MIC-Check 1-2: Reality FACT

Sometimes when we take the wrong road to our destination, and notice way down the road we are lost, we choose to keep going on that road hoping it will lead us to a new path to our original destination, instead of turning around. In the same way we often make decisions in life that we discover are not going to help us achieve our goal. But we have expended much energy and time in working our plan, so we keep pushing through with it in the hope that we can still find a way around to get to our original goal...

REALITY FACT - more than often we would waste less time and energy making a U-turn instead of forging ahead in the wrong direction.

THIS CHRISTIAN NEEDS A DRINK!

Today was a rough day...and I NEED a drink! Twas one of those days that make me wanna 'down ah likkle rum punch' and skank down to some serious Gospel Reggae. The problem is that it seems a mighty contradiction to get a little loose on some alcohol while singing God's Praises to a Reggae beat! Not that there is something wrong with alcohol, per se, - heck Jesus' first recorded miracle was to turn water into wine, right???

But I guess my Catholic upbringing is messing up my fantasy - that said, every Catholic and all manner of Christian folk I encountered growing up drank alcohol so why is it I'm hung up? It's not like I want to get slaughtered off the stuff, like most of them did. Ah! but even though I witnessed Catholics and other Christians drinking, I was indoctrinated against indulging in such a vice while growing up in a Caribbean island - of all places! Hello! Land of rum punch! 

It's another one of those wretched contradictions in one's thought processes that just doesn't seem to want to go away. Even if I were to argue with myself about the fact that 'ah likkle rum punch’ - peanut or passion fruit...hmmm or coconut, or just unadulterated lime punch (yum), is no big deal, drinking in the presence of my 'minors' (aka my children) while trying to raise them to stay away from such 'vices' doesn't bode well with the Spirit (mine, that is). Of course, being mindful of representing Christ in a non hypocritical manner, unlike the way I saw Christians growing up, also has me considering people's perception regarding a Christian drinking (and buying) alcohol. An 'unsaved' person has no problem drinking themselves into oblivion and thinking nothing of it, but let a Christian drink one drink, and OMG! Why is it a Christian can be forgiven for murder but not for drinking? 

But never mind that - shucks, what would Christians say about another Christian drinking alcohol ? I tell you what they will say...the same judgemental nonsense I hear in the Church - 'she's backsliding!'. Christians have jumped on this non-alcohol wagon too quick. Yes, some of them need to stay away from it after they get saved because they sure will over-indulge and act like a mule; but some of us are hardly going to "lose our religion" over a drink (one is all that's physically needed to loosen one's nerves, unless you are a 'soulant' {heavy drinker/drunkard}, as my Kweyol peoples would say.)

...Anyway, this is a useless conversation. I am talking to myself about the fact that myself wants a drink and feels like myself can't have one without some other disturbance to myself's overloaded brain and emotions. Bugger it I say!!! (ooops, that might be a curse word, haven't used it in a looooooong time, nor on these shores before, so not sure anymore - ya see how alcohol (or the want of) can lead you to sin!!!? LOL!)...Well, how about 'dog it'? seems tame enough...Dog It! I am going to have me some Haagen Daz Rum Raisin ice-cream before bed and get fat over my acceptable form of alcohol, while I peruse the ultimate barometer of whether or not this Christian should have a REAL rum punch - Yep! Time to consult those Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth (aka The BIBLE)

Good night...and stay tuned for the FACTS about the ability - or lack thereof - of this Christian to drink a rum punch...

FACTOID-THINKER: things that make me go 'hmmm'

1. All 'forests' contain a dense population of trees & vegetation, & are home to wildlife.
2. All 'jungles' contain a dense population of trees & vegetation, & are home to wildlife.
3. 'Forests' are geographically located in non-tropical lands, usually considered a part of the 'developed' world.
4. 'Jungles' are geographically located in tropical lands, usually considered a part of the
'under-developed' world.
5. Most of the 'developed' world contain high populations of non-Blacks, while most of the population of the 'under-developed' world are non-white.
6. Stereotypical images of the 'forest' are of a serene, calm, thriving natural habitat.
7. Stereotypical images of the 'jungle' are of a wild, untamed, dangerous region.

Is it just me or are there some correlations, here, between racist perceptions of people and how we classify 'things' and places associated with one or another particular racial group(s)?

