Just wanted to wish everyone a BLESSED SAMHAIN to start off with!!!

i have been so busy that i had forgotten about this place until i received something in my email saying i had a message.  i am GLAD to be back!!!!  i will try to log on everyday at least once now that i remember about this site.  its awesome.  i dont know how i forgot.

anyway, i am back!!!!! 

 

For Gods and Country

The Army Chaplain Who Wanted to Switch to Wicca? Transfer Denied.
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 19, 2007; Page C01
SCHERTZ, Tex.

The night wind pushes Don Larsen's green robe against his lanky frame. A circle of torches lights his face.

"The old gods are standing near!" calls a retired Army intelligence officer.

"To watch the turning of the year!" replies the wife of a soldier wounded in Iraq.

"What night is this?" calls a former fighter pilot.

"It is the night of Imbolc," responds Larsen, a former Army chaplain.

Of the 16 self-described witches who have gathered on this Texas plain to celebrate a late-winter pagan festival with dancing, chanting, chili and beer, all but two are current or former military personnel. Each has a story. None can compete with Larsen's.
A year ago, he was a Pentecostal Christian minister at Camp Anaconda, the largest U.S. support base in Iraq. He sent home reports on the number of "decisions" -- soldiers committing their lives to Christ -- that he inspired in the base's Freedom Chapel.

But inwardly, he says, he was torn between Christianity's exclusive claims about salvation and a "universalist streak" in his thinking. The Feb. 22, 2006, bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, which collapsed the dome of a 1,200-year-old holy site and triggered a widening spiral of revenge attacks between Shiite and Sunni militants, prompted a decision of his own.

"I realized so many innocent people are dying again in the name of God," Larsen says. "When you think back over the Catholic-Protestant conflict, how the Jews have suffered, how some Christians justified slavery, the Crusades, and now the fighting between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, I just decided I'm done. . . . I will not be part of any church that unleashes its clergy to preach that particular individuals or faith groups are damned."

Larsen's private crisis of faith might have remained just that, but for one other fateful choice. He decided the religion that best matched his universalist vision was Wicca, a blend of witchcraft, feminism and nature worship that has ancient pagan roots.

On July 6, he applied to become the first Wiccan chaplain in the U.S. armed forces, setting off an extraordinary chain of events. By year's end, his superiors not only denied his request but also withdrew him from Iraq and removed him from the chaplain corps, despite an unblemished service record.

Adherents of Wicca, one of the nation's fastest-growing religions, contend that Larsen is a victim of unconstitutional discrimination. They say that Wicca, though recognized as a religion by federal courts and the Internal Revenue Service, is often falsely equated with devil worship.

"Institutionalized bigotry and discriminatory actions . . . have crossed the line this time," says David L. Oringderff, a retired Army intelligence officer who is an elder in the Sacred Well Congregation, the Texas-based Wiccan group that Larsen joined.
Larsen, 44, blames only himself. He said he was naive to think he could switch from Pentecostalism to Wicca in the same way that chaplains routinely change from one Christian denomination to another.

Chaplain Kevin L. McGhee, Larsen's superior at Camp Anaconda, believes a "grave injustice" was done. McGhee, a Methodist, supervised 26 chaplains on the giant base near Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad. He says Larsen was the best.

"I could go on and on about how well he preached, the care he gave," McGhee says. "What happened to Chaplain Larsen -- to be honest, I think it's political. A lot of people think Wiccans are un-American, because they are ignorant about what Wiccans do."

What Larsen does is eclectic, to say the least. Some spiritual seekers perpetually try new things, never finding one they like. Larsen has sampled many faiths, and liked them all.

Raised as a Catholic, he became a born-again Christian at a Billy Graham crusade and began preaching at a Baptist church in Garrison, Mont., while still in high school. Later, he pastored two messianic congregations, which blend Jewish traditions with a belief in the divinity of Jesus.

In church, he spoke in tongues. In private, he read heavily in Buddhism.
He learned about Wicca, ironically, from the Army, in an overview of various faiths at the Chaplain's Basic Training Course at Fort Jackson, S.C., in 2005.
Sporting a military high-top haircut and Converse high-top sneakers, Larsen appears closer to 24 than 44, and it is easy to see why he was popular with the troops. Earnest without appearing pious, he tears up when he describes a chaplain's duty to ensure the dignified handling of soldiers' remains.

