Español ist verboten, but \/\/#@t @80u7 l33t?

T3# 1337 ñ@+10N@L ∆∩tH3\/,
8y ƒЯ@n(!Ş $©0T┼ K3¥ßöÅ®Đ


zer0 $@y xaN u (
8y t3h )4uu//z 3@21y £!6h+
\X/#@† 50 ?Я0u)1y w3 -4!L3>
@ t3# +W!1I6h7'5 £^st 6134v1\6?

H00z 8r04d $tR1pz & 8r16#+ *z
+#Ru te# p32!1µ$ ph][t3
0'r +h€ ®@m?@2tz w3 uu@t(h0r3d
\/\/ër 50 6@1AnT1y $R3Am1n6?

&teH RRR0x0r3tz r3) G1@R3
+Eh 80mBz bvR$+1n6 N @1r
6@v3 p200ƒ 7hR00 the n16hT
+H@ 0u® F1@6 W^z &T1!! +h3R3!!!eleven!11!!

z3r0 §@Y )uz +h@T * $p@N613d
8@Nn32 Y3+ WWW@v3
zeR0x0r +3h _@N) 0F t3# phr33
& tH2+1 #0M3 0f 7h3 82@V3?!

> b@11!
U$@! U$@! U$@!
W3 pwn3d y0u2 $uX0Ry (0Un+®Y!

Well THAT didn't take long... South Dakota abortion ban

(Cross-posted from http://spaces.msn.com/beoshingus)

The legislature of South Dakota has decided to be the one to push the envelope and see just how pro-life this new U.S. Supreme Court is going to be. More info here.

Quoth the article:

Under the new bill, doctors in South Dakota would face up to five years in
prison for performing an abortion. The only exception would be for women who
need abortions to save their lives.

I don't really have a problem with that. It's a difficult situation, but I believe that sacrificing one life to save another is not something to condemn or scorn. It is an extremely sad situation when that happens. But it is fairly rare. The majority of abortions are performed as a means of birth control. I believe that using abortion as birth control (at any phase of the pregnancy) is nothing but infanticide.

I'm sure you'll be following this discussion, whether you want to or not. This will be all over the media for some time to come. One thing is clear (to me, at least): Roe v. Wade was a political decision; pure judicial legislation. Our Constitution forbids the judiciary from making law, and yet that is just what happened. Whether you agree with the law created by RvW or not, the simple fact is that the law would never have passed Congress and the signature of the President at the time the ruling was made. That is the only legal way for a law to be passed, and RvW circumvented the process to push a political agenda. There has been a culture war over this issue ever since.

Expect it to continue. To intensify. To get violent, on both sides. But for now, it is a waiting game. Be certain that when this law is passed in SD and goes into effect, the lawsuits will begin that day. The Supreme Court will be hearing the case soon. And then we'll know the next chapter in this sad, sad story.

Superbowl: Referees are Steelers' MVPs

Bill Levy gets my vote for Pittsburgh's MVP. Steelers fans: how much did the referees cost you guys? Looks like you got your money's worth.

I'd like to throw a yellow flag on Pittsburgh for having 18 men on the field (seven wearing stripes.)

Offensive interference on Jackson? A Rothlisberger touchdown reminiscent of Texas Tech's "victory" over Oklahoma? A bogus holding call (non-existant on replay) that moves Seattle back to their 40 instead of having the ball on the 1 yard line? A 15 yard personal foul on Hasselbeck for a clean tackle on the ball carrier? Then they give the Steelers a timeout rather than a delay of game penalty after the play clock clearly had already reached zero (again, very clear on the replay.) This let them get the first down to extend the time-draining drive to keep the ball away from Seattle.

One bad call is forgivable, but this was ridiculous. I started to lose count.
All that in their favor and the Steelers still only win by 11. Pittsburgh had some good plays, but they would have lost by 14 or more if the zebras didn't negate every big play Seattle made with a bogus call. Even Al Michaels and John Madden said those were bad calls. It's too bad that football games are no longer decided by the players on the field.

This was the worst example I've seen all year of score engineering by the officiating crew. There have been some bad calls in many other games this year, but this was shameful and obvious bias.

I'm not the only one who thinks so:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5310192

The Palestinians have spoken: "We want more terrorism!"

Now that the Palestinians have democratically elected bomb hurling terrorists to rule their government, can we FINALLY stop sending aid money to the Palestinian Authority?

Democracy is great.

