V DC and it worked fine.


Second, the unit is not Mac-compatible. The camera is a SunPlus SPCA533 unit, which is one of the very few digital cameras not supported by iPhoto. Wildview had to work pretty hard to find a camera that wouldn't work with the Mac, so this shortcoming really makes no sense--especially given the fact that the Mac is such a fantastic platform for digital photography. Surely Wildview could have found a more mainstream, yet still inexpensive, camera to use in this product. Sadly, this same shortcoming affects most of the higher-priced game cameras as well. These game-camera guys might be able to catch game, but apparently they can't catch a clue.


It is worth noting that iPhoto does recognize the camera, and will upload photos from it, but it cannot properly read the proprietary SunPlus JPEG format. Most of the photo is viewable, but the lower section containing the date/timestamp is garbled. So close, and yet so far.


A third issue, annoying but not significant, is the lack of technical information in the user's manual. For example, the manual notes that the external power jack is designed for a 12V input, and states emphatically that hooking up the batteries with reversed polarity will damage the unit, but does not give the polarity of the external jack. No mention is made of the make & model of the internal camera; I had to hook it up to a Mac in order to obtain that information. An "information infusion" would make the user's manual much more useful.

I'm sitting in a meeting with a dozen Arabs, French, and Americans, and the Frenchman from Dassault who's supposed to be giving the presentation is using an IBM ThinkPad and trying to get it to mirror the laptop video onto the projector. It just doesn't work, despite the fact that he has several computer jocks giving him advice. He's already tried to blame the projector, replacing it with his own unit (with a lower lumen bulb, so we had to kill the lights in the room), but of course that didn't help. It also doesn't help that he's using the French localized version of Windows, so nobody else can read the dialogues. Ah, well...c'est la vie.

I inherited a PC with an AOpen AP59S motherboard, which has onboard USB, but there was no USB bracket. The good folks at A-Plus Computer Services in Bryan were kind enough to give me a Gigabyte USB bracket, so I set about making it work with the AOpen motherboard.

As it turns out (and not too surprisingly), a Gigabyte USB 2.0+ bracket (p/n 12CR1-1UB030-11) can be used, with some modifications, on an AOpen motherboard.

The standard AOpen pinout for an AP59S can be found in the AP59S hardware manual (see graphic below). Assuming that all AOpen motherboards use the same pinout, or at least the same pin names, you should be able to make the Gigabyte bracket work with virtually any of them.

The plastic pin housing on the Gigabyte part has several of the necessary holes blocked, so take a sharp-pointed pocketknife and open up the holes, then use the knife to carefully pull up on the plastic retaining tabs and pull the plugs out of the plastic housing so you can rearrange them. Optionally, you could discard the plastic housing altogether and plug the individual wires directly onto the motherboard, though of course this might cause trouble for someone else down the road. :)

The Gigabyte wire colors are red, black, green, and white. These correspond to the AOpen pin names as follows:

red: V


white: D-


green: D+


black: GND

That’s the correct order for the pinout; put a red-white-green-black down each side of the connector. This will leave an empty pair of holes in the connector, below the black wires. The plug on the motherboard has one missing pin; that’s the “bottom,” and the empty holes in the connector should cover that.

Since the Gigabyte part has four USB ports, while the AP59S motherboard only offers two connections, you’ll have to figure out some sort of aesthetically pleasing way to cover up the two unused ports to avoid user confusion. I used electrical tape.

How does God work in the world today? Should we all be speaking in tongues, or has that manifestation of the Spirit been "stilled" at this point?


One of the cornerstone passages of scripture in the cessation debate is 1 Corinthians 13, in which Paul states (among other things), "But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away." Many people take this to mean that Spirit-manifested prophecy, tongues, and knowledge no longer occur today.


I lovingly disagree on several bases.


First, Paul uses the future tense--"will cease,""will be stilled,""will pass away"--and the tense carries through from the Greek to the English. He does not specify the future time to which he refers. Most cessationists claim that he is referring to the canonization of the New Testament, at which point they say "the perfect has come" so there is no longer any need for these particular spiritual gifts. But Paul had no concept of the New Testament canon; in fact, every reference to "scripture" in the New Testament refers to the Hebrew scriptures (essentially our Old Testament). There is no mention of the New Testament canon, even in part. Paul, and the other epistolic writers, were simply communicating the truths of the Logos (Christ the Word of God) to those who were in Christ.


