and other great posts and links like this one can be found on T. Crown's Musings.

As I understand the law, the standard for libel requires malice on the behalf of the accused libeler. I'm pondering (not contending) whether this standard is the best one available. When a reporter is reckless, honest people get hurt. Journalists seem to understand this better than anybody, but the current legal standard does little to protect against recklessness. So far, its been up to the media, themselves, to enforce journalistic standards. This largely has been a successful system, but with the rise of so many media sources and the internet, I fear that this system is breaking down. And I don't think bloggers should be treated with kid gloves either, as the Court is leaning towards. Many blogs are just over-glorified diaries, but the top ones are gaining draws in line with established Big Media outfits, so we must be careful being too lenient with them.

Absolutely nothing. The legal institution of marriage has everything to do with the recognition of public rights granted to a married couple and nothing to do with an individualized privacy right. So why is Senator Frist backing a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? As the USAToday article explains it:

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First, the Supreme Court's decision was not about "gay sex" but about sodomy in general. Their reliance on the "right to privacy" allowed them to strike down all sodomy laws. Second, as I alluded to above, this ruling should not be confused as somehow supporting legalized gay marriage, not even indirectly. The ruling did not rely on equal protection, which is the best argument against bans on gay marriage. And third, if Sen. Frist is concerned about criminality, then why has he concerned himself with gay marriage? Could his flawed reasoning be connected to a lack of respect for the principle of separation of Church and State? Or is it simply myopic traditionalism uprooting true conservativism?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself with that cheesy headline. Anyways, count me in as one of those conservatives upset with the federal government's spending growth under President George W. Bush. Only the most libertarian Republicans today see that the legacy of the New Deal is a dramatic realignment in power from the states to the federal government. How did it become that the federal government is expected to provide funding for education and healthcare ($400 billion prescription drug care plan!) on such a large level?

When fiscal conservatives call for cuts in these areas, liberals and socialists call them cruel and uncaring towards seniors and children, but these brave conservatives are really just calling for a realignment of power back to the states in these domestic areas. There's nothing cruel about it, just a will to go back to the Constitution's original design where states are in charge of the health and welfare of the citizenry. Unfortunately Bush is not one of these fiscal conservatives. His compassionate conservativism would be more appropriately called Costly Conservativism.

Directing: A
Acting: B
Plot: B+
Soundtrack: A
Originality: A++

Overall, I'd highly recommend this film, especially to those who wish to break out of the cacoon that is the ordinary. Unlike most horror films, this movie dares to challenge the viewer's perspective and forces her to evaluate larger questions about life than simply the characters' personal safety. My advice: go see this movie... just not right before going to bed ;)

History has been replete with the degradation of certain groups within society. In American history, blacks, women, Irish immigrants, etc. all had been discriminated against. In each case, movements arose to end the discrimination. The abolition movement to free the slaves is the most prominent example.

The Indianapolis Star's Russ Pulliam has a good column comparing the abolition movement of England to the U.S.'s current pro-life movement, an unoriginal anology yet apt nevertheless. In fact, this was a comparison that I drew in a speech I gave before pro-lifers in the Statehouse in January 2000 (my senior year in high school). When I look back on that speech, I see that the principles of life and abolition therein can apply to other groups in our society today, as well as the unborn. I've progressed much as a writer since I wrote this speech, but the text still has some gems:

Hello and thank you for coming this afternoon.

My name is Luke Sayre, and I am a senior at Roncalli High School and a member of the pro-life group there. On behalf of the one and a half million seniors that would have graduated this year, if not for abortion, I would like to share a few thoughts that I have.

First of all, I am proud to be a supporter of the pro-life movement. More than ever I understand the gravity of the issue. As a child, I blindly called myself pro-life. Yet, I rarely took the time to reflect on my stance.

In the last few years, I have questioned my views on almost every topic. Some of my views have changed, while others have been strengthened. My pro-life stance is one such issue. With careful reflection and analysis, I came to believe that my pro-life stance was built on solid logic, a philosophical absolute, and on a religious truth.