It shows how the majority of voters REALLY feel. Hamas is no longer a marginal fringe group of nuts; they are now the establishment. The philosophy of Hamas is not restricted to a rogue party; it is now the official Palestinian foreign policy. Think about that for a minute. The terrorists have taken over the government - not by force, but by the will of the people. Now that the Palestinians have decided democratically that they want terrorists to be their leaders, can we stop pretending that their fanatacism is isolated to only a few loonies? Can we finally admit that maybe, just maybe, the majority of Palestinians really do want the destruction of Israel? Can we finally admit that they really do endorse terrorism to accomplish this goal?

The commentators on the news this week have been pathetic. They've been pandering nonstop, saying "now that Hamas is in control politically, this will most likely moderate their previously radical views." How naive can you be? (I'm sure that the wishful thinkers in Germany in the 1930s probably said similar things. "Now that the NDSAP is in control politically, their radical views will probably be toned down." And then Hitler had Hindenburg removed from office, the Reichstag dissolved, Austria was annexed, the Sudetenland invaded, etc. etc. etc.) Anyone who thinks that Hamas will become a bunch of nice well behaved people now that they have the power in Palestine is a fool of the highest degree.

I have one more question. I'll pose this to the abominable Hamas politician who has joyfully sent three of her sons to Israel to blow themselves up and kill as many Israelis as possible (for the glory of Allah!):

"If it's so honorable and glorious to murder children by strapping a bomb to yourself and detonating it on a bus or in a restaraunt, why haven't you blown yourself up yet? If blowing yourself inside-out in an effort to destroy unarmed civilians is the highest form of bravery and service to Allah, aren't you being a coward by sending others instead of yourself? Aren't you ashamed of your cowardice?"

Now I'll pose the same question to Osama bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, and all the other glorious leaders of the Islamist Dynamite Brigade.

Come on, people. Lead by example.

Evolution continued...

This is a good topic, so I'll toss a few more coals on the fire.

Evolution claims that life becomes more diverse as time progresses. (This is one point at which it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.) It claims that live began as single celled organisms which then evolved over time to encompass the multitude of life forms that exist on earth today.

Here are a couple of problems with that.

There are too many examples of symbiotic relationships. Two (or more) species which supposedly developed along different evolutionary lines and at different time frames and which cannot survive long without the other. What of the obligate symbionts? How does evolution explain this?

More importantly, if nature is becoming more diverse (as evolution claims), why is it that we observe exactly the opposite? Are there more species now than 200 years ago or less? There are less. Has there been any scientifically observed example of a new species that didn't exist 200 years ago? None. This is an example of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at work. Order tends to disorder. Decay with time. Evolution asks us to believe exactly the opposite.

There are actually two kinds of evolution. Macroevolution (extraspecies changes - the notion that higher life forms evolve from lower), and microevolution (intraspecies changes - the notion that certain traits will develop within a species through breeding.) Microevolution that is uncontrolled will diminish diversity, whereas macroevolution claims to increase diversity. Microevolution is scientifically observable and provable.

Macroevolution is not. Science is based on observation. No person has ever witnessed macroevolution. It is a theory. A theory in the realm of science is not something to be proven or disproven; rather in this context the word "theory" refers to a framework or paradigm designed to explain the current state of things. In this way, the theory of evolution is equivalent to the theory of creation. It is a framework on which people base assumptions. Neither macroevolution nor creation has been or can be witnessed by scientists, so neither one can be scientifically quantifiable.

I repeat: macroevolution has NEVER been witnessed by mankind. There is no evidence to support it. Likewise, there is no evidence to support the theory of creation. Each must be taken by faith.

For whatever reason, science has become a panacea in western culture. To the average American layperson, science is studied in middle school and then never again. Scientists are seen as brilliant people who can do just about anything. They are taken at their word. When a scientist claims that pollution is causing global warming, politicians and the press believe it. When a scientist states that a certain star is 26 million light years away from earth, people believe him. Most people do not know how he reached this conclusion, nor do they even question his methods, because they assume that the scientist knows what he is doing. After all, he is a "scientist." Do you know the intimate details of how carbon-14 dating works? But do you take it for granted when an article in a magazine tells you that a certain dinosaur bone is x millions of years old that this must be true? People often trust scientists blindly - in essense, people "put their faith" in scientists.