To a man, the authors of the New Testament believed that Christ's return was imminent, so if we are to assume that Paul was indeed referring to a definite future point at which the gifts would cease, it is far more logical to assume that point being the second coming of Christ, not the canonization of the New Testament. The "perfect" to which Paul refers is not the New Testament canon, but the Living Word of God, and specifically His perfecting grace working in and on our lives. When we are made perfect--i.e., when the physical ultimately succumbs to the spiritual reality of God's kingdom--then the gifts will naturally "cease" because they will be completely fulfilled in the New Jerusalem. Christ will fulfill in us the knowledge of all things (Col 2:2-3), the tongues of "men and angels"--apparently there are various heavenly in addition to human languages--will become as one voice praising God (Rev 4), and of course all prophecy will have been fulfilled.


Second, in this passage Paul is not discussing the existence or dispensation of the gifts, nor is he giving an exhaustive list of the gifts. Rather, he is declaring the preeminence of love as the greatest of all manifestations of the Spirit. In this context, 1 Corinthians 13:8 could simply be Paul's method of saying, "Compared to love, these gifts are as nothing," which in fact would be a logical extension of Paul's train of thought within the context of the passage. See Ephesians 3:16-19 for a similar expression. Paul burns a lot of ink, in this epistle and others, discussing various gifts and their appropriate expression in the body of Christ; it would hardly seem worth Paul's while to spend so much time on gifts that would soon disappear.


It is worth emphasizing here that spiritual gifts have nothing to do with salvation. They are simply a natural result of the outpouring of the Spirit as He fills the believer as a result of salvation, through grace alone, by faith alone (which itself comes from God) in Christ alone. Speaking in tongues does not make one saved. Being saved may, or may not, result in one speaking in tongues. Being saved will result in some sort of clear manifestation of the indwelling Spirit as God works out His purposes in the life of the believer; these manifestations take many various forms as each one comprises a unique part of the body of Christ.


Third, there is no question that the Spirit of God still manifests Himself through prophecy, tongues, and knowledge today. I have personally witnessed many such manifestations, such that even the 1 John 4:1 cynic in me has been completely convinced that it is indeed the Spirit of God at work. The fact that many people counterfeit or otherwise abuse these manifestations does not imply that the gifts themselves are illegitimate, merely that those who abuse them are either disobedient servants or false prophets--who will be revealed as such by the Author of the gifts they abuse.


All manifestations of the Spirit are testable--and should be tested--by the Scripture, but the Scripture simply does not state that any particular gifts "have ceased." To claim otherwise requires several key assumptions that are tenuous at best when tested by the whole of Scripture. This is dangerous ground to tread, because it can cause us to miss, ignore, or deliberately dismiss dynamic manifestations of God's power and presence among us.


"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8)

Many people quote Isaiah 40:8, "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever," without realizing what they're really saying.


It doesn't take much contextual reading to get the gist of the passage. Isaiah is prophesying about the coming Messiah, the Comforter, the Glory of the Lord. God has told him to "clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness," and then God tells him to "call out." Isaiah wants to know what he should call out, and God apparently gives him an answer, for Isaiah immediately says, "All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, when the breath of the Lord blows upon it. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever."


There are at least two lessons here. One is the old saw about taking bits of Scripture out of context and thus altering their meaning. Clearly, Isaiah 40:8 isn't talking about plants withering and fading; it's talking about men and their good works, both of which fall apart at the mere breath of God...forget about actually hearing a word from Him. And therein lies the second lesson: that all our best accomplishments, everything in which we take pride, is at best like a flower that fades and dies. God certainly appreciates our good works, comparing them to flowers after all, but the fact remains that it's not enough to get us anywhere close to Him, except ultimately to be wilted by His breath and crushed under His feet.


A man often gives a woman flowers in an attempt to please and/or placate her. And it generally works, but not because of the flowers; for, if he were to boast about the flowers themselves, he'd receive poor treatment indeed from that woman. No, the reason it works is that the flowers are a physical manifestation of the relationship that exists between the man and the woman. They are merely a pretty reminder, meaningless in and of themselves. Similarly, we have a relationship with God as our Creator, and our good works are like flowers we present to Him. The only "flowers" that will last, though, are the ones that come from a right relationship with God--not just as Creator, or even as Father, but as "Abba," Daddy--and, according to Scripture, there is only one Way into this relationship.


Isaiah goes on prophesying about the Holy One, the Arm of God, the Counselor, and his prophecies were fulfilled several hundred years later in the person and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. When Jesus says things like, "I am the door" (John 10:9), "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25), "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well" (John 14:6-7), He is simply showing us the way to get past our own selves, our own works, our own pride, and become true children of God. He is showing us the way into relationship with God. That is exactly why Jeremiah prophesied:


This is what the Lord says: "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)


In both of the Corinthian epistles, Paul reminds the Church in Corinth of this "righteous boast" they have in Christ. So we ought to be reminded, by the harsh truth of Isaiah 40:8 and the glorious truth of the resurrected Christ, that Jesus really is the only One worthy of a boast.

