Welcome to Daily Contentions... Born in February 2003, DC is a daily-updated weblog covering a wide variety of issues, contemporary and timeless-- always with a unique perspective and open attitude.
My posting has been light recently because I took a small trip up to the beautiful and majestic city that is South Bend (don't let the sarcasm slap you in the face). I visited good ole Notre Dame and some of my friends up there. A very good time was had by all, including an awesome philosophical/theological discussion that went on for a couple of hours Saturday night. I will admit that it was partly induced by the, umm, Irish muse :) The weekend ended, well, with that photo of my head below.
I am saddened now to say that I won't be posting again until this Friday at the earliest. I am going with a couple of friends to a concert in Toronto, where I will hope to avoid SARS and also hear some classic rock 'n roll. For a steal of $16.00 each, we're going to see the Rolling Stones, Rush, the Guess Who, AC/DC, and several other musicians. I am so primed for this. When I come back, I'll post some photos of the festivities.
So, when I'm gone, make sure and check out some of my links (on the left side of the page). They're better than I am anyways.
I'm currently reading Oliver North's latest fiction, entitled Mission Compromised. While the novel is an easy-read, I still must say that I am disappointed. In general, it reads like a 'B' Tom Clancy novel. Its plot is much less developed and the writing style is too direct, lacking Clancy's ability to engulf the reader in the unfolding set of colluding actions and events. Also, its character development is mediocre; North's attempts to develop the characters' personalities is about as successful as treating a headache with an enema. Finally, the plot has some major plausibility holes which completely ruin the overall credibility of the novel.
Yet, needless to say, after 350 pages, I'm still reading Mission. Two reasons. One, I can never stop reading a book halfway through; its a certain masochistic rule I have. And two, the book is not altogether bad. North's historical perspective is nice (although, I think it would have been better if it were much expanded), and the storyline is generally fun and humorously cynical. So, here's my advice: read this novel, only if you are willing to relax (read: compromise) your standards a tiny bit.
No, don't worry; I'm not gonna hop on the media overhype machine and run this story into the ground. But I did think these links provide some good insight into the current state of the case: (both courtesy of ESPN.com)
With Kobe Bryant charged with sexual assault, many questions have been raised. For instance, what is the distinction between sexual assault and rape? When should the accused' rights end and the victim's rights begin? And, do celebrities get awarded too much scrutiny or given too much support when charged with such crimes?
My esteemed friend and fellow Notre Dame senior, Kristine Lam, tackles these issues in a poignant article, posted here. Read the full article. Here is the beginning:
For the past two weeks, the sports nation has been following the case of Kobe Bryant, the Los Angeles Lakers superstar and the "next Michael Jordan." This title was bestowed upon Mr. Bryant because of his excellence on the basketball court as well as his seeming maturity, clean image and charisma off of it. Sports writers and fans across the nation could not attach this title to just anyone afterall. Allen Iverson, an amazing player in his own right, lacks the clean image while Tim Duncan, the two-time NBA MVP, does not possess the charisma, charm and elegance of Kobe Bryant. Now Kobe Bryant's future is in question as he was officially charged with felony sexual assault in Colorado today.
We support each and every one of you
For making the ultimate sacrifice
To those who have entered heavens gate
You have not died in vain
For you have given to each of us Our Freedom
Freedom that should never be taken for granted.
May the Lord hold you in His loving hands
Feeling His peace in these difficult times
Thank you
To all our men and women in uniform
Past and present
Alex Santana, in an e-mail, wrote in response to my post on the deficit and domestic spending:
Your statement that the the country is in a $500 billion dollar deficit because of
policies that the Democrats have been able to convince the President to follow are
absolutely false. While listening to National Public Radio just a few days ago, it was
reported that the President had attributed the current state of the national budget
as follows:
25% because of the War in Iraq and terrorism
25% to fund tax cuts
50% because of the slow down in the economy
I don't see in his assesment any mention of blaming policies that help Americans
and keep the foundation of this country strong.
While Alex is correct to point out that the economic slowdown and the war on terrorism are massive factors in the expansive deficit, he has missed my larger point. That is as such: domestic spending is fundamentally too high, because the federal government has taken on responsibilities that it should not. This era of big domestic national government inflates the budget to the extent that it cannot provide the necessary military funding and safeguard against economic slowdowns.