I didn't go to college to become a scientist. I'm an engineer and a mathematician. But any engineering degree requires so much science that you get a really good feel for it. If you've gone though many of these classes, you'll be familiar with the term "WAG" - "wild ass guess." I sat through lots of classes with lots of people who are now "scientists," and I can tell you this: when something doesn't make sense despite rerunning the experiment over and over again, a WAG is born. When the numbers don't add up just right, the assumptions are tweaked a bit. When a phenomenon is unexplainable but some basis is needed for other ideas to stand on, a theory is born.

Is this bad? Not necessarily. Theories are necessary as an explanation of status quo. But theories are inherently disprovable, because they are intended as a possible explanation for what cannot logically be proven. Will there ever be a proven definitive explanation of the origin of the universe? Never, because to be proven, it would have required witnesses and observers. Since no scientists were present for it, there will only ever be theories.

Likewise for the origins of life on earth. No scientists were present; there is no possible evidence of the process. Nobody can prove that God created life, and nobody can disprove it. Nobody can prove macroevolution, and nobody can disprove it.

But here are some things that it fails to address:

If macroevolution occurred as described, there should be an approximation of a continuum of intermediary species. Science assumes that birds descended from lizards. If so, there should be a blur of species in between - species with various degrees of meshing of bird and lizard characteristics. Instead, we observe a stepwise pattern of birds on one hand and lizards on the other hand. Where are the 50/50 bird/lizards? Where are the 20/80 bird/lizards? Et cetera. Where is the fossil evidence? The notion of a "missing link" is false. There chain would have to be much longer than one missing link. Assume a 10 mile long chain, and we have only two of the original links. On theory would say that the other links must have existed though there is no evidence; another theory would suggest that there were only those two links to begin with.

If macroevolution occurred as described, then one species should be capable of producing a multitude of species. If this is true, why has it never been observed? Why is there not a single new species of life on earth today that didn't exist hundreds or thousands of years ago? This one point alone is enough to cast serious doubt on the ability of the theory of macroevolution to describe the processes that have produced the world we observe today.

The theory of macroevolution cannot logically be proven or disproven by science. But there is plenty of evidence against it.

Things Pure Evolutionists MUST Believe In

If you are a pure evolutionist, you have to have a lot of faith. You have to set aside reason and logic and believe that things happen contrary to the natural order of physics and thermodynamics. But I'll save that discussion for another day. This will be a metaphysical discussion rather than a physical one. From Darwins propositions, we will logically show the illogic of his theory.

To believe in evolution, one must not merely state one's belief, but one must also demonstrate a willingness and tendency to participate in its processes. Below are the concepts that you must not only accept, but embrace and promote if you claim to be an evolutionist (don't get mad at me for saying these things; I'm not the one promoting evolution):

1.) Exploitation and extermination of lesser species. As the most advanced form of life on the planet, we must not artificially inhibit the evolutionary processes by interfering with nature. When the California Condor or the Giant Panda or the Blue Whale goes extinct, hey, that's just evolution working its magic. Their demise is necessary and proper from an evolutionary standpoint. If mankind interferes with this extinction, he is acting contrary to the evolutionary order of things. Other species are either to be exploited or removed. No tears. Survival of the fittest. If they deserved to live, they would have killed you first. No effort must be made to prevent the extinction of any other living species or potential rivals for resources. Anything you do to prevent or even delay the purging of these genetically weak species is perverting the natural course of evolution.

2.) Anarchy. Law and order are the enemies of Darwinian evolution. Don't believe me? What is the purpose of law? To protect the weak from the strong. This is counterproductive in the Darwinian paradigm, and even harmful. To protect the weak from the strong would ultimately artificially promote the propagation of the genetic material of the weak. In pure evolution, might makes right, and the weak must die out in order to strengthen the race. Murder, stealing, and treachery are not only allowed, but encouraged, as long as the strong can exploit the weak. There are no "victims" allowed in evolution. To be a victim is to be inferior and therefore a detriment to the survival of the species. Evolution demands that you remove your rivals by any means necessary, because survival and propagation is all that matters.

3.) Genocide. Racial purity must be obtained to fulfill the evolutionary progression. Those races which cannot survive do not deserve to survive according to Darwinian philosophy. The most obvious example of this from recent history was of course Adolf Hitler. Hitler was obsessed with evolutionary theory and subsequently the purity of the human race. He intended to promote evolution within the human race by purging humanity of the "weaker" and more "ape-like" races of man. Primitive races of mankind must not be allowed to survive and pollute the genetic well. This behavior is fully consistent with the notion of Darwinian evolution.