In a single sentence, he links Native American sweat lodges, Saint Francis of Assisi and the Hindu leader Amma -- the common thread being his reverence for each. When he mentions the late Lubavitcher rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson, he quickly adds the traditional honorific "of blessed memory."

He cites Dr. Seuss as readily as the Bible.

"If these guys," he says, referring to Wiccans, "had told me that 'We are the one path, the Star-bellied Sneetches, the true vessels of enlightenment for the lost world' -- I'm so tired of all that, I would not even have slowed down to take a second look."
He says he understands why strangers might think "a mortar round must have landed too close to this guy." He recalls, with a chuckle, that a friend once gave him a diagnosis of "multiple religions disorder."

But the struggle between his ardent Christianity and his willingness to see equal value in other faiths was no joke -- it was a painful, internal conflict that came to a head after he arrived in Iraq in early 2006.

"In Iraq, I saw what was happening in the name of Allah and I thought, 'This has got to stop.' . . . The common core of all religions, we're saying the same stuff," he says. "I just decided that the rest of my life I will encourage people to seek out the light however they see fit, through the Bhagavad-Gita, the Torah, the writings of prophets and sages -- whatever path propels them to be good and honorable and upright."
Larsen now draws freely from all those traditions. He meditates daily, concentrating on the seven chakras that Hindus believe are the body's centers of energy.

At times, he tries to free his mind from his physical being, a New Age practice he calls "astral travel." With his 19-year-old daughter and 14-year-old son, he reads the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament. Following the Wiccan calendar, he observes eight major holidays tied to the seasons and the right times to plant, harvest and tend a flock. Imbolc, for example, is when gestating ewes begin producing milk, signaling that winter is almost over.

Wearing the kind of fanciful robes you might see at a Renaissance fair, Larsen and other members of the Sacred Well Congregation greeted Imbolc this year in a circle of stones behind Oringderff's ranch house in Schertz, near San Antonio. Under a pair of gnarled mesquite trees was an altar; in the middle of the circle, a bonfire.
Eight women and eight men, mostly middle-aged couples, held hands. They danced in circles and figure eights, passed a large goblet of wine and pressed closer to the flames as the night grew chilly.

There was no nudity. No blood. No mention of the devil.

But there was a ceremonial dagger, a dish of salt, burning incense and a 35-minute service full of abstruse allusions to Celtic and Norse gods and goddesses. The part assigned to Larsen included such lines as: "Hail Sudri, and the Spirits and Creatures of Fire! Guardians of the Southern Gates of Gorias. We call upon you. . . . Salamanders of Fire, join us here!"

Some Wiccans believe these rites are truly ancient. Academic experts think they were invented in the 20th century, chiefly by Gerald Gardner, a British novelist and folklorist who claimed he was initiated into a secret coven in the Hampshire woods in 1939.
Larsen shares the scholars' skepticism. But he also contends that Wicca is "as close as you can get to the standing stones and sacred wells and river spirits" of pre-Christian Europe.

The Sacred Well Congregation, which has about 950 members across the country, prides itself on being an intellectual group. Ron Schaefer, a retired lieutenant colonel who flew F-4s and F-16s during a 26-year Air Force career, says Wicca "meshes perfectly with string theory." Dea Mikeworth, wife of an Army sergeant wounded by a roadside bomb in Iraq, says it reflects "archetypes in the collective unconscious."
But Larsen is unabashed about the faith's central appeal.

"You can't intellectually talk about witchcraft. You gotta show up," he says. "What Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell and a lot of us universalists think is, people need the magical side, the mythological side, of religion.

"We don't need more Calvinist rationalizing. We need mystery. We need horizons. We need journeys."

Something about Wicca clearly fills a niche. According to the American Religious Identification Survey, a widely respected tally, the number of Wiccans in the United States rose 17-fold -- from 8,000 to 134,000 -- between 1990 and 2001.
By the Pentagon's count, there are now 1,511 self-identified Wiccans in the Air Force and 354 in the Marines. No figures are available for the much larger Army and Navy. Wiccan groups estimate they have at least 4,000 followers in uniform, but they say many active-duty Wiccans hide their beliefs to avoid ridicule and discrimination. Two incidents may bear them out.