My recent experiences in the Roncalli pro-life group further support those beliefs. The pinnacle of these experiences occurred over the last weekend during the Pro-Life March in Washington, D.C. On that trip, I came to a joyous understanding. I felt one with the 20 plus Roncalli students on the trip, with the 300 plus Archdiocese of Indianapolis members there, and with the thousands of pro-life supporters from across the nation. We marched as one, and as one we sought a common goal.

I felt prouder than ever to be involved with pro-life. I cannot help but urge everyone to get involved in this cause. For it is a noble cause indeed.

Furthermore, youth are vitally important. They are the future of pro-life, and the future of pro-life looks strong to me. Together we can reach our goal, and together we must.

This is not a battle, but a cause, a cause that will forever endure. But, I do believe abortion will be conquered.

History supports this belief. In the early times of this country, we had slavery. The human rights of an entire group of individuals were revoked. Why? for no other reason than the color of their skin. Today, we see the foolishness in that reason. Alas, we are far more sophisticated, aren’t we? Yet, I see current Americans doing the same thing. Many of us are unable to look past insignificant details that limit life. With abortion, the detail is whether or not the baby is born. We are just as foolish as those before us for considering this detail as a reason to revoke a baby’s right to life.

However, just as humanity abolished slavery and ended the Nazi regime, it will also defeat abortion. When we purify ourselves from placing limits on life, we will have uncovered the greatest philosophy of all: LIFE IS GOOD!

One of the most promising new technologies on the horizon is the fuel cell. Using hydrogen as its fuel, the fuel cell promises to provide an alternative power source for generators and automobiles with next to zero emissions. As the technology matures, the main stumbling block is the availability of hydrogen. On the surface this might seem crazy, because hydrogen is a component of water; however, free hydrogen gas is quite another matter. It can be mined or converted from other materials, both procedures that would be too costly to provide an alternative fuel source-- at least until now. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin are onto a process that culls hydrogen from organic waste. If this process is able to be done cheaply and produce bountiful amounts of hydrogen, we could very well see next-gen cars sooner, rather than later.

With the United States Supreme Court's (USSC) latest ruling against state bans on sodomy, they have created a desirable outcome, albeit with a flawed argument. The Texas law at question only banned gay sodomy, not all sodomy. But the USSC struck down all laws against sodomy, not just laws that were discriminatory against gays, as the Texas law was. They did this by primarily referring to a 'right to privacy' rather than by using the Equal Protection clause. So, when you read a newspaper that says something along the lines of "The Supreme Court struck down laws against gay sex today..." you are really being misled.

Anyways, I digress. The USSC's argument was flawed in this decision, because it refers to a 'right to privacy' which is not specifically in the Constitution. Since I consider myself primarily a textualist, this right to privacy seems to be a sham, a sham that can be used to overturn the will of the legislature regarding any behavior that the Court deems worthy of protection (regardless of the beliefs of a majority of people). When people criticize the Court for acting as a legislative body, this is why.

The Court should have used the Equal Protection Clause in their argument. For one, they would not have had to depend on the faulty right to privacy, which oversteps their rightful judicial bounds. For another, Equal Protection is the central problem of the Texas law. No group in America should be treated differently under the law than another group, unless real differences exist between the groups to explain different treatment. This is the essense of Equal Protection. Under the law, gays and straights should not be treated differently in regards to sodomy, in regards to marriage, etc. If the court had ruled in this manner, it would have been a bigger boon to Conservatives against the right to privacy, and to gay rights groups at the same time. I wonder if either side knows it.

Why must my favorite technology company have one of my least favorite politicians on its board of directors (Al Gore)? Oh well, the world can't be perfect. Afterall, if it were, then being gay and a pro-life Republican wouldn't be so difficult :)

There is nothing more dangerous than to build a society, with a large segment of people in that society, who feel that they have no stake in it; who feel that they have nothing to lose. People who have a stake in their society, protect that society, but when they don't have it, they unconsciously want to destroy it.