The Democratic answer seems to be: "screw military funding, and maintain the massive domestic agenda!" This method works fine until our nation is attacked and actually needs a hearty military. Clinton's presidency is the perfect example. Under his reign of mediocrity, many military personnel had to live on food stamps, and our military/intelligence was incapable of adaquately dealing with the threat of terrorism.
The fiscally conservative method of reduced domestic spending allows the federal government to prioritize its Constitutional mandate of national defense, while running in the black on the budget as well. Furthermore, this allows the states to prioritize their Constitutional mandate to provide for the "health and welfare of the people" on domestic issues.
Here are a couple of photos I took on Sunday, July 5 at my uncle's house in eastern Indiana (near Muncie). A couple of thoughts came to mind. First, Indiana can be really beautiful. From the farms in central and northern Indy, to the the rolling hills of Southern Indy, our state has a lot to offer.
Second, great beauty can arise out of the harshest and ugliest circumstances. These photos were both taken after a powerful thunderstorm passed over head. Dark skies filled with ominous swirling clouds gave way to a low setting sun casting a golden light over the horizon. Nature's fury was swept aside by nature's beauty, with a rainbow across the sky to cap off the scene.
Rush Limbaugh asks this question on his website, in his analysis of President Bush's domestic efforts. Rush lists several instances of Dubya's caving to the democrats including: Kennedy's education bill, Daschle's farm bill, medicare and campaign finance reform, a prescription drug benefit package, and "a 'tax credit' for parents who don't pay taxes." With the GOP in control of both houses of Congress and the White House, the party's conservative base is being sadly let down.
But such cave-ins seem to be the norm in this post "new deal" era of the Federal Government; an era where education, healthcare, and other areas of state domain are increasingly being appropriated by our national government. So, when Rush asks "Where Have All the Compromises Gotten Us," I'd say 500+ billion dollars of deficit about answers it.
Jeffrey Kofman's ABCNews article, entitled "A Big Letdown," is typical of the current media sensationalization of the troop morale issue in Iraq. In the article Kofman interviews a few members of the Army's 3rd division, 2nd brigade. Answering his questions, they made such incendiary remarks as:
The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz.
If Donald Rumsfeld was here, I'd ask him for his resignation.
I used to want to help these people, but now I don't really care about them anymore. I've seen so much, you know, little kids throwing rocks at you. Once you pacify an area, it seems like the area you just came from turns bad again. I'd like this country to be all right, but I don't care anymore.
For starters the persons behind the first two statements should each be punished by the military. As soldiers in our nation's army, they are bound to obey orders and have the proper respect for their superiors, including the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of Defense. It is perfectly okay for a civilian to criticize our military decisions, but not for a soldier whose very attitude plays a critical role in protecting the life of himself and his comrades. Secondly, while it is unfortunate that this particular brigade has been kept longer than expected, their duty is still clear and the ultimate mission unfinished.
Kofman makes an all too typical error when he extrapolates from this handful of interviews to make a broad characterization of troop morale in an entire brigade:
Those four [Bush, Rumsfeld, Bremer, and Wolfowitz] are not popular at 2nd BCT these days.
If the media's portrayal of our troops' morale is indeed correct (which I highly doubt) then I would hate to see how our military would perform in a war of greater severity. The war with Iraq was real, with the associated saddening casulties, but far worse conflicts loom in waiting; with the wrong set of circumstances and decisions, these conflicts could be hatched, from North Korea to Iran. Will we be ready?
Although the so-called "drug cocktail" method has had great success in fighting HIV, its success is not always permanent. While some seem to eliminate HIV altogether in their sysytem and consider themselves cured (eg. Andrew Sullivan), others seem HIV-free for months or years only to have the virus rise up again. Furthermore, the anti-HIV cocktail itself seems to have both short-term and long-term health consequences.
Even more frightening are the questions yet unanswered. Scientists still do not fully understand the nature of reinfection and resistance. Until these questions are answered, the fight against AIDS cannot be won.