When a Texas newspaper, the Austin American-Statesman, reported in 1999 that a circle of Wiccans was meeting regularly at Lackland Air Force Base near San Antonio, then-Gov. George W. Bush told ABC's "Good Morning America": "I don't think witchcraft is a religion, and I wish the military would take another look at this and decide against it."

Eight years later, the circle at Lackland is still going strong, and the military permits Wiccans to worship on U.S. bases around the world. But when Sgt. Patrick D. Stewart was killed in action in Afghanistan in 2005, the Department of Veterans' Affairs refused to allow a Wiccan pentacle, a five-pointed star inside a circle, to be inscribed on his memorial at the Fernley, Nev., veterans' cemetery. Ultimately, Nevada officials approved the pentacle anyway.

For Wiccans seeking public acceptance, obtaining a military chaplain is the next major goal. More than 130 religious groups have endorsed, or certified, chaplains to serve in uniform. But efforts by Wiccan organizations to join the list have repeatedly been denied by the Pentagon.

Lt. Col. Randall C. Dolinger, spokesman for the Army's Chief of Chaplains office, said the Sacred Well Congregation has met all the requirements to become an endorser, except one: It has not presented a "viable candidate." The group's previous nominee was turned away because his eyesight was not correctable to 20-20.

When Larsen came along last spring, Sacred Well's leaders thought they finally had someone the military could not possibly reject: a physically fit 6-foot-4 clergyman originally ordained as a Southern Baptist minister, who holds a master's degree from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Moreover, Larsen had spent 10 years as an officer in the National Guard, finished near the top of his class in chaplain's training and was already serving as a chaplain in Iraq.

But Oringderff said that his group, like Larsen, underestimated the institutional resistance. "Each time we advance to a scoring position, they change the rules," he said.

Once chaplains are accepted into the military, they are paid, trained and deployed by the government. But they remain subservient to their endorsers, who can cancel their endorsements at any time.

That is what happened to Larsen, according to unclassified military e-mail messages obtained by The Washington Post.

When the Sacred Well Congregation applied on July 31 to become Larsen's new endorser, the Army initially cited a minor bureaucratic obstacle: It could not find a copy of his previous endorsement from the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, a Dallas-based association of Pentecostal churches.

The following day, a senior Army chaplain telephoned the Full Gospel Churches to ask for the form and, in the process, disclosed Larsen's plan to join Sacred Well.
Within hours, the Pentecostal group sent Larsen an urgent e-mail saying it had received a "strange call" from the Army Chief of Chaplains office. The caller "mentioned that a Donald M. Larsen . . . was requesting a change-over . . . to Wiccans," the e-mail said. "Please communicate with this office, as we do not believe it is you."

Larsen pleaded in his reply for the Full Gospel Churches not to cancel his endorsement until he could complete the switch. "Being here in Iraq has caused me to reflect on a great many things. However, as long as CFCG holds my endorsement, I teach and practice nothing contrary to your faith and practice," he wrote, adding: "It is all about the soldiers, please help me to continue to minister to them during this transition."
The Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches immediately severed its ties to Larsen. The Sacred Well Congregation could not renew his papers, because it was not yet an official endorser. Lacking an ecclesiastical endorsement, Larsen was ordered to cease functioning immediately as a chaplain, and the Pentagon quickly pulled him out of Iraq.

Dolinger, the Army Chief of Chaplains spokesman, denied that any discrimination was involved. "What you're really dealing with is more of a personal drama, what one person has been through and the choices he's made. Plus, the fact that the military does have Catch-22s," he said.

Jim Ammerman, a retired Army colonel who is president and founder of the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, acknowledges that there is a longstanding agreement among endorsers not to summarily pull the papers of a chaplain who wants to make a valid switch.

"But if it's not a valid thing, all bets are off," Ammerman says, adding that Wiccans "run around naked in the woods" and "draw blood with a dagger" in their ceremonies. "You can't do that in the military. It's against good order and discipline."
That description drew a laugh from Brig. Gen. Cecil Richardson, the Air Force's deputy chief of chaplains. "He's right, we can't have that in the military, but I don't think we've had any of that in the military," Richardson says.