When Martin Luther King, Jr. uttered this astute observation he was referring to institutionalized racism in America, but it holds true, nonetheless, to America's current institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals. To say that two homosexuals should not be permitted to consumate their loving relationship under the law in the same manner that a heterosexual couple may, is to say that homosexuals do not deserve the equal protection so cherished in our nation, and breeds an inherent distrust for that rule of law and society-at-large. We, as a nation, cannot afford to further restrain that Dream.

Arguments against the legalization of gay marriage are varied, but share one similar trait: they are mistaken.

First up in this litany of sophistries is an argument presented by Chuck Colson (of infamous Watergate fame). In the online version of his radio show, Breakpoint, Colson provides an argument based on procreation. His claim is that society's very existence depends on marriage defined by procreation. This argument is a model of absurdity in that it ignores two clear facts. First, procreation can easily occur outside of marriage, and second, two homosexuals are no more likely to procreate in a non-marital relationship than in a marital one (that is to say that a homosexual couple will never be able to procreate, whether gay marriage is legalized or not).

Next up is the usually intelligent David Frum of the National Review. In his "diary" Frum states that the legalization of gay marriage would also cause changes in the marriage law that affect non-gays, changes that will encourage negative behavior by heterosexuals. One problem, he does not list any example of such bad behavior that would be encouraged, and I assert that I cannot think of any. He does bring up an issue tangential at best to his argument, child custody. His argument claims that in this state of changed marriage, the ideas of motherhood and fatherhood would be converged into one legal state of 'parenthood,' thus ending the custom of preference to mothers in child custody battles. Even if this is considered a bad change, it is not true. The differences that the law recognizes between a mother and a father in matters of child custody will still exist, even if two members of the same sex are allowed to marry.

The third and final argument in this litany, as put forth by the Washington Times, is also the most common. In sum:

While sexual orientation should not deprive someone of the constitutional provision of equal protection under law, such rights do not imply the right to same-sex marriage. To adopt such policies would devalue and threaten the sacred tradition of marriage.

This statement ignores our society's separation of church and state. A legal marriage is the recognition of a couple's relationship and the rights accorded to that relationship. A religious marriage is a recognition of that religion's definition of marriage and adheres to its corresponding values regarding love and sex. Under this same principle, the government should not have any say in religious marriage.

For a refreshing take on this topic that is conservative, rather than traditionalist (two different things, I assure you) check out this superb essay by Andrew Sullivan.

If the vote discussed in this NYTimes story turns out to be final, then it seems that the ACC has done the right thing in its expansion. It has decided to invite Miami and Virginia Tech, rather than inviting Boston College and Syracuse along with Miami. I say this is the "right thing" because it would have been exceedingly difficult on the student athletes at BC and Syracuse to belong to the ACC, considering the dramatically increased travel times.

I think any conference and school should take factors such as these into higher priority than their own power and prestige. I would like to think the ACC made this decision out of this realization, but I have a feeling the lawsuit by five Big East schools against the ACC, Miami, and BC may have had a substantial impact.

Q: Why do people spend $2.00 on bottled water?
A: What is Evian spelled backwards?

Many want the power to rule the world, but few possess the strength to rule themselves.

The Supreme Court attempted to decide the fate of racial preferences in our nation's academic institutions yesterday. In two separate cases, the Court ruled; striking down U of M's undergrad admissions policy, which included a points based system, and upholding the U of M law school admissions policy.

My friend, Daniel Ornelas, has written a guest-column on the matter, and I highly recommend it. Mr. Ornelas, a fellow senior at the University of Notre Dame, provides an unabashed, and unashamed Conservative perspective on the Court's decision. The first two paragraphs are below:

On Monday of this week, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a duel decision regarding the use of Affirmative Action in college admissions: it is acceptable, provided that race is treated subjectively. The ruling acquiesces with the current admission policy of the University of Michigan's law school, where, although race is a factor in admissions, it not the deciding one. Each applicant is individually reviewed by a board of representatives from the law school and every facet of the person is examined. In the opinion of SCOTUS, this does no harm, constitutionally speaking.