Have you ever been so surprised and overjoyed at some wonderful thing, that you laughed out loud? Have you ever been so overwhelmed by something that your knees went weak, and you had to sit or risk falling? I experienced both this week, but in what might be considered a controversial place. I went to a prayer meeting.


It began innocently enough. I was leading music for Friday morning worship, and a couple of friends were helping me on piano and bass guitar. After we finished singing, about halfway through the sermon, the bass guitarist--a young man in his late teens--suddenly leaped up and shouted, "STOP! Just stop! I need everyone to pray for me RIGHT NOW!"


You need to know that this is an international, interdenominational church. Organizationally, it is affiliated with the Oklahoma Baptists, but its membership consists of people from many places in the world, and as many different types of churches. Australians, South Africans, Arabs, Germans, Swiss, Americans, Canadians, Chinese, Russians, British, and others. Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, and who knows what else. In overall operation, this church is pretty much an "average" of several mainstream Protestant denominations. If we err in our worship, we err toward 1 Corinthians 14:40 instead of 2 Samuel 6:14 or all the shouting in the Psalms. To my knowledge, nobody has ever come out of their seat shouting in the middle of a sermon.


Everything stopped, and everyone stared. The young man continued his diatribe, and as best as I could understand, he was simply desperate to draw nearer to God, and he was frustrated by what he perceived as the staid ritual and cold order of the service. He was not antagonistic or hateful at all; he just wanted to feel the presence of God in his life, and I guess he felt trapped by the trappings of the church. Several of us gathered around him, laid our hands on him and prayed. After the service, we gathered in another room and prayed over several more people in the church who came in with deep needs.


It was a wake-up call, and it gave us new eyes to see the needs of our body. We need to bear one another's burdens, hold each other up, pray over one another. We need to worship our Lord, openly, unashamedly, and at times loudly. As a worship leader, I need to do whatever I can to bring the body into the presence of God. No small task, especially when I am typically more comfortable with quiet order than expressive shouting.


That evening, a group met in someone's home to pray over this young man, and to pray about whatever it was that had driven him from his chair. About a dozen people attended, including his parents. Most I knew, others were new to me. I had never been to the house, so a friend talked me in via mobile phone. As we talked, he informed me that other churches in town had experienced similar out-of-the-ordinary occurrences in their services that morning--miraculous healings, that sort of thing. I hardly knew what to expect.


When I walked in (fashionably late, to my chagrin), I found myself in a large candlelit room. Worship music played from the sound system, and everyone was quietly worshiping--standing, sitting, kneeling, as they were most comfortable. Most people were singing, hands raised. Some were quiet, some were speaking in tongues, some would occasionally speak or shout something to God. I picked a spot at the back of the room, strategically located around the corner from the restroom. I wasn't planning on ducking out, but I've been in a few places where I needed an exit. It never hurts to have one, just in case.


I've always been a little nervous about charismatic manifestations, because it seems to me that emotional highs are relatively easy to counterfeit. In my head, I know that the pitfalls of too little emotion are just as dangerous as the pitfalls of too much emotion, but I am more likely to stay on the "safe side" of controlled emotions--which is to say that I am probably out of balance. The Spirit sometimes asks people to do weird things, but not around here, right?


The music was very worshipful, and I closed my eyes, forgot about everyone else--the fact that I was able to do that was evidence enough of the presence of God--and just worshiped Jesus. I sang, raised my hands, and tears began to roll down my face. It had been so long since I had been able to worship, without any concern for where I was or who was around me, to completely focus on Christ and pour out my heart to Him. After probably fifteen or 20 minutes of uninterrupted worship, I had become so overwhelmed that I felt myself getting weak. I tried to remain upright, but I ended up falling to my knees, and finally on my face, in worship, my body too weak to move. It wasn't like a paralysis; I could turn my head and move my arms, but I had neither the strength nor any desire to get up.


People fall face down all the time in the Bible. Jesus did it, the disciples did it, the people did it. Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Balaam, Joshua, David, Ezekiel, Daniel, John, all fell face down before the Lord at one point or another. They were all so overcome with the presence of God that was before them that they hit the dirt. It wasn't an everyday experience, but it happened, it was real, it was powerful. And, I discovered, it still happens today. Some people call it being "slain in the Spirit." I don't particularly care for that term, because I think it is abused, and it is too flippant a description of what is actually happening. I prefer to simply refer to it in Biblical terms: falling face down before the Lord.