Richardson says there are simply too few Wiccans in the military to justify a full-time chaplain.

According to Pentagon figures, however, some faiths with similarly small numbers in the ranks do have chaplains. Among the nearly 2,900 clergy on active duty are 41 Mormon chaplains for 17,513 Mormons in uniform, 22 rabbis for 4,038 Jews, 11 imams for 3,386 Muslims, six teachers for 636 Christian Scientists, and one Buddhist chaplain for 4,546 Buddhists.

Since returning from Iraq and visiting Texas, Larsen has gone home to Melba, Idaho. Divorced since 2004, he is living with his teenage children and serving as an artillery officer in the Idaho Army National Guard.

He said he knew from the start that converting to Wicca would raise questions but never expected the reaction to be so fierce.

"It's not my place as a little captain to challenge the decisions or policies or motives or actions of my superiors," he says. "I got to come home and resume my career in the Guard. I'm very thankful for that. Understand, it's all I've got left. . . . This was a big blunder. I barely survived it. I don't have another one in me."

Found this on a website.....thought it was interesting to post.

 

 

NEVER CONSENT TO A COP SEARCH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frequently Asked Questionsprinter friendly version

 

1. Who should know their rights?

2. When are police legally allowed to search me?

3. What is "probable cause"?

4. Why do police want to search me?

5. Isn't refusing to let the police search me an admission of guilt?

6. If I'm not doing anything illegal, why shouldn't I let the police
search me?

7. What if the police call in drug-sniffing dogs?

8. What if the officer says he'll go easy on me if I cooperate?

9. Aren't police required to read me my rights?

10. Is Flex Your Rights anti-police?

11. Aren't you teaching people how to get away with breaking the law?

12. How do my rights apply during security checks?

13. What should I do if I am the victim of police misconduct?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Who should know their rights?

All people should be trained to assert their constitutional rights in
order to avoid the hassle and humiliation of police misconduct and
illegal searches.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report on citizen-police
contacts, about 21 percent of the population age 16 years or older --
or about 44 million people -- had contact with the police during 1999.
More than half of these face-to-face interactions occurred because of
traffic stops.

Of the 19.3 million traffic stops documented in the study, about 1.3
million motorists said they or their vehicle had been searched. In
almost 90 percent of these searches, police found no evidence of a
crime whatsoever! There is reason to believe that many, if not most,
of these searches could have been avoided if the motorist had properly
asserted his or her rights by refusing to consent to a warrantless
search.

Still, while all Americans should be prepared to exercise their
constitutional rights during police encounters, certain groups must be
particularly aware of these rights due to systemic biases in law
enforcement. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that
minorities and young people are disproportionately likely to be
searched by police.

The debate that has emerged in recent years over racial-profiling by
law enforcement officers highlights the significance of constitutional
provisions intended to prohibit discriminatory police practices. Flex
Your Rights believes that educating citizens about their
constitutional rights can play a significant role in reducing the
harms associated with racial profiling.

Click for more facts on racial profiling and police/public contacts.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. When are police legally allowed to search me?

Police officers are legally allowed to search your home or your
property if they obtain a search warrant. To obtain a warrant, police
officers must write out an affidavit -- a written statement under oath
-- to convince a judge that they have probable cause to believe that
criminal activity is occurring at the place to be searched or that
evidence of a crime may be found there.

As a general rule, searches conducted without a warrant are
automatically unreasonable and hence violate the Fourth Amendment. But
in fact most searches occur without warrants because police take
advantage of these many legal exceptions to the Fourth Amendment:

Consent Searches. If the police ask your permission to search your
home, purse, briefcase or other property, and you freely consent,
their warrantless search automatically becomes reasonable and
therefore legal. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during a
consent search can be used to convict the person.

Plain View Rule. This is common sense: Always keep any private items
that you don't want others to see out of sight. Legally speaking,
police do not need a search warrant in order to confiscate any illegal
items that are in plain view.