4.) Bigamy and rape. The males of the species must mate with as many females as possible, and by force if necessary. This is required to ensure that the genetic material of the strongest specimens is passed on and deseminated as widely as possible. The strongest will be able to force their will upon others and mate with more females than the weaker males, and thus the genetic code of the weak will gradually be phased out of the gene pool over the generations. The purpose of the female is only to bear the children of the strongest males.

5.) Amorality. There can be no mercy, love, respect, or code of moral conduct. These will only serve as a liability to the species by preventing the extermination of the weak. The handicapped must be eliminated. The sick must be destroyed. The rights of the species must take precedence over the rights of the individual. All notions of morality must be squashed, as well as those who promote morality. Morality in any form cannot be tolerated in any form. One must never put the needs of others (mates, children, parents, neighbors, strangers) above their own needs, and must exploit the resources of others at every opportunity. Children of weaker genetic stock must be eliminated before they have the opportunity to reproduce.

So how would you like to live in a world like that? I will state it as emphatically as I can: if you believe in evolution, you MUST embrace these concepts. If you find these concepts hard to swallow, then I put it to you that you do not truly embrace the philosophy of evolution.

For us to truly follow evolutions teachings, we must debase ourselves to the level of wild animals. The five points above can accurately describe the behavior of wild animals. Does it describe human beings? At times, humanity can certainly take on these traits.

But the very fact that humanity is capable of overcoming and defying these traits proves several things. First, we are different from the animals. Humans DO have concepts of morality, law, faithfulness, love, preservation, justice, and fairness. Humans do have the capacity to reach out and provide benefit to the weaker beings around them. Second, and more important, it proves that evolution cannot be true. How could evolution produce in humanity, its highest realization, traits which are contrary to evolution itself? To go counter to the necessary requirements of evolution is to prove that mankind is not the product of evolution.

The sense of justice, equality, fairness, morality, law, rights, love, mercy, kindness - these are unique to the human race among the species of the earth. As much as we may anthropomorphize the animal kingdom in literature and imagination, they do not possess these traits. How could mankind have inherited these traits - which are detrimental to the concept of evolution - from evolution itself? This is self-destructive: an oxymoron within a theory which is based on progress through the removal of weakness.

I put it to you that the opposite of those five traits - care and protection of lesser species, law and order, racial harmony, familial coherence, and morality - are present and even dominant (albeit in various degrees and manifestations) throughout the human race. I further put it to you that these traits are counter to evolution, and therefore not the product of evolution.

Therefore I propose to you that these traits are the result of something else; that mankind is descended not from animals, but from a Higher Power who is the very essense of these traits. This Power embodies consideration for the weak, law and order, union and harmony, the concept of family, and ultimate morality - i.e., the freedom to choose between right and wrong. We are made in His image. The choices we make for right or for wrong determine how much we resemble Him, or how much we resemble the animals.

There is enough of His fingerprint on each person to cause us all to desire the good and the right. I do not believe that any person would desire the implications of the five traits of evolution. Those who desire to believe it fail to consider the results of that system if they did not turn out to be the strongest. Evolution paints a bleak picture. It is filled with death and destruction. On the other hand, the notion of a loving God who created us for his purposes gives us hope and meaning. Would you rather live in a world ruled by the mighty, where paranoia and death alienates you from all other creatures, or would you prefer to live in a world where you have meaning and purpose, where you are free and loved?

When the early Christian missionaries in Scotland and Ireland were attempting to win the ruthless Vikings to the Christian faith, the results were at first catastrophic. Missionaries were slain by the mighty warlords. Churches and abbeys were plundered and destroyed. It would seem as though evolution were true - the mighty were destroying the weak. But the Vikings eventuall saw in the Christians something of which they had never conceived. These Christians had an indomitable and irrational hope. Death held for them no fear. It is told that at a meeting of a Viking warlord with a Christian missionary, a dove flew into the house by an open window, and then flew out the other side by another window, passing through the room only briefly. The Christian used this as a parable of human life. We enter this world, we fly through it quickly and for a brief time, and exit through the opposite window. The warlord, being very pragmatic, made a profound statement: "If you are wrong, Christian, and this God you live for does not exist, then you and I shall both someday die, and we shall have lost nothing, for dust passes to dust and life has no meaning. But if you are right, and this God does exist, then you and I shall both someday die, and I shall have lost everything." That realization led to his conversion to Christianity. "If you're wrong, nothing matters; but if you're right, nothing else matters." From this man hedging his bets with God, Christianity spread throughout Scandanavia. For him, a life of hope, even if it was false hope, was preferable to a life of hopelessness and dread.