Contrast this with their distaste for the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions system, where a predetermined quantity of "points", in this case 20, is awarded to minority applicants out of a possible 160 points available. This objective treatment of whole classes of individuals was, correctly, ruled unconstitutional.

So am I the only one to be left wondering… what?

read the full column here...

Go wandering around some typical college dorm-rooms these days, and you'll notice an interesting trend in America's college population (especially among males). This trend of which I speak is one of internet entertainment, usually in the form of flash cartoons and games. A particular website gets noticed by a few nerds (err bright college students with too much time on their hands) and suddenly comes into vogue, spreading like wildfire to campuses across the country. One great example is Homestar Runner. Anyways, this particular website has now been noticed by the main-stream media. Check out this article on Wired News. And don't forget to listen to the audio interviews as well :-)

I love this story. New York's bars are fighting back against an impending tyranical smoking ban. They're smart; their tactic is to hit the state where it counts, in the pocketbook.

I mean it...

At mass Sunday morning, we had a guest priest perform give the homily. This particular priest is known for cracking a few jokes before the sermon's speech, and this mass was no exception. Here's a shining example:

A small town has a Presbyterian, a Methodist, and a Catholic church. Now, each of these churches have recently encountered a problem with squirrels infesting their church buildings. Each decides to deal with the problem, albeit in three different ways. The Presbyterians, believed that the squirrels were predestined to remain in their church, so they just let it go, without giving it much worry. The Methodists, stressing love and kindness, gathered up the squirrels and took them to a park where they could be happy. But the squirrels came back to the church after a week. Finally to the Catholics. They decided to baptize each squirrel and make them all members of the Church.... This way they wouldn't have to see them, except for on Easter and Christmas!

I corrected an error in my archiving set-up, so my hyperlinks now appear to be fully functional. Baby-steps...

I know now, Lord, why you utter no answer. You are yourself the answer. Before your face questions die away. What other answer would suffice? Only words, words; to be led out to battle against other words. Long did I hate you, long did I fear you. I might--

--the character Orual, from C.S. Lewis's Till We Have Faces

btw, this book, which was C.S. Lewis's favorite, is a must read for every Christian (and non-Christian for that matter). I highly recommend it. This novel delves into the essence of faith.

Do we say the truth, or do we say what we want to be the truth? And how do we distinguish?

If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are perfectly safe; if you look at it a thousandth time, you are in frightful danger of seeing it for the first time.

--G.K. Chesterton, The Napoleon of Notting Hill

With the drafting of the new European constitution, the nations across the Atlantic have taken one more step towards their goal of unity, in an effort to challenge the United State's emerging hegemony. However, they have yet to realize the great responsibility associated with superpower status. This is why they fail to champion the cause of freedom and democracy around the globe (eg. Iraq). And this is why they have failed to match the U.S.'s $1 billion pledge to to the Global Fund to fight AIDS in Africa.

Anybody following politics and the debacle that is the race for the Democratic presidential nomination must be asking: What is John Kerry up to? First, he has been very aggressive in his attack on President Bush on the WMD issue (even though he also publicly supported the Iraq war on WMD grounds), and now he is publicly supporting an abortion litmus test on Supreme Court nominees.

The usually bland and wishy-washy John Kerry is suddenly taking strong stands to the left. This does not really surprise me, however, because he is facing a strong challenge for the support of the Democratic liberal base from Howard Dean. The former governor of Vermont has consistently attacked the other Dems for not being liberal enough, pointing much of the fire at Kerry. So Kerry's recent lurch to the left was an inevitability in my mind, a necessity for any candidate truly wishing to get the Democratic nod. It will be interesting to see if Joe Lieberman follows the same path, or chooses to remain the most conservative of the bunch.



So, with the Dems moving to the left, and Bush running as an incumbant, he will be able to take the middle ground, and that is why he is considered a shoe-in right now for reelection. If Kerry and other Senate Democrats continue their judicial obstructionism, then the GOP may have an excellent issue going into November, 04. Remember, Gingrich's 1994 revolution collapsed when the Republicans were seen as obstructionists in the budget battle with President Clinton. Will the shoe fit on the other foot?