Dick Dullaghan, coach of the Ben Davis high school football team, has stated that this season will be his last. An Indiana legend, Dullaghan's successes are numerous and his reputation unimpeachable. His record 8 state championships and 4th ranking 301 wins speak for themselves. He is respected by his peers not only for teaching football skills to his young players but also life skills, a trait so important at this level.
As a player at 6-time state champion Roncalli High School, I was well aware of Coach Dullaghan's immense reputation. The players, many of whom attended his summer football camp, and coaches alike spoke highly of him.
"But wait Luke! The media is an unbiased source for information in America. Whats the purpose of this site?" Never mind, I won't touch this with a 10 foot poll.
Life is a highway (I want to ride it all night long)
By Luke
Walter Kirn's NYTimes Magazine article about speed limits is simply terrific. He mentions several drawbacks to speed limits, several of which I've previously considered. First, he differentiates between natural speed limits and legal speed limits. A person's natural speed limit is dependent on that person's natural driving abilities, the type of vehicle being driven, and the road conditions. Kirn cites a recent study that shows that increases in speed limits only raise accident rates among females and the elderly, for instance.
Second, the real danger on the road lies not with absolute velocity but rather with the relative differences in velocities of the vehicles on the road. In this manner, speed limits that are set too low actually raise driving risks, by creating a situation in which some people are traveling at their natural speed and others are traveling at the unnaturally slow speed limit.
I also appreciate and admire Kirn's appeal to the American way. Driving on America's open highways is indeed a symbol for that reckless abandon for freedom that we hold so dear.
I find this cartoon (which, incidentally was lovingly published by the Indianapolis Star in Sunday's paper) astoundingly ignorant and woefully cynical. Its quite queer: when a Republican president tries to act out of compassion, his motives are nearly always questioned by liberal elitists in the media, like Oliphant. Does it take too much imagination to think that Bush actually cares about Africa's problems? Considering the fact that he's put more effort into the AIDS problem then any president before him and than any other current world leader, I am willing to give him some credit.
We all know people trying to use natural family planning, and we have a word for those people. We call them parents.
This practical observation comes from a Canadian biological researcher, part of a research team that conducted a groundbreaking study that says many women have "no safe time" to avoid pregnancy. This may come as a shock to any woman who believes it when her doctor tells her there is 100% certainty of safety during a certain time of the month. (Thanks to T' Crown for this link)
Unfortunately though, Bush chose to go this route in arguing for war with Iraq. In trying to establish the war's legitimacy, our government created a hodgepodge resembling a smokescreen more than a foundation. Sadly, this maneuver was unnecessary, because the war was legitimate for several reasons other than WMD.
For instance, as the Bush Administration claimed, Saddam had an ongoing relationship with Osama Bin Ladin. Here is an indication that this claim was absolutely true. (thanks to InstaPundit for the link). The equation is simple: a nation with sufficient resources to produce deadly weapons (of all types) + a leader who vehemently hates America + close proximity to several terrorist groups including Al Queda = a substantial threat to the United States. A refusal to go to war with Iraq would have meant losing a battle in the war against terror.
I came home tonight, plopped myself upon the couch, and talked with my mother for a short time while watching Fox News. The usual array of annoying TV pundits were doing their usual annoying speculation, this time on the topic of forged WMD evidence. At this point, my mom asked a most astute question, "I keep hearing about this forged evidence, what I want to know is who is doing the forging?" She went on to say, "I can't understand why nobody on TV is addressing this question."
Neither can I. With all of the resources being wasted on determining the possible political ramifications of the latest revelations on the African uranium "evidence," you think some in Big Media would be curious about who has done the forgery. After all, who has much to gain by forging such evidence? (hint: the U.S. and Britain). Now, I'm not saying there is a vast government conspiracy behind all of this, but I do blame Bush for drunkenly taking us down this unnecessary road of Weapons of Mass Destruction limbo.
Patrick Henry's famous words still ring true today, as is typical of the brilliance of our forefathers. One must look no further than Iran for proof. As the police and Islamicists use violence to fight the pro-democracy protestors, they are forced to choose between liberty and death every day. The lesson is clear: freedom cannot be stopped with words, meetings, or movements. Violent force must be used, and that is an abomination to the very notion of peace.