I have no idea how long we worshiped, or how long I was face down on the floor, but at some point we moved into a time of intercession. Everyone gathered around the young man in the middle of the room, some standing, some kneeling, some bowed down. I was still incredibly weak, but managed to gather enough strength to drag myself up and stagger over to the group. I propped myself up by putting one hand on the young man, one hand on my knee, and leaning against the guy behind me. We began to pray, and after several minutes I began to feel weak again. Again, not an uncomfortable weakness, just a feeling of being overcome by God's presence. Then the guy behind me shifted, and I fell away from the group onto the floor.


A good friend was bowed down on the floor near my feet, and when I fell, we both started laughing--it was funny, and wonderful, and joyous, and powerful, all at the same time--as if God Himself had just told the best joke in the world. I suppose that's what people are talking about when they speak of "holy laughter," but that's another term that I think is abused and misunderstood.


We serve a God of laughter. Sarah named her son Isaac, which means laughter, because the very thought of having a son was so unbelievably wonderful that it made her laugh--first in disbelief, then in joy. The Psalmists laughed a lot. Jesus Himself had a great sense of humor--consider his nickname for James and John, the "sons of thunder"--and I have to wonder if He didn't laugh with joy whenever the disciples finally caught on to a particular teaching or parable. What better way, then, for the Spirit to manifest Himself through us than an uproarious fit of laughter?


When the evening finally ended and I was heading out the door, my friend asked me if I had had fun. I answered to the affirmative, although "fun" didn't even begin to describe my experience. I don't pretend to fully understand it, but it happened. I was there, and God was there, and it was beyond wonderful.


If you are a believer, I exhort you to allow yourself to worship the Lord freely, whether with a group or all by yourself, because you need it and God desires it. If you are not a believer, I encourage you to seek this Jesus who can so overwhelm you with His joy and power and love, that all you will be able to do is fall on your face, and laugh, and cry...and live.

Just returned from a few days in Galveston, relaxing on the beach with my family. Last night, we caught Roman Holiday (the old movie starring Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn). I'd never seen it before. I recommend it.


Sure, it's entertaining, it's clean, and it's always fun to be amazed at how rail-thin Ms. Hepburn was. But the real meat of the thing is its message, which is really very simple: duty trumps pleasure. How many people absolutely refuse to do the very thing they were created to do, called to do, the thing that the moment demands, simply because it is an unpleasant task? We prefer rampant STDs over long-term personal health because maintaining a monogamous heterosexual marriage is difficult in this day and age. We'll turn in our firearms because standing up for our Creator-endowed rights might turn out to be uncomfortable (are the printing presses next?). We'll put our kids in government-run schools, drugging our young men with Ritalin and such, allowing them to be molded into politically-correct atheist illiterati, rather than exerting the considerable effort involved in "bucking the system" and giving them a proper classical education. God forbid they should actually have to bear the burden of conscious thought!


We need to arise from our government-education-inspired stupor, learn once again what it means to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ. We have a duty as freemen, as Christians, to exert every effort to educate the next generation about the Bible, the Declaration, the Constitution, and what their precepts really mean to us as Americans. Likewise, we have a duty to honor those same precepts with our lives, regardless of how unpleasant it may be at times.

An attractive young woman who works in my office building danced into my office the other day and announced to us that her divorce was on the verge of being finalized, and she was going out drinking to celebrate.


I was speechless. My co-worker, whose own marriage has survived the threat of divorce by persistent prayer and the grace of God, looked her in the eye and said that he would never congratulate anyone on a divorce. All I could do was shake my head in disbelief at her obvious expectation that we would rejoice with her. She finally left, her mood only marginally deflated. Upon reflection, I wished that I had been able to compose myself enough to tell her a few things myself.


For the rest of her life, she will share part of herself with a strange family. She has sliced in half the amount of time she will be able to spend with her children, and with her grandchildren. She will be forced, by the decree of the divorce court, to send her little girls into a strange home, over which she has no control, into situations she can neither foresee nor protect against. While they are young, she will always fear for their safety. When they are grown, she will always wonder whether or not she will see them on any given holiday.


"For I hate divorce," says the Lord, the God of Israel (Malachi 2:16). God hates divorce because it damages people, twisting the divine bond of marriage into a sick treachery. Even if the divorce is justifiable (i.e. due to adultery), yet it is no cause for a party. Marriage is serious business.


What causes all heaven to weep, causes this young woman to want to propose a toast. In this, she is testifying to her girls that the end of a marriage is a joyous occasion, instead of teaching them the truth: That the marriage covenant has a deep and serious magic to it, touched by the very heart of God. That marriage is an earthly representation of the love Christ has for His church, and is sacred above all other human institutions. That divorce is a terrible rending of hearts and lives, to be avoided at all costs.


