For those of you who read the Observer, reading the comics on the last page can cause a great deal of anger due to the unfunniness of the School Daze comic strip. But now you can do something about that anger by signing this online petition demanding that the head editor of the Observer remove the School Daze comic strip. I have no idea if this petition will work, but the editor will have to think twice about keeping the comic if he gets a petition with a 1000 signatures demanding its removal.

Yesterday Dan Ornleas challenged all the other guest bloggers to name their shame song and being a man who doesn't back down from a challenge, I will do so as well. Like Dan, I find myself singing along when a Phil Collins song comes on, but if I had to pick another shame song it would be any song by Journey. Did these guys ever have a bad song? I think not.

California voters will soon have to decide whether or not to recall Gray Davis and to decide his successor if they vote to recall. With over 130 candidates, it can be overwhelming to decide who is the best candidate. So let me simplify the process by giving out a Daily Contentions endorsement to one, Mary Carey. To the average voter, the first question is: Who the hell is Mary Carey? Well Ms. Carey is a porn star and she has some very intriguing ideas to pull California out of the dumpster. Some of these ideas include: taxing breast implants, making lap dances a tax deductible, starting a pistols for porn program and my personal favorite, recruiting performers from the adult film industry as ambassadors of goodwill. I mean if this won't get California back on track, I don't know what will.

Last week, Lucas made note of Democratic Congressman Jim Marshall's criticism of the negativity of the press in their coverage of Iraq. Well it appears that Dana Millbank of the Washington Post took exception to that criticism and had the following to say on Reliable Sources on CNN:

This is one of the most dangerous things I think happens in our whole culture. . . . The implication is that the press, by writing about bad news, things that are happening bad to the United States occupation in Iraq, are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. And this, I think, is against the long tradition that has governed the press in America, and that is that we--it is our responsibility to point out when things are wrong. It's not our job to be cheerleaders. (Thanks to James Taranto for the quote)

It's quite obvious that Millbank doesn't get it. We don't want the press to be cheerleaders. We want the press to give us the whole picture whether its negative or positive. The press's coverage of Iraq has been just god awful because the only thing they report is the death or injury of US soliders. There is little coverage of the rebuilding effort of Iraq, so I have no idea how we are doing in building new schools or new hospitals or training new Iraqi police or other important facets of the rebuilding effort. Now don't get me wrong, I think the reporting of the armed resistance that the U.S. soliders are facing is important and deserves to be covered, but there is a lot more to the rebuilding of Iraq than the number of dead U.S. soldiers.

On Monday the White Sox finally fired Jerry Manuel. According to Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune, one man the Sox may be targeting is Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa who managed the White Sox back in the mid 1980's and led them to a division crown in 1983. Hopefully, Jerry Reinsdorf and Kenny Williams pull this off because if LaRussa was coaching the Sox this year, they would have won 95 games easily, and would not have faced the embarrassment of having to watch the Cubs play post-season baseball from the comforts of their home.

As one might tell from my bio, I was at the Purdue game this past weekend, and needless to say I met some interesting people there. As I was walking to the stadium a guy wearing a cow costume came up to me and said, "The Irish f*ckin blow." Then as I got closer to the stadium, there were numerous individuals riding in the back of pickup trucks trying to yell stuff at me and I also saw a number of people sporting mullets. So I was definitely in hick country, and this was reinforced during the game. In trying to get the fans pumped up, the scoreboard would display "Boiler it up" and the fans would start chanting this. I found myself confused when I saw this because I had no idea what Boiler it up meant. So I asked a couple of Purdue fans to enlighten me and they didn't know. I started to mock them and started chanting, "Irish it up". Then one of Purdue fans told me that it was not "Boiler it up" but rather "Broiler it up" . Yet this answer did not satisfy me either. No one could give me an explanation. The only real explanation I got was that it was a ra-ra cheer to pump the fans up, which leaves me with this thought: Purdue may have kicked our ass on the field, but we kicked their ass in the cheer department (that should count for something right?).