That's not quite faith, but it did lead to faith for him and millions of other people. He realized one thing - although he didn't initially know for sure which way was right, he realized that his old beliefs did nothing for him, but that beliefe in Christ provided hope and love. Even if Christianity turned out not to be true, he preferred that life to the alternative.

So I put to you - what has evolution done for you lately? If you're right about evolution, and that there is no God, what will you have gained in the end? You and I will each be dead, and you won't even have the chance to say, "I told you so." But if I'm right, and Christianity is true, what will you have lost in the end? Everything. Why would you willing to take that chance? Why would you pass up a life filled with hope in exchange for a life filled with dread of the grave?

My lunch with Ray Nagin

I had lunch with Ray Nagin today. We went to Jason's Deli and sat down to have a little chat. Ray ordered a sandwich, and I got the salad bar. I love the salad bar at Jason's Deli. I was very intrigued by his comments yesterday, so I was anxious to ask him about it.

"So, Ray, you had some interesting things to say in your press conference yesterday."

"I'm always interesting," said Ray.

"I'm sure you are. What on earth promted that, anyway?"

"What are you talking about? I like to talk."

"That's obvious. You know what I'm talking about. The whole 'chocolate' thing."

"What, you got a problem with me, Whitey?"

"Well, yes, but that's beside the point. I mean, were your comments in response to someone else who was calling for a Vanilla New Orleans, or are you just a racist biggot?"

He raised his eyebrows a bit at that.

"I ain't no racist, you dumb honkey. I just said that New Orleans would be a chocolate town by the time I finished with it," replied the Honorable Mayor Ray Nagin.

"And you don't see that as racist?" I asked him.

"No, you stupid redneck, didn't you hear what I said? And I quote: 'How do you make chocolate? You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink. That is the chocolate I am talking about.' Are all you people too dumb to understand that?"

"Well, that's not how you make chocolate at all, for one thing," I replied. "And do you really think people were too dumb to understand what you really meant? You didn't want to mix dark chocolate and white milk. You sounded like some crazed James Bond villain. 'Dark chocolate will rule the world! Wahahaha!' Your dark chocolate is too bitter for my taste."

"New Orleans has always been a chocolate city!"

"Ray, what the heck does that even mean?"

"You know what it means!"

"Yes, I do, and so does everyone else. I think the question everyone has is why you think you can say it without considered being a racist biggot."

"I said black and white together!"

"No, you said 'chocolate.' We all heard you. Let me show you the difference."

I walked over to the soft serve ice cream machine and took a cone from the stack. I held it up and pulled the left lever. "See, this is chocolate." Then the right lever. "And this is vanilla." Finally the middle lever. "This here is called 'twist.' Chocolate AND vanilla. Working together, side by side. You don't like twist, do you? You just like chocolate."

"I love chocolate."

"Do you hate vanilla?"

"No, I like vanilla just fine."

"Ah, but you don't really care for twist all that much, do you? And that is what makes you a racist more than anything. Segregation was bad when it wasn't you calling the shots, but you prefer it when you are, right?"

"Hmmph."

"Well you know, there might just be chocolate and vanilla here, but America is more like that Baskin Robbins next door. There are a lot more flavors. Vanilla and chocolate sell better than the banana nut fudge or strawberry swirl or pink bubblegum, but that doesn't mean that those flavors don't exist. And when you stand up and state your intentions to make New Orleans a chocolate city, you are excluding all other flavors."

"No, I'm not! I just want to make sure that it remains predominantly chocolate!"

"Look, Ray. If any white mayor in this country proclaimed their intention to make their city a vanilla city, don't you think that people would jump all over him as a racist?"

"Only a racist white bastard would say something like that! Trying to oppress my people!"

"No Ray, you are oppressing your own people by your double standards. Seperate but equal was bad, but integration was worse in your eyes. You want 'seperate but superior.'"

"I do not!"

"You do. Equal rights wasn't enough for you. You want chocolate to have privileges that vanilla doesn't. You are cut from the very same cloth as David Duke, just with the colors reversed."

"But my people have suffered enough!"

"Look man, I never owned a slave, and you never were one. What do I owe you?"

"You're still keeping my people down!"

"No Ray, you and others like you are keeping your people down. If a black man gets a good education and speaks proper English and lives anywhere but a 'chocolate neighborhood,' you ostracize him for 'selling out to Whitey.' If you continue to equate education and success with 'whiteness,' and 'whiteness' with selling out, how do you ever expect a black man to be educated and successful without race being in front of him all the time? Morgan Freeman was right: he said that the only way America would ever get over racial bias is for people to shut up about it and quit making it an issue."