She says she's going out drinking to celebrate, but I know better. Proverbs 31:6-7 says, "Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to him whose life is bitter. Let him drink and forget his poverty and remember his trouble no more." There are few things in this world more bitter than the death of a marriage. Even the death of a bad marriage merits mourning, not celebration.


And I should know.

I have a collection of poignant quotes that are randomly tagged to the end of my emails at work. Yesterday, my boss informed me that his boss had requested that I remove these quotes. It seems that she was disturbed by one of them.


Following is the text of the email sent to my boss:


On 5/28/03 4:32 PM, "Miller, Mary E"<@tamu.edu> wrote:


"Ron, Jon has every right to air his political philosophy every minute of his own time. However, it is not appropriate to include on his official university emails. See the quote at the bottom of his message. Please relay this. Thanks."


And what was the quote at the bottom of my message that disturbed Ms. Miller so?


"Step by step, American liberty is disappearing. Americans are being ruled, regulated, restricted, licensed, registered, directed, checked, inspected, measured, numbered, counted, rated, stamped, censured, authorized, admonished, refused, prevented, drilled, indoctrinated, monopolized, extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fined, harassed, disarmed, dishonored, fleeced, exploited, assessed, and taxed to the point of suffocation and desperation." (Tom DeWeese)


Now there's an irony to crease your trousers.


Granted, it is a long-winded quote--in fact, it's among the longest quotes in my collection, because I couldn't find a satisfactory way to edit the thing; however, the length of the quote is not what bothered Ms. Miller, but rather something about its content. Is the quote really a "political philosophy" as Ms. Miller contends? Does TAMU policy prohibit a TAMU employee from expressing a political philosophy (or any other philosophy, for that matter) in an email signature?


According to TAMU System Policy 33.01 (Privileges as a Citizen), part 3: "System employees are free to express their opinions on any matter, so long as such opinions are not offered as opinions of the System." System Policy 33.01.01 (Political Campaign Events on Property Under the Control of The Texas A&M University System) says that a TAMU employee is "required to remain neutral in partisan political activities" but that "Individual faculty, staff, and students continue to enjoy all constitutional rights and privileges concerning freedom of speech and participation in political events, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions." It goes on to say, "No TAMUS component may endorse, recommend, or otherwise indicate partisan political support for any candidate for an elected office, or for any current officeholder of such an office." However, "This does not prohibit such components from expressing agreement with actions, policies, or other official acts of officeholders."


The Tom DeWeese quote contains no reference to any politician or political party, much less an endorsement or recommendation for a candidate. It could be construed to express agreement with non-specific policies of non-specific officeholders, but even that is a stretch. Several of the quotes in my collection were made by politicians like Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and the like, but I daresay those gentlemen are no longer personally active in politics (except, perhaps, as heavenly spectators). In other words, the quote does not violate the TAMUS policies on political expression by employees. According to TAMU System Policy, this case really hinges upon whether or not random quotes tagged onto an employee's email signature are "offered as opinions of the System." The fact that the quote is clearly attributed to its author, and is placed after the body of the message and even below the signature information, makes it reasonably clear that the quote is not an opinion of the System; however, I am in the process of obtaining the System's opinion on this from the TAMU Office of General Counsel.


I sincerely hope that Ms. Miller's concerns hinge upon the "opinion of the System" issue. If that is not the case, then I would have to conclude that the attitude of at least one administrator at Texas A&M University toward their employees is akin to a feudal lord condescending to allow the peons to toil in his fields, provided they behave themselves and don't make too much noise or smell. In that case, perhaps those administrators need to consider anew the fact that they are employed by the citizens of Texas, of which I am one, and they do not have the power or the authority to violate the natural rights of those to whom they are responsible.

On Tuesday, April 15, the lights went out all across Brazos County and much of the surrounding area. At around noon, something (no-one has bothered to tell us what, exactly) went wrong at the Gibbons Creek power plant in Carlos, just southeast of College Station, and a big chunk of power grid went black. The lights were off for about four hours, though nobody ever knew for sure when they'd come back on. Does a four-hour power outage sound like a cataclysmic event to you? Do you think your community could handle it? Consider what happened in the Bryan/College Station area:

• All the traffic lights were out. Traffic was unbelievably snarled, even when people seemed to recall their driver's ed instructions regarding the proper behavior at an uncontrolled intersection. In the main areas of town, it was faster to walk than to drive.
  
  
• Many schools and businesses, including Texas A&M University, sent everybody home after two hours of blackout (which didn't help the traffic at all).
  