BREAK OUT OF JAIL FREE?: Jailbreaking is legal but is it morally correct?

"Federal regulators said in a ruling that consumers can jailbreak their mobile devices without fear of legal repercussions from handset makers over violating copyright protections..." Phil Goldstein  (http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/u-s-regulators-decalre-iphone-jailbreaking-legal/2010-07-26)


Sounds like a sweet deal, right? All those cell phones and other mobile devices we love totally and legally accessible to us whether or not we subscribe to the approved carrier. But did you miss the subtle line at the end of Goldstein's statement? The article does not state that no copyright violation occurs when someone jailbreaks a phone, it merely highlights the FACT that the government has set a law into place that will allow a person to jailbreak a mobile device "without fear of legal repercussions from handset makers."

In light of the new law, Apple, a company experiencing a higher degree of jailbreaking of their mobile devices, remains adamant in it's policies and technological attempts to protect the copyright of their products and exclusivity with their approved service and sales providers. And why, you may be asking? Is it just capitalist greed? Well, sure, they want to keep as much money in their pockets as possible - that's the nature of a good profit-making business. But the FACT is, irregardless of lack of indemnity under the law for those who jailbreak devices, IT IS STILL A VIOLATION OF A COMPANY'S COPYRIGHT TO JAILBREAK A MOBILE DEVICE!

Now, I highlight this FACT to say this: There are many Christians who have and continue to openly declare that they jailbreak mobile devices, both before, and since this law came into effect to grant them exemption them from legal repercussion; so I'm curious to know: How can one can profess to follow Christ and still engage in what is, essentially, property theft, or, at the very least, a trespass of property - irrespective of the legal freedom to do so?

Now, we can get into semantic and legal debates about whether or not the customer has a right to exercise this new law without criminal, or even moral conscience. However, for brevity sake, since it is an already established FACT that this new law changes nothing as to the rights to copyright, but merely introduces another loophole in the Swiss-cheese of our legal system, we shall focus, instead, on the grey area Christians, and others, face in light of this new law. The new law has essentially condoned copyright infringement of mobile devices by exempting offenders from any legal consequences, effectively deeming them 'guiltless' of any crime.  However, the new law makes no change in a mobile device maker's right to maintain copyright of their product, so these manufacturers are still entitled to ownership rights under copyright law.

Christians often quote 1 Peter 2:13-17 to demonstrate that God wants people to obey the law of the land. With this position of thinking it seems a simple matter of dismissing the sense of any legal 'guilt' as to a Christian - or anyone else - jailbreaking a mobile device, since they have been granted legal protection against indemnity within the scope of this new law. However, what tends to be overlooked is the FACT that, in verse 14, of the aforesaid Scripture, God is quite specific about the type of government the Believer is to follow with the fervency that this command requires: "...those who are sent by Him (God) for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good." 

Now, I make no calls against our government, being an active supporter of many of those who lend their lives to the service of this great Nation. What I will say is that, clearly, by the proof of the historical and contemporary Law of this land alone, which does not always uphold Godly principles (prior civil rights abuses, abortion laws etc.), our government is not a government 'sent' by God, nor even necessarily is it made up of people who believe in God. Now does that mean we disregard man's Law completely because God did not appoint them to government? No, not at all. Even Christ instructed the people to render unto Caesar that which was Caesar's (Matthew 22:21).
 
To merge all sides of the coin: Christians are to obey the law of the land - at least, inasmuch as it lines up with God, and sometimes, even in cases where it may appear unfair (Caesar's extortionate taxes). Copyright & patents are a law of property that, like all law, places a standard against sin, in this case of theft and trespass. Mobile device makers, like Apple, who, within the scope of these copyright laws, have created policies and implemented practices that seek to protect the copyright of their products. Their rights are to be respected as much as our, now, legal right to infringe upon their copyright without consequence because the FACT is legal penalty or not, jailbreaking a mobile device illegally infringes on a company's rights to distribute, sell and service their property in a  manner they intend....So which should Christians choose? - follow the new Law of Man blindly, without regard to the moral and legal infringement of a company's copyright, or forfeit their own legal right to do as they please with a product they purchase so that they do not commit a trespass or theft against a mobile device maker's copyright to product?

What's your thoughts on these FACTS?