Thats Taranto, not Toronto, as in James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal. His Best of the Web Today blog is excellent. Check out the post labeled "This isn't a good sign" for a good bit about a sign at a Hillary Clinton speech.
This post on Dean's World, by the esteemed Dean Esmay, hits the nail on the head. Scalia was certainly right about one thing: our country is in the midst of a culture war. This war, however, is not just about gay rights. Its about abortion, euthanasia, privacy, language, ethnicity, etc, etc. And don't think for one moment that the political battle lines will be cleanly split on these issues. As individuals take varied stances (for instance pro-life and pro-gay rights), both political parties will have trouble maintaining unity on the social side of their respective platforms.
Here is the solution to the Mind Reader website, as linked in yesterday's post:
symbols:
n = any 2 digit number
x = final resulting number
a = first digit
b = second digit
formula:
x = n - (a + b)
reduced formula:
n = 10a + b
x = 10a + b - a - b
x = 9a
Therefore, the final result of the formula will always be a multiple of 9. Notice that the site's chart uses the same symbol for every multiple of 9. Also, every time you reload the page, the chart changes to include a new symbol for those multiples, so you don't recognize the repetition.
The ever rambunctious Ann Coulter has been called the Maureen Dowd of the Right and her new book Treason is flying high. Despite my typical aversion to books by mainstream journalists, I think I'll give this one a try. She has some awesome quotes (thanks to Right Wing News) and is absolutely fearless; including dedicating many pages to the vendication of Sen. Joe McCarthy. Liberals would say, "How dare she!" I say, 'its about time.' Here are a couple good samples:
Democrats couldn't care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if Europeans curl their lips, liberals can't look at themselves in the mirror. -Ann Coulter, P. 228
A half century later, when the only people who call themselves Communists are harmless cranks, it is difficult to grasp the importance of McCarthy's crusade. But there's a reason 'Communist' now sounds about as threatening as 'monarchist' -- and it's not because of intrepid New York Times editorials denouncing McCarthy and praising Harvard educated Soviet spies. McCarthy made it a disgrace to be a Communist. Domestic Communism could never recover. -Ann Coulter, P. 33
This site is pretty clever. Figuring it to be more complicated than it actually was, I asked one of my math wizard friends [heads up Flutie :)] to unravel the "mystery." Test the site out several times and see if you can figure it out. If you cannot (or just don't feel like it), check this site tomorrow for an explanation. Props to Dan for pointing me to this site.
'There are three powers, three powers alone, able to conquer and to hold captive forever the conscience of these impotent rebels for their happiness-- those forces are miracle, mystery, and authority.'
This is a screenshot I took from Notre Dame's student-run website, NDToday.com. The particular page I was on was part of the NDToday Hot or Not section, which is mainly for goofs like this one. Anyways, I found it funny seeing the Virgin Mary rated an 8.9 next to a football player awaiting a rating. God, country, Notre Dame.
Daniel Pulliam on the Supreme Court's Sodomy Decision
By Luke
With the Supreme Court's recent Lawrence v. Texas decision regarding sodomy, many individuals and groups have weighed in on both sides, including myself in previous days' posts. Here is a sensible and thorough take on the matter by my friend Dan Pulliam. Dan will be a senior at Butler University next year and is currently a reporter for the Rock Island Dispatch:
So here are my thoughts on the Supreme Court's ruling that laws against sodomy are unconstitutional.
With the help of bloggers like Andrew Sullivan, NRO editor Jonah Goldberg, Luke Sayre and others at work and through some thought of my own, I have come to this conclusion.
The Supreme Court, by ruling that laws against sodomy are unconstitutional, has over-stretched its bounds and continues to purport this "privacy" that is simply an extension of Roe v. Wade. The court has waded into some dangerous waters by making it against the law for a state to make laws about what people do in the bedroom.
I do agree, however, with the result of the decision, but I wish they had, as my friend Luke points out, made the decision based upon equal protection for the simple fact that if a state (or a city/county) wants to make certain "moral laws" about what people can do in the bedroom, it should be allowed within the bounds set up in the constitution. Rather than using the equal protection to strike down laws that prohibited only the homosexual form of sodomy, they chose to say all sodomy is okay, simply because it is something you do in private.