Searches Made in Connection with a Legal Arrest. Police do not need a
warrant to make a search "incident to an arrest." After a legal
arrest, police can legally protect themselves by searching the person
and the immediate surroundings for weapons that might be used to harm
the officer. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during such a
search can be used to convict the person.

Exigent Circumstances. A judge may uphold an officer's warrantless
search or seizure if "exigent circumstances" exist. Exigent
circumstances were described by one court as "an emergency situation
requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious
damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect
or destruction of evidence."
WARNING: If you ever face a real-life police encounter where the
officer is urging you to consent to a search, you should not try to
figure out whether or not he is legally allowed to search you. You
must assume that he is not legally allowed to search you, and that his
search will only be legal if you consent. If the officer is in fact
legally allowed to search you, you have nothing to lose by refusing to
consent to his request.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What is "probable cause"?

Click here for information and a complete definition of probable
cause.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Why do police want to search me?

Simply put, the number of arrests an officer makes is a major factor
used to determine his job performance. And police officers know that
the easiest way to make arrests is to find people in possession of
illegal drugs.

To make one drug arrest, an officer generally has to search ten
people. This means that nine innocent people will likely endure the
inconvenience and humiliation of a police search so that one
law-breaker can be arrested. In some officers' minds, the nine
searches that turned up nothing are easily justified-especially if
those people willingly consented to his warrantless search requests.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Isn't refusing to let the police search me an admission of guilt?

No. If a police officer asks your permission to search, you are under
no obligation to consent. The only reason he's asking you is because
he doesn't have enough evidence to search without your consent. If you
consent to a search request you give up one of the most important
constitutional rights you have -- your Fourth Amendment protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures.

A majority of avoidable, improper police searches occur because
citizens naively waive their Fourth Amendment rights by consenting to
warrantless searches. As a general rule, if a person consents to a
warrantless search, the search automatically becomes legal.
Consequently, whatever an officer finds during such a search can be
used to convict the person.

Don't expect a police officer to tell you about your right not to
consent. Police officers are not required by law to inform you of your
rights before asking you to consent to a search. In addition, police
are prepared to use their authority to get people to consent to
searches, and most people are predisposed to comply with any request
an officer makes. For example, the average motorist stopped by an
officer who asks them, "Would you mind if I search your vehicle,
please?" will probably consent to the officer's search without
realizing that they have every right to deny the officer's request.

If for any reason you don't want the officer digging through your
belongings, you should refuse to consent by saying something like,
"Yes, I do mind. I have private, personal items in my [car, backpack,
etc.] and do not want you looking through them." If the officer still
proceeds to search you and find illegal contraband, your attorney can
argue that the contraband was discovered through an illegal search and
hence should be thrown out of court.

You should never hesitate to assert your constitutional rights. Just
say "no!"

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. If I'm not doing anything illegal, why shouldn't I let the police
search me?

The sad fact is that most people believe that they are under some kind
of obligation to acquiesce when an officer contacts them and asks
permission to search them or their belongings.

The truth is the exact opposite -- you have a right to associate with,
and speak to, whomever you please. In this respect, there is nothing
special about a police officer. Assuming you would not let a complete
stranger look through your purse or search your pockets, why would you
allow a police officer to do so -- especially if you're doing nothing
illegal? Just say "NO" to police searches!

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. What if the police call in drug-sniffing dogs?

Your rights do not disappear if the officer threatens to call in the
dogs, so don't let this all-too-common tactic intimidate you into
consenting to a search.

Before the dogs arrive, you have the right to dismiss yourself by
asking if you are free to go. But if the officer detains you until the
dogs come, remain silent and refuse to consent to any searches.

If a K-9 unit arrives, you should never consent to a dog sniff even if
the officer claims you have to (which would be a lie). Remember:
Unlocking your car at the officer's request or handing the officer
your keys is the same as consenting to a search.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. What if the officer says he'll go easy on me if I cooperate?

Unfortunately, many people get fooled by some version of this commonly
used police officer's line: Everything will be easier if you
cooperate. That might be true sometimes, but when it comes to
consenting to searches and answering incriminating questions, it
couldn't be further from the truth.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Aren't police required to read me my rights?