With President Bush pushing the roadmap to peace in the Middle East, both Israel and the Palestinians are being asked to make sacrifices in order to reach an accord. I contend that Bush's strategy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been brilliant. Many complain that he has not done enough, but I argue that patience is crucial in this matter. Barak and Clinton tried to hurry the process and they ended with near-complete failure, with Arafat walking away from the negotiating table.

To contrast, Bush is attacking the problem by identifying the significant barriers to peace on each side, and addressing those barriers patiently. First, he called for a new Palestinian leadership and democratic reforms in the PA. We have gotten both. On the flip side, Bush is pushing Israel hard to dismantle its settlements in the West Bank. Now, Israel is complying with some of Bush's urgings and dismantling some of its settlements.

Each side must continue to do its part, and the ultimate success of the roadmap will yet to be seen. But with some criticizing Bush for being too hard on the Israelis, and others criticizing him for being too hard on the Palestinians, he must be doing something right.

Three words: pure comedic genius. Thats how I would describe the recent stunt pulled off by Enrique Santos and Joe Ferrero of WXDJ, an FM Spanish radio station in Southern Florida. They found Fidel Castro's office phone number off of a Cuban government webpage and decided to give him a call. Only one catch, they pretended to be two of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's aides. What ensued was hilarious. Read the full story, here on the Washington Times.

Once I find a copy of the audio of the conversation on the internet, I'll provide a link :)

We now call it Freedom Toast; it used to be called French Toast. But did you know that is was known as German Toast before World War I?

Salon has a good article regarding the probable effects of online music stores on the music business. The article, entitled "iTunes: The "i" Doesn't Stand for Innovation" refers specifically to the iTunes Music Store, but could easily refer to any music store that is based on the pay per song format. The basic point is that this model will encourage music consumers to only purchase the songs that they hear on the radio and thus miss the other "gems" that often are present on an album, and often take time to earn appreciation.

The argument goes like this:
1. The musician makes certain songs "radio-friendly" to encourage frequent radio play and drive album sales
2. The consumer hears the song(s) on the radio and purchases the album
3. The consumer bores of the particular song and listens to the other songs on the same album, discovering others that he likes from that musician

But what if musicians are freed from having to make "radio-friendly" to begin with? And will this new online model actually free them from this requirement? Two good questions, neither of which I have the answer for, unfortunately.

These are compliment of my friend Joe:

What did the girl ocean say to the boy ocean when she got asked out?
-- Sorry, I'm 'sea'ing somebody else

What did the girl ocean say to the boy ocean when she got asked out? again
-- Shore

What do you get when you mix elephants with fish?
--Swimming trunks!

Why does the sun not have to go to college?
--Because it already has 15 million degrees!

What did the zero say to the eight?
--Nice belt (I had to think a couple of seconds about that one -lds)

The Washington Times has an article predicting that Republicans will pick up between 1 and 4 seats in the Senate, mainly due to the fact that the Dems will have to defend 6 more seats than the Republicans. Compounding the problems for the Democrats, the economy might be headed for a modest upturn, if yesterday's stock market performance is any indication: Dow up 200+

Ok, I think I have most of the formatting issues down. It took a crash-course in CSS to make it so. My code is kindof messy, but a decent blend between automation and manual control.

This hereby is my first post with Blogger. I'll be upgrading to Blogger Pro once they get their ordering system back up. Anyways, this will greatly benefit my site, because people will be able to link directly to certain posts that I make (assuming that they would actually want to, of course). Also, the archive section will be updated automatically, requiring no input from me. For sheezy! (don't ask me where I learned that phrase)

Right now, I'm still working on getting the formatting down just right, so bare with me. The site now looks good on Internet Explorer on my Mac, but it isn't rendering right on Safari (my browser of choice), so I have some stuff to figure out.

-lds