  
• Grocery stores had trouble. Some closed their doors, some had employees leading shoppers around with flashlights. One or two stores had backup power and were able to remain fully operational. One or two, in an area with a population of roughly 150,000.
  
  
• Lowe's had a run on batteries, extension cords, and generators.
  
  
• Nobody could process electronic forms of payment; everything was basically cash-only. Cash registers didn't work; many places went to the "cigar box" method of cash handling.
  
  
• Local restaurants were forced to close after 30 minutes, regardless of whether or not they were serving perishable foods. Restaurants that refused to close were visited by health department officials who "encouraged" them to shut down immediately.
  
  
• The city requested that people use as little water as possible, for two reasons: one, the water towers weren't being refilled (by the electric pumps), and two, much of the sewer system is kept flowing via sewage lift stations (also driven by electric pumps).
  
  

Sure, the airport security scanners were fully functional out at Easterwood airport, and the 9-1-1 crew had their mobile emergency communications center online. Trouble is, most folks didn't give a rip about those wonderful taxpayer-funded services; for some reason, they were more concerned about those nagging little necessities like food and water, and getting home to their families to secure their houses and possessions in case of an extended crisis. When I realized the geographical extent of the outage, my first assumption was that it was a terrorist attack of some sort, and that power would possibly be out for a day or two, depending on how much infrastructure damage had occurred. I called my wife to be sure she knew how to load and fire my shotgun. She laughed at me; I don't think she realized just how serious I was. We live in a quiet neighborhood, but going without food, water, sewer, lights, and fuel for an extended period of time can do strange things to normally quiet people.


After 9/11 and all the ensuing official hullabaloo about "homeland security" and "emergency preparedness," it gives me pause when I consider the overwhelming unpreparedness of the community to deal with even a short power outage. No water, no sewer (or worse, backed-up sewers), no grocery stores, no gasoline (electric pumps!), no work, no school. If the lights hadn't come back on when they did, we'd have been very much in the dark, and very much in trouble. A four-hour power outage pushed this community to the edge. The "what ifs" are rather disconcerting.

Given the general anger and angst over the whole immigration issue, it seems to me that Congress may be overlooking a potentially devastating consequence of a pro-amnesty result.


The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps have approached the issue in a very productive, peaceful, and organized manner, setting a great example, and demonstrating an effective solution. They're running all the legal and political channels, and doing a darn good job of it. But they're banking on Congress eventually coming around.


Folks are worked up enough that, if Congress refuses to secure the border--if they don't come around--the American people are likely to take the "better safe than sorry" approach and simply assume anyone who looks Hispanic or Arabic, or anyone sneaking around anywhere near the border, is probably an illegal alien, and possibly dangerous--and take matters into their own hands. Folks who normally eschew bigotry will become bigots for the sake of national security. That's a knee-jerk backlash situation, and I'm not suggesting that it would be a good thing at all (in fact it could get downright ugly), but it's a likely scenario if Congress fails to do the right thing. People are mad, and mad people do irrational things.


In other words, the border will be secured, one way or another--the question is, will Congress do it in an organized, peaceful, effective manner--a la the Minutemen--or will they further tempt the American people to take it on vigilante-style? If that were to happen, the Fed would end up having to send National Guard troops against their own countrymen, and we could end up with riots of one sort or another--talk about a PR nightmare!


I don't think Congress wants to go there. I sure hope they don't.

Thirty-three people dead on the campus of Virginia Tech, all shot by a single man. How could this happen? Easy. The "law-abidng" folks obeyed the gun-control laws, and the criminal broke them. 33 people are dead because they--and those around them--abdicated their responsibility to provide for their own security.


Virginia is an "open carry" state--you can walk around in public with a pistol strapped to your hip, ostensibly without being harassed by law enforcement. But Virginia state law, like most others, expressly forbids going armed on school property. In addition, Virginia Tech--again, like most other universities--has its own firearms prohibitions. According to Section 2.10 of Virginia Tech's Student Code of Conduct:


Unauthorized possession, storage (in vehicles on campus as well as in the residence halls), or control of firearms and weapons on university property is prohibited.... Firearms are defined as any gun, rifle, pistol, or handgun designed to fire bullets, BBs, pellets, or shots (including paint balls).... Other weapons are defined as any instrument...carried for the purpose of inflicting or threatening bodily injury.... Students who store weapons in residence hall rooms, who brandish weapons, or who use a weapon in a reckless manner may face disciplinary action that may include suspension or dismissal from the university.


