Monday, April 30, 2012


As in water;
Face answers to face:
So the heart of
Man to man.
The winds will blow,
And the rains will fall;
The sirens are subtle,
And the heart of man
Is winsome and flirtatious.
The excursions of a lamb,
Are from a God
He has known --
From a Savior
He has loved --
From pastures he has
Roamed with delight.
We have tasted of the Lord;
Heard His voice;
Fed from His hands;
And yet we wander.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012


A night of woe,
Spreads a heavy drape:
A harbinger - a prelude;
A forecaster of shadow,
Yea, dark things loom
In the deep mists.
Amid the somber hues
Of time and sense,
There is a Garden,
And One who prays.
Faith embraces the
Mystery of Godliness;
Hope casts its anchor
Within the veil;
And Love gently lifts,
To His Eternal shores
Of wholeness.

Monday, April 9, 2012

The Dream

A white line -- delicate,
Yet so intricately woven,
Suddenly pierced
The black nothingness:
A singularity of light;
Then another -- square unto it,
Sprang into perspective;
Then a third,
Perpendicular to all,
Shined into existence.

Then, with
The lightest touch
Of His Word,
The space created
Leaped into life,
With delicate, wondrous
Patterns of light:
Lines, circles, and curls;
Filled with color,
All intertwined;
Like the crescendo
Of a visual symphony.

The cup of my dream
Then ran over,
Like a river that
Overflows her banks:
For I dreamed
An infinity of dreams
In an instant;
And this infinity;
Multiplied by Infinity,
Created all possibilities,
In one magnificent Now.

It was a perfect realm,
Whose ever changing patterns,
Resonated in the eternal now:
A blend of sounds, textures,
Colors, and dimensions;
Seeding new patterns
Into countless infinities;
All dancing to the absolute,
Perfect control of
God's eternal awareness.

**there is, my friends, one more verse
always in my dream; but at the conclusion of this scene
I always awake with a consciousness and a
dread of destruction and oblivion, and can see no further. **

Into this perfect realm,
He created reflections
Of His awareness,
And gave them purpose:
He brought into the dream;
Beings of beauty,
And intellect, with
A sense of self.
Set, at their creation,
To share the dream;
He sent their ken
Into His infinities,
To peer into possibility;
And to manifest reality.

** Here the dream ends; always **

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Arizona Passes Sweeping Internet Censorship Bill

The state legislature of Arizona has passed a bill that vastly broadens telephone harassment laws and applies them to the Internet and other means of electronic communication.

The law, which is being pushed under the guise of an anti-bullying campaign, would mean that anything communicated or published online that was deemed to be “offensive” by the state, including editorials, illustrations, and even satire could be criminally punished.

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund breaks down Arizona House Bill 2549:

“The bill is sweepingly broad, and would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’ as well as certain sexual speech. Because the bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, H.B. 2549 would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying.”

First Amendment activist group Media Coalition has written to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, urging her not to sign the legislation into law.

The letter notes that the terms used in the bill are not defined in the statute or by reference, and thereby the law could be broadly applied to almost any statement.

“H.B. 2549 would make it a crime to use any electronic or digital device to communicate using obscene, lewd or profane language or to suggest a lewd or lascivious act if done with intent to ‘annoy,’ ‘offend,’ ‘harass’ or ‘terrify,’” the letter notes. … ‘Lewd’ and ‘profane’ are not defined in the statute or by reference. ‘Lewd’ is generally understood to mean lusty or sexual in nature and ‘profane’ is generally defined as disrespectful or irreverent about religion or religious practices.”

“H.B. 2549 is not limited to a one to one conversation between two specific people. The communication does not need to be repetitive or even unwanted. There is no requirement that the recipient or subject of the speech actually feel offended, annoyed or scared. Nor does the legislation make clear that the communication must be intended to offend or annoy the reader, the subject or even any specific person.” the letter continues.

In this respect the law could even technically be applied to someone posting a status update on Facebook.

“Speech protected by the First Amendment is often intended to offend, annoy or scare but could be prosecuted under this law.”The Media Coalition letter continues.

“A Danish newspaper posted pictures of Muhammad that were intended to be offensive to make a point about religious tolerance. If a Muslim in Arizona considers the images profane and is offended, the paper could be prosecuted. Some Arizona residents may consider Rush Limbaugh’s recent comments about a Georgetown law student lewd. He could be prosecuted if he intended his comments to be offensive. Similarly, much general content available in the media uses racy or profane language and is intended to offend, annoy or even terrify.”

“Bill Maher’s stand up routines and Jon Stewart’s nightly comedy program, Ann Coulter’s books criticizing liberals and Christopher Hitchens’ expressions of his disdain for religion, Stephen King’s novels or the Halloween films all could be subject to this legislation. Even common taunting about sports between rival fans done online is frequently meant to offend or annoy, and is often done using salty and profane language.”

This type of legislation is far from unprecedented. Last year, former president Bill Clinton proposed a law to censor internet speech. “It would be a legitimate thing to do,” Clinton said in an interview that aired on CNBC. Clinton suggested the government should set-up an agency that monitors all media speech for supposed factual errors.

“That is, it would be like, I don’t know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors” he said. “And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it’s a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money.”

Cass Sunstein, head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has also proposed banning speech on the internet that  the government disagrees with. Sunstein proposed the creation of an internet “Fairness Doctrine” similar to the one that was used for years to limit and eliminate free speech on the radio.

This legislation represents yet another move to police and control freedom of expression via the internet. Once again it grants the state and the government the direct right to determine what is and is not “offensive” on a whim. It then allows for the prosecution of individuals and organisations based on such summations – an extremely dangerous precedent to set.