No. The courts have made clear that police officers do not have to
tell people that they can refuse to consent to a warrantless search.
In other words, a police officer does not need to read you your rights
before asking you to consent to a search. Also, despite the widespread
myth to the contrary, an officer does not need to get your consent in
writing. Oral consent is completely valid.

Many people believe that an officer must automatically read a person
his or her Miranda rights as part of performing an arrest, either
immediately before or immediately after an arrest is made. This is
also myth.

The truth is that the only time an officer must read a person his or
her Miranda rights is when: (1) the person has been taken into
custody, and (2) the officer is about to question the person about a
crime.

Police officers are often pretty tricky about trying to get someone's
consent to a search. They know that most people feel intimidated by
police officers and are predisposed to comply with any request by a
police officer. For example, the average motorist stopped by a police
officer who asks them, "Would you mind opening the trunk, please?"
will probably consent to the officer's search without realizing that
they have every right to deny the officer's request.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Is Flex Your Rights anti-police?

No. we believe that most police officers are good, hardworking people
who are doing a tough job. We need police to safeguard the life,
liberty, and property of all people.

To do this best, police officers should be trained to serve as peace
officers whose goal is to preserve people's constitutional rights. In
other words, the number of arrests an officer makes should not be a
factor used to determine his job performance. Instead, performance
should be measured by the officer's ability to maintain a safe,
peaceful neighborhood and earn the residents' trust.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Aren't you teaching people how to get away with breaking the law?

No. We teach people that they have rights, and these rights are
secured by the principal documents protecting our civil liberties-the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our nation's founders, who were
keenly aware of the dangers posed by unchecked government power,
created these documents to protect individuals from overzealous law
enforcement officials.

For example, an informed individual who invokes his constitutional
protections whenever a police officer asks to conduct a warrantless
search is doing exactly what the founders intended. The catch is that
these rights only apply if they are effectively asserted. Otherwise,
people may knowingly or unknowingly waive these rights.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. How do my rights apply during security checks?

Be aware that private security personnel outnumber police officers in
the United States by three to one. As a result, you may be more likely
to be confronted by a security guard than by a police officer. You
must also be aware of the following places where security personnel
(governmental or otherwise) are permitted to search you without a
warrant:

Border Searches
The Supreme Court has held that an officer does not need a warrant,
probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion to search you, your car,
or your belongings, at a border. Therefore, any time you cross a U.S.
border, you in effect consent to a search.

Airport Searches
Be aware that airport security personnel do not need a warrant,
probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion to search you or your
belongings before boarding any commercial airline. Again, any time you
board a commercial airline, you in effect consent to a search.

Private Security Checks
Private security personnel have a right to search you as a condition
of entry into private property, for example. It is up to the
individual to decide if a search is worth the price of admission. As
long as you are free to walk away, the security personnel do not pose
a threat to your constitutional liberties.

Keep in mind that a security guard can turn illegal drugs over to a
police officer. In such a case, the drugs are then admissible in
evidence, because the search was conducted by a private security
guard. And at the present time the Fourth Amendment does not apply to
searches carried out by non-governmental employees like private
security guards.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. What should I do if I am the victim of police misconduct?

If you ever have a run-in with officers who you think are violating
your constitutional rights, don't resist them. As soon as you can,
write everything down about the incident including witness's names and
contact information and the officers' names and badge numbers. File a
police misconduct report immediately afterwards and consult your local
ACLU chapter for advice.

 

If you can read this whole story without tears of laughter running down your
cheeks then there's no hope for you!

*Note: Please take time to read this slowly. If you pay attention to the
first two judges, the reaction of the third judge is even better!

For those of you who have lived in Texas, you know how true this is. They
actually have a Chili Cook-off about the time the Rodeo comes to town. It
takes up a major portion of the parking lot at the Astrodome.

The notes are from an inexperienced Chili taster named Frank, who was
visiting Texas from the East Coast:

Frank: "Recently, I was honored to be selected as a judge at a chili cook-off. The original person called in sick at the last moment and I happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking for directions to the Budweiser truck, when the call
came in. I was assured by the other two judges (Native Texans) that the chili wouldn't be all that spicy and, besides, they told me I could have free beer during the tasting, so I accepted".