What this means is that Virginia Tech, and the State of Virginia, created--on paper--a "gun-free zone" on the school campus, but did nothing to ensure that the zone was really gun-free; they simply relied on the well-known tendency of criminals to obey the law. Their inexcusable stupidity--and, thus, their culpability for these 33 murders--is clearly revealed by just one nut job with a pistol.


It's certainly good to know that the murderer, assuming he was a student, "may face disciplinary action that may include suspension or dismissal from the university." Posthumous expulsion is a powerful deterrent, isn't it? Either way, though, the fact remains that any student who had been prepared to effectively prevent the 33 murders--by carrying a gun themselves--would have faced the same disciplinary action.


The stark reality of the situation? If we obey the letter of the law, then only criminals can carry guns.


Virginia Tech and the State of Virginia should be held accountable for creating an atmoshpere that makes every law-abiding person on campus a sitting duck for any homicidal criminal that comes along.


The rest of us need to learn the lesson of Virginia Tech, and stop pretending that gun-control laws somehow make guns disappear. Given the obvious fact that these laws create environments that are dangerous for the law-abiding but safe for the criminal (ever wonder why "school" and "shooting" seem to go together?), the law-abiding citizen has a moral obligation to ignore those policies. Anyone who heard the shots should have been able to help. Someone in there should have been able to return fire and save some lives.


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment is there for a reason, and the Founders included it in the text so we wouldn't have to guess: security. Effective individual, group, local, state, and national security requires the use of firearms, by individuals...period. If you don't want to carry a gun, then don't. But, like it or not, you still reserve the right to do so...and so do I. Don't try to make me shirk my responsibility as did the folks at VA Tech.

From my experience today, I can state with certainty that Brazos County Court at Law Judge Jim Locke strongly opposes a fully-informed jury, and I heartily recommend replacing him with someone else during the next judicial election.


During voir dire, the jury selection process, potential jurors are questioned by the prosecuting and defense lawyers. Certain answers, or questions asked, can lead one or the other of the attorneys to strike a potential juror from the list. There is one particular question, though, that will guarantee that both lawyers, as well as the judge, will want to strike you from the list. Simply ask them to explain jury nullification.


It is sadly ironic that a well-informed citizen, who understands the role and responsiblities of a juror according to the Constitution, is considered persona non grata in the jury box. Consequently, our legal system is awash with immoral, pointless, useless, or otherwise bad laws that need to be nullified, if only there were a jury that knew enough to do the job. One solution to this problem might be to ask candidates for judicial seats about their understanding of, and attitude towards, jury nullification. If they're against it, then don't elect them.


Another solution would be to distribute this type of flyer to any and all potential jurors.

I just have a few observations about the hoopla surrounding the immigration debate.


One: the news reports assume that the vast majority of the crowds are illegal aliens, without any real attempt to validate the assumption. Given the nature of the political rhetoric surrounding the immigration issue, the media's typical sound-bite oversimplifications, and the limited English skills of the population in question, I'd say the odds are just as good that the crowds consist of legal immigrants and others who have been duped into thinking that their status is somehow at risk.


Two: when folks like Fox News say that they see "mostly American flags" in the crowds, yet the photos accompanying the articles show, at best, approximate numerical parity between U.S. and non-U.S. flags, it's easy to draw the conclusion that the mainstream media is wearing blinders of one sort or another, or perhaps they just have their collective head in a dark place.


Three: Listening to the rhetoric, you'd think that we have no immigration process on the books, that people either enter the country illegally or not at all, so obviously building a fence along the Mexican border would mean the end of immigration en toto. Give me a break. What about the millions of immigrants who have entered this country legally, according to existing immigration law, in an effort to secure a better future for themselves and their children? These folks are being pushed to the back of the line, ignored by the press, the People, and the government. It is yet another example of the lawless garnering preferential attention, and causing problems for the law-abiding.


For a moment, forget about the fence, forget about the logistics of deporting millions of illegals. If we would simply stop giving them services that are funded by U.S. taxpayers, and meant to serve only U.S. taxpayers, that would go a long way toward stemming the flow of illegals into the country--not to mention the fact that it would actually be fair. No more free medical care, schooling, transportation, driver's licenses, etc. ad nauseam. (That policy in itself might not stop terrorists crossing over, but I'd wager a citizen's well-placed .30-30 or 12-ga. round would do the job on those boys.)


Hrmph.

Check out the story on Fox News. Isn't it great how the Associated Press manages to spin the potential return of $70 billion to the people who earned it as a "cost"? Please tell me that Americans aren't dumb enough to buy that load of fertilizer!


