I drink the questionable coffees so you don't have to.

Today's caffeinated experiment comes in the form of a Tommy Gun. I didn't catch everything that went into it, but the ingredients that I am sure of were two shots of espresso and cayenne pepper. I took an experimental sip of the brew and then added about a quarter teaspoon of sugar at the suggestion of the barista.

While the cayenne had an undeniable presence in the coffee, it was not overpowering. The result was a flavourful cup with an agreeably piquant finish. I am going to have to experiment with this one at home.

And on the non-coffee front...

I had a close call with the entry gate in our parking garage yesterday morning. I noticed that the gate was open as I was approaching the ticket machine, but it looked a little odd. I considered swiping my card past the reader, then thought, "meh - the gate is already open, and I'I am not sure if I trust it for some reason." I had just cleared the gate when I heard a loud SMACK sound behind the car. When I looked in the rear view mirror, I saw that the gate had swung down and slammed itself into the concrete behind me. Oy.

As I was leaving on foot, I wandered over for a closer look and discovered that the gate was broken; once again somebody had run the through it with their car. I have seen that on the exit gates a few times since they switched over to the unattended system, but this is the first time I've seen where somebody has driven the wrong way out through the "in" door. Since I can't imagine anyone stupid enough to damage their car that much just to avoid paying $5 for parking, I suspect this is the work of car thieves - probably joy-riding kids.

All this serves to remind me that I need to book an appointment to get a free immobilizer installed in my car.

Where's the outrage?

I'm going to delve a bit into politics here, and speak on a subject that I typically keep quiet about because, well, I don't usually like to dwell too much in politics in my journal. While I do not, in any way, condone the actions that happened in 2001, I get a bit tired of hearing this retread argument.

The argument goes something like this:

Premise: If a radical Christian group had performed a heinous act of terrorism against a Muslim country and killed 3000 civilians, Christian leaders around the free world would be immediate and loud in condemning the act

Premise: There has not been enough outcry and condemnation from the Muslim community leaders for the criminal acts of September 11, 2001.

Inference: The religion of Islam, regardless of how it bills itself as the "religion of peace", is fundamentally violent and flawed.

Conclusion: Muslims are bad people.

The first premise is fairly hypothetical. We hope that Christian leaders would condemn any such acts. I have enough faith in humanity to assume that they would.

The second premise is entirely subjective. We don't feel that they were outraged enough, but we have no idea what lies in the heart of the average Muslim. How many people who argue this have actually sat down with some of their Muslim friends (if they have any) and asked them to gauge their level of outrage?

The inference and conclusion are self-explanatory.

You see, the problem with this argument is that it is fundamentally flawed, because we are comparing the known reaction, and hypothetical reactions of two groups and drawing inferences and conclusions from those. Since the conclusion is based on a hypothetical argument anyway, let's adjust the parameters a bit so that the hypotheses play out on a more level field. If we are going to compare our reactions to those of the Muslims, let's actually put ourselves in the same situation.

Let's assume that instead of Christian nations, the world is dominated by a group of very rich and powerful Muslim nations. For generations the Muslim nations have used the Christian nations as their political playground, propping up brutal dictators in one country, and arming rebels in the next. Although the Christian nations sit on a vast wealth of resources, most of the Christians live in poverty because the Muslims openly prop up the corrupt Christian leaders who let them bleed the resources dry while pocketing all of the proceeds for themselves and their immediate friends and families.

Oh, and the Muslims have permanently stationed troops in The Vatican, and various other holy Christian sites. They also occasionally bomb Christian countries that get too uppity, and invade ones who threaten to try and control their own resources. They like to wax on about how Christians are evil, and they don't seem too bothered when one of their puppet Christian governments decides to slaughter and gas a bunch of their own Christian people using weapons that the Muslims gave them.

A group of Christian extremists manage to hijack some Muslim planes and slam them into a couple of Muslim financial and military centres, striking deep in the heart of what most Christians regard as the centre of all evil. Mind you, a lot of innocent people died that day. Naturally there is going to be a lot of wide-spread, angry and vocal Christian outrage, isn't there?

Isn't there?