Here are the scorecards from the event:

Chili # 1 Mike's Maniac Mobster Monster Chili

Judge # 1 -- A little too heavy on the tomato. Amusing kick.

Judge # 2 -- Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.

Judge # 3 -- (Frank) Holy shit, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove dried paint from your driveway. Took me two beers to put the flames out. I hope that's the worst one. These Texans are crazy.

Chili # 2 Arthur's Afterburner Chili

Judge # 1 -- Smoky, with a hint of pork. Slight jalapeno tang.

Judge # 2 -- Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken seriously.

Judge # 3 -- Keep this out of the reach of children. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to taste besides pain. I had to wave off two people who wanted to give me the Heimlich maneuver. They had to rush in more beer when they saw the look on my face.

Chili # 3 Fred's Famous Burn Down the Barn Chili

Judge # 1 -- Excellent firehouse chili. Great kick. Needs more beans.

Judge # 2 -- A bean less chili, a bit salty, good use of peppers.

Judge # 3 -- Call the EPA. I've located a uranium spill. My nose feels like I have been snorting Drano. Everyone knows the routine by now. Get me more beer before I ignite. Barmaid pounded me on the back, now my backbone is in the front part of my
chest. I'm getting shit-faced from all of the beer.

Chili # 4 Bubba's Black Magic

Judge # 1 -- Black bean chili with almost no spice. Disappointing.

Judge # 2 -- Hint of lime in the black beans. Good side dish for fish or other mild foods, not much of a chili.

Judge # 3 -- I felt something scraping across my tongue, but was unable to taste it. Is it possible to burn out taste buds? Sally, the barmaid, was standing behind me with fresh refills. That 300-lb. bitch is starting to look HOT..just like this nuclear waste I'm eating! Is chili an aphrodisiac?

Chili # 5 Linda's Legal Lip Remover

Judge # 1 -- Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne peppers freshly ground, adding considerable kick. Very impressive.

Judge # 2 -- Chili using shredded beef, could use more tomato. Must admit the cayenne peppers make a strong statement.

Judge # 3 -- My ears are ringing, sweat is pouring off my forehead and I can no longer focus my eyes. I farted and four people behind me needed paramedics. The contestant seemed offended when I told her that her chili had given me brain damage. Sally saved my tongue from bleeding by pouring beer directly on it from the pitcher. I wonder if I'm burning my lips off. It really pisses me off that the other judges
asked me to stop screaming. Screw those rednecks.

Chili # 6 Vera's Very Vegetarian Variety

Judge # 1 -- Thin yet bold vegetarian variety chili. Good balance of spices and peppers.

Judge # 2 -- The best yet. Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic. Superb.

Judge # 3 -- My intestines are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous, sulfuric flames. I shit myself when I farted and I'm worried it will eat through the chair. No one seems inclined to stand behind me except that slut Sally. She must be kinkier than I thought. Can't feel my lips anymore. I need to wipe my ass with a snow cone.

Chili # 7 Susan's Screaming Sensation Chili

Judge # 1 -- A mediocre chili with too much reliance on canned peppers.

Judge # 2 -- Ho hum, tastes as if the chef literally threw in a can of chili peppers at the last moment. I should take note that I am worried about Judge #3.
He appears to be in a bit of distress as he is cursing uncontrollably.

Judge # 3 -- You could put a grenade in my mouth, pull the pin, and I wouldn't feel a thing. I've lost sight in one eye, and the world sounds like it is made of rushing water. My shirt is covered with chili, which slid unnoticed out of my mouth. My pants are full of lava like shit to match my shirt. At least during the autopsy, they'll know what
killed me. I've decided to stop breathing, its too painful. Screw it; I'm not getting
any oxygen anyway. If I need air, I'll just suck it in through the 4-inch hole in my stomach.

Chili # 8 Tommy's Toe-Nail Curling Chili

Judge # 1 -- The perfect ending, this is a nice blend chili. Not too bold but spicy enough to declare its existence.

Judge # 2 -- This final entry is a good, balanced chili. Neither mild nor hot. Sorry to see that most of it was lost when Judge # 3 passed out, fell over and pulled the chili pot down on top of himself. Not sure if he's going to make it. Poor dude, wonder how he'd have reacted to really hot chili.