"Then quit making it an issue, Whitey! You're just like all those Whities, hatin' on me 'cause I'm black."

"Ray, I don't hate you because you're black. I despise you because you are an idiot, and worse than that, you are an idiot who gets press coverage."

Enter the Constitutional Contest! Win big prize money!

In an effort to educate Americans about the Constitution, I am offering a $25 prize to the first person who can show me where the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees American citizens the "right to privacy."

As a special bonus, I am offering a further $50 prize - yes, that's right: FIFTY DOLLARS! - to the first person who can demonstrate where the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees a woman's right to have an abortion. An additional $50 bonus if you can also find the word "trimester" in the Constitution in reference to pregnancy.

And for the Grand Prize, a $100 - ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS! - award to the first person to show me where the Constitution of the United States of America establishes "seperation of church and state." (Hint: This is not the 1st Amendment! Remember, the 1st Amendment guarantees that Congress [or: "Congreff," haha] can make no law condoning an establishment of religion, and no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion - essentially, Congress can make NO LAW WHATSOEVER about religion, for those of you who have trouble with logic problems. And the Constitution says that the Court can make no law period. Keep looking! You know it's in there, right?)

SO, there you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen! You could win up to $175 (plus the $50 Trimester bonus!) Please note that to qualify for any of the prizes, you must cite actual passages in the real Constitution of The United States of America. That last part is important. It has to be the American Constitution, or it doesn't count.

Good luck, and happy hunting! I'll round it out with another $50 if you bring me back a few snipe as well.

Hmm... need help.

Okay, I'm not sure why Blogger is supposed to be so much better than MSN Spaces, but I'd definitely like input from people who use it as to why it is their preference. Having used Blogger for a week or so, I see several differences when compared to MSN Spaces:

• In Blogger, there is no centralized way to view comments without turning on moderation. Therefore I have to scan each post for new comments OR turn on email notification and potentially clog up my inbox. In MSN Spaces, there is a central control panel that lists comments and trackbacks.
• Oh yeah, Blogger doesn't support trackbacks.
• Blogger gives more control over the appearance of the page. I like that, but at the same time, I don't really want to spend a lot of time customizing the template.
• MSN has built-in photo albums and media player.
• Blogger allows anonymous comments without a passport. But EVERYONE has a passport, don't they?
• People who have me in their MSN Messenger contact list are automatically notified when my blog is updated. I like that, too.
• Also, it's been about a week, and I'm still not rich and famous like Miranda said I would be. I don't even have paparazzi taking pictures of me at the grocery store yet!

So I'm not sure that Blogger is all that and a bag of chips like it's supposed to be. Somebody please convince me that I'm wrong.

When Louis XIV came to visit: Part Three - Déjeuner chinois

“So Louis, are you hungry?”

“Oui. The food on the aeroplane, il était tout à fait terrible.”

“Yeah, I don’t doubt that. So what kind of food would you like? There’s Mexican, barbeque, pizza, Thai…”

“Thai?”

“Oh, I guess I should say ‘Siam.’ Huh. ‘Siamese’ food sounds strange. All I can think of is 'Meox Mix.' Anyway, there’s also Italian…”

“Bah!”

“… German..."

"Je mangerais plutôt de la viande de cheval que la nourriture allemande."

"... sorry, we don't eat horse meat in this country. There's Tex-mex... mmm, Taco Cabana...um, hamburgers, hot dogs, steakhouses, Chinese, seafood…”

“How do you get seafood so far inland?”

“...it swims up the river… Indian food, fried chicken, Polynesian, Argentinian, soup and sandwiches, Cajun, Greek, Lebanese, and oh yeah, French. But you probably want to try something new.”

“You have cuisine from all over the world? Just like that?”

“Yep.”

“Amazing. I want to eat something Oriental.”

“Okay, we’ll swing by Egg Roll Street on the way home.”

When we pulled up to the drive through, Louis was a bit bewildered. He had been under the mistaken impression that my Chinese servants at home would be preparing our meal. I did my best to explain to him that he should select something from the menu, but he got distracted.

“AHHH!”

“What?!”

“The sign is talking!”

“Yeah, yeah. The magic sign wants to know what you’d like to eat.”

“CHI-NESE FOOD,” he enunciated slowly to the magic sign.