Better still, the Democrats call it a "significant error" (Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota) and a "big mistake" (Sen. Max Baucus of Montana), while the ranking Republicans hem and haw and mutter under their breath. What are they all afraid of? Americans with money? Goodness gracious, we certainly wouldn't want those moronic American citizens to have use of their own money...after all, the government knows best how to spend it, don't they?


When will the constituents of these pickpockets and their ilk get off of their welfare state backsides and vote the bums out of office? Even the pols who talk about "smaller government" don't seem--for the most part--to be able to put our money where their mouth is. Call your Congressional representatives and ask them how they're cutting costs in order to help balance the federal budget. Ask them to justify, according to the powers delegated to them by the Constitution, the way they're spending your money. You might be shocked to learn just how irrrelevant the Constitution has become in the halls of government these days!

If having competent, clear-thinking, philosophically sound justices on the Supreme Court were not so absolutely critical to the long-term health of America, then there's no way it would be worth enduring the crass abuse of a drunken gaggle of so-called "statesmen" in the cause of seating a good Justice.


I echo Senator Graham's apologies to you and your family for the treatment you are receiving. Please know that the American people, as a whole, are deeply concerned for you personally, desperately in need of your leadership on the bench, and deeply outraged at the fools on the Judiciary Committee. If this Texan had been in that room, some of those old boys might just have cattle brands on their backsides right now. I applaud your patience and fortitude, and beg you to hang in there. America needs you.

I am not surprised by the finger-pointing surrounding the aftermath of hurricane Katrina and the ramp-up to hurricane Rita. I am surprised, though, by the abject stupidity of the citizens who are being quoted by news sources, the ones pointing the fingers. I hope, for the sake of America, that these people were chosen specifically because they were saying stupid things that would sell newspapers, and not because they represented mainstream American citizens.


Several classic examples can be found in this Fox News story.


Let me be sure I have a few things straight, according to these mental giants:

• You don't have any sort of personal transportation, don't know anyone with a car, have no way at all to get out of town, and this doesn't bother you at all--until, of course, you NEED to get out of town. And this is the government's fault.
  
  
  
• You say you have no money, but you obviously have enough to buy booze and smokes, which means you opted to invest in personal vices rather than stashing away some cash for emergencies like, oh, maybe a hurricane evacuation. And this is the government's fault.
  
  
  
• You've known for days that a huge hurricane was in the Gulf of Mexico and was heading in your general direction, but you waited until today to fill up your car with gas. And this is the government's fault.
  
  
  
• You live in the fourth-largest city in America, with terrible traffic every day, yet you are completely taken aback by the fact that, when a million people try to leave the city in the same direction at the same time, it causes gridlock on the highways. And this is the government's fault.
  
  

Let's get realistic. How many of these "poor" people buy booze, smokes, soft drinks, fast food, cable TV, Lotto tickets, and the latest J-Lo CD every month? How many of them are actually taking concrete, effective steps to get the most out of their money--actually giving thought to the question of why they are poor, and what they can do about it? People are not brainless; they are perfectly capable of seeking knowledge and good advice, making good choices, and improving their lives. But many people simply choose to make stupid decisions...and that's not the government's fault.

Have you read where Jane Fonda is touring the country in a cooking-oil-powered bus to protest the war in Iraq? Good for her.


I trust she replaced all of the other petroleum-based products on the vehicle with something else. Things like tires, hoses, lubricating oil & grease, all the plastic parts...you know, all that unimportant stuff. And surely she made sure that no fossil fuels were used in the smelting of the steel for the chassis, suspension, etc. or for providing electricity for constructing the myriad other parts on the vehicle.


And what about all the supporting vehicles that will be travelling with her. Camera crews, wardrobe trucks, grocery wagons...those will all be petroleum-based-product-free (PBPF) as well, correct?


Yeah, I'm sure she thought of all that. After all, she's a big Hollywood star...she don't need no stinking fossil fuels!


I really wish there were some way to force people like Hanoi Jane to live PBPF lives, even just for one week. The ensuing wailing and gnashing of teeth would quickly reach hypocritical mass. Of course, somehow the resulting media implosion would all be blamed on Bush, or at least a vast right-wing conspiracy.


Check the facts, all you neo-hippie-jihadi-loving war protesters out there. We need fossil fuels. The Middle East produces most of the world's fossil fuels. Socially and politically, the Middle East is consistently unstable. You figure out why we need to be over there.


Ms. Fonda, if you can come up with a way to eliminate all (or even most) of the need for petroleum-based products in our daily lives, then you will have something worth taking across the country. But given the fact that your cooking-oil-powered bus wouldn't be a bus at all without petroleum-based products, your little tour is a sad waste of time and effort.


Not to mention, it makes you look like an idiot.