“No, no. Choose a dish from this list here.”

“Oh. Quel est ‘Moo Goo Gai Pan?’”

“Nobody knows.”

“Qui l'enfer est-il 'Générale Tso?'”

“I’m not sure, but he makes some nice chicken.”

“Poulet?”

“Oui.”

So I ordered my Hunan Beef ("'Human Boeuf?! That is worse than horses!" "NO NO NO, I didn't say 'HUMAN' beef Louis, I said 'HUNAN' beef!") and a Cho Cho, and Louis XIV ordered his General Tso’s Chicken and a side of Wantons. We pulled forward and waited a couple of minutes while the food was prepared.

“So you keep your Chinese servants in a separate kitchen facility from your other servants? That is probably best. Keep the Orientals seperated from the others. All of my servants stay in the basement at Versailles and la Louvre. And having the kitchen separate from the house is very wise! Kitchen fires can be very dangerous. Many a chateau has been destroyed by an errant blaze.”

“No no, Louis, you’ve got it wrong. I don’t own this place. They do.”

“Your servants own the kitchen?!”

“They’re not my servants. They are business owners. Their business is to operate this restaurant and sell Chinese food.”

“So you only deal with them when you desire Chinese food?”

“Pretty much. Although the girl who takes my order is very cute. I've been thinking of asking her out.”

“So you don’t have to provide quarters for them or even have them on your grounds? How very wise!”

“Uh, yeah.”

The window opened, and our order was handed to us all tied up in a plastic bag. I gave it to Louis to hold on his lap so that it didn’t spill on the way home.

“Merci!” shouted Louis to the cute Chinese girl at the window as we pulled away. Great, she's going to think I'm a weirdo because I have a velvet-clad Frenchman in my car.

“You don't even have to leave your carriage to get your food? Fantastic! Where are we going to eat this? Here in the carriage?”

“Absolutely NOT in my carriage. I don’t want you getting any sauce on my leather seats. I don’t need my ‘carriage’ to smell like General Tso’s chicken. We’re going to my house now.”

“At last! I’ve been looking forward to exploring your chateau and your jardins! After seeing your magnificent city I can’t wait to see how opulent your palace is!”

Hmm. He was in for quite a surprise. I had just cut back the vinca in my jardin for winter, and it's way too early for the tulips. Considering the grounds of Versailles, I didn't think he'd be very impressed by my 10'x4' patch of earth with cedar mulch and dead chrysanthemums. Little did I realize how he would react when he saw my “Grand Palais.”

TO BE CONTINUED...

When Louis XIV came to visit: Part Two - La Politique

“Hmmph. Where are we, anyway?”

“We’re in Oklahoma. In the New World. In fact, this was once part of your land. I think it was like 1680-something, and that butt-smoocher René Robert Cavelier de La Salle claimed all of this land in your name and named it after you.” I saw his eyes light up at that. I was going to hate to burst his bubble.

“You mean all of this … is mine? Ha-ha!" He rolled down the window and stuck his head out as we went down Highway 169, shouting, "tremble before your king, Tulsa! Je suis le Roi Soleil!”

“Um. Noooo. Not anymore. And cut that out. It's cold.” I rolled the window back up.

“What do you mean?”

"I mean you're letting in cold air!"

"No, I mean what do you mean 'not anymore?'"

“Well, a guy named Napoleon Bonaparte who was ruling France at the time sold it to us in 1803.”

“Cet imbécile! One of my descendents, and heir to my throne would do such a traitorous thing as to sell this magnificent land? Wait a minute. ‘Napoleon Bonaparte?’ I am a Capet, not a Bonaparte. 'Bonaparte' doesn’t even sound French!”

“Well, er, not exactly one of your descendents. He’s from… uh… Corsica.”

“MERDE! How did this happen?!”

“Language, your highness. Uh, we need to have a talk about your great-great-great-grandson. He was kind of an idiot.”

“So, if you are not subjects of France, who is your Lord?”

“We have no Lord but God himself.”

“You have no ruler at all?”

“Well, we have government leaders, sure. But our leaders are chosen from among the people by the people, and they only rule for a predetermined period of time.”

“By the people? Ha! The people are too uneducated and stupid to choose their own leaders! They would probably choose some fool who would destroy the nation!”

“Well, the French would at least. Five different Republics since the Capetians and they still don’t have it right,” I muttered under my breath. “Speaking of which, watch out for a man named Maximilien Robespierre. That guy is a jerk. And Albert Lebrun is going to give the country to Germany one day. Coward. You might want to leave a few notes laying around warning people about François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac as well.”

"Who?"

"As for America, we've been doing just fine. In fact, we've had to come over there and save your French butts from the Germans twice in the last hundred years. Those wacky Germans. They sure do like occupying France. Probably has something to do with being mad about what Napoleon did to them..."

“Hmmph.”

I could tell it was time to change the subject. I was getting hungry anyway, and you just shouldn't talk politics on an empty stomach.

TO BE CONTINUED...

When Louis XIV came to visit: Part One - Arrivée

Louis XIV came to visit my house the other day.

It was only fair, since I visited his houses a few years ago. I certainly don't live in anything like Versailles or the Louvre, but it's home, and I owed him the hospitality in return. However, my bathrooms are a lot more accessible than his are, and I don't charge admission. But I digress.

When I went to pick Louis XIV up at the airport, it was a blustery cold day. His flight was late (as usual), but I got a good parking spot near the baggage claim. Apparently, he had been involved in an altercation with the TSA while making his connection in Houston. They took away his ceremonial sword and made him check it as baggage. (“But I am Louis XIV, par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre!” “I don’t care who you are mister, you can’t take a sword on the plane! Those stupid morons at Charles de Gaulle will just let any fool on a plane with a weapon I guess.”)

So anyway, we got his sword and his gilded trunk (“There is no way that is going to fit in my car. You’ll have to have it sent later. What does this weigh? Like 500 pounds? You pack like a woman.”) from the baggage claim, and we headed out to the parking lot. He was jabbering the entire time about the fascinating way he flew here in an enormous flying contraption, interspersing it with how dreadful the legroom was on the plane, and how disgracefully the “servants” on the plane treated his royal highness (“I asked them for a pillow, and this is what they gave me! Mon chat would not fit on that!”)

So we got to the car, and he just stared at it for a while.

“What’s wrong?” I asked.

“Where are the chevaux for the carriage?”

“Um, under the hood. There are 200 of them. I could have opted for the V6 and had 260 of them, but it was a bit out of my budget… nah, I’m just kidding. There are no horses. It’s a… uh… ‘horseless carriage.’”

“Mon Dieu! How does it um… how does it go?”

“It burns fuel. Uh, kind of like an oil lantern.”

“Ah.” I knew he didn't understand, and at the same time I knew that he didn't want a further explanation. A king can't look too ignorant in public, you know.

So we got in the car and I started up the engine. Louis XIV was amazed.

“Il ne fait pas froid!”

“Pardon?”

“It is not cold in your carriage, even though it is freezing outside! My carriages are exceedingly drafty in the wintertime. It is a long road from Paris to Versailles, and it gets very cold in December.” I believed him. It was a long train ride on the RER from Paris to Versailles, and it got very hot in September.

“Ah, yeah. It’s sealed very well. It stays dry in here. There is a heater to keep it warm, and here, check this out.” I flipped on the heated seats.

“Mon Dieu! Mon cul est chaud!”

“Uh, Louis, would you mind watching the language si vous plait? And would you please quit using the name of Notre Seigneur in vain?”

“Je suis désolé. I’m sorry.”

We drove out of the airport and up the on ramp onto the highway, and his jaw dropped.

“What’s wrong?”

“So many carriages! There must be thousands of noblesse in your city! Is everyone here so wealthy?”

“Certainly not. Well, it’s all relative I guess. But just about every family in this city has a car. Most families have several cars.”

“Only the very wealthy in my country have carriages. And you have such remarkable carriages! So warm and smooth and fast! Where are these made? Who are the craftsmen? I must have a carriage like this for myself!”

“Well, this carriage is made in Japan by Acura.”

“Japon? Dans l'orient? Ces sauvages ont fait ceci?”

“Well, yes, but there are cars made here in America as well, and there are good cars made in Germany and Italy, too.”

“L'Allemagne? L'Italie? Ces bâtards! If les Italiens can make good carriages, then my France must make superior carriages!”

“Well your majesty, actually, French cars pretty much suck. I mean, Renault? Citroën? What the heck is that? Pugeot makes some decent stuff, but nobody outside of France buys French cars.”

I could tell that he was disappointed. Like so many Renault owners are. We continued along the highway, en route to the suburbs...

TO BE CONTINUED...

Blogspot Beachhead

After continual badgering by Miranda, with her promises of riches and fame, I've decided to open a second front on Blogspot. :shakes fist at Miranda: This had better make me rich and famous!