I'm a Senior Psychology and Political Science major from Naperville, IL, which is just outside of Chicago. Right now I'm searching for an answer to an eternal question: What does the term Boiler it up mean? If anyone knows, please contact me at cletkewi@nd.edu.

This from newly released personal letter by Ronald Reagan:

Back when I first became President, I was overwhelmed by huge problems, and I was always looking over my shoulder for someone to pass them off to. It was only recently that I realized I had been looking in the wrong direction. Ever since I started looking up, things have been better.

Dan Ornelas... signing off.

And I don't want to use Luke's blog as a vehicle to bash crazy Indiana time, where we don't switch back and forth from Daylight Savings Time, but I will say this. Being different from 95% of the rest of the nation more likely than not hurts Indiana economically, a hurt that does not balance with the interests of farmers.

There has been a recent controversy involving WNDU, a South Bend NBC affiliate that has decided it will not air the new sitcom "Coupling" over concerns that it will be too sexually explicit for it’s early time slot. Some charge censorship while others applaud WNDU for standing up for morality. Regardless of where one falls on this issue, we must all admit that television is not exactly the place to look if you're searching for ethics. Even shows like Friends, which are pretty mild, tend to treat sex very casually, as something that beautiful people do without any consequences, emotional or otherwise. Cartoons can be pretty violent or racy, and I'm not just talking about "Adult Swim" here.

My point is not to sermonize that we need to crack down on the immoral and unholy television gods. I'd only like to say that smut is not necessary to make a good show. Case in point, one of the very few TV programs that I watch on a regular basis, "Everwood" on the WB network. It can be pretty funny (and with a name as suggestive as Everwood, how could it not?), but also very sincere, and I'm not talking wishy-washy like Full House or melodramatic like soap operas. It's basically the story of a famous NYC neurosurgeon who moves his two kids to small-town Colorado after his wife dies, and the son who hates him for it. The show has been able to cover everything from abortion to medicinal marijuana to teenage breast implants, and has done so without coming off as preachy. See, Hollywood, it can be done! If you’ve got some free time, you can check out "Everwood" tonight at 9 pm (that's Eastern [normal] time for everyone who doesn't live in South Bend) on the WB.

No trailer yet, but it's coming. It is, I tell you! The King of Men will return!

No, not the no-talent rapper. Look at the picture!



This was taken from an event sponsored by the Southern Methodist University chapter of the Young Conservatives. The group wanted to protest the concept of race-based admissions to universities by having a bake sale in which minorities were charged less for their cookies than white or Asian students. One might call this "illustrating absurdity". The problem is, a few people at SMU were offended at this action and filed complaints with the university to shut down the bake sale. As one might have predicted, SMU caved in. What does this mean for you? Watch out for what you say, because your opinion will be censored if it deviates from acceptable politically correct speech. Freedom of speech is subordinated to the "feelings" of a few people who don’t agree with you.

And what is worse, this is clearly viewpoint discrimination. Leftist speech is NEVER censored on college campuses, because guess who runs most universities? The peaceniks complained about censorship during the Iraq war. Laughable. There were more protests, op-eds, and costly sit-ins in the past year than can be counted. Now when conservatives want to make a simple point, the man shuts them down. Free to burn flags, call Bush a Nazi, and hate America, but apparently not free to demand true equality. Sick.

As mentioned in a recent column of ND's paper, The Observer, everyone is guilty of having at least one "shame song" on their mp3 playlist. This is a song that you would never admit to having, but also, one that you absolutely must have. I must say, I can't help but sing along whenever a Phil Collins song pops on. Of course, 80's music is exempt from shame, for it was a magical decade when musical rules didn't apply. Right.

I challenge the remaining bloggers of this week to admit to their "shame song."

For the rest of you "Lord of the Rings" geeks, join me in an expression of our geek-dom as we view the new trailer for "The Return of the King!" As of right now, it's not up, but the site promises that it will debut today. Until then, check out the rest of the site. It's very informative and helps clear up some things that may be a bit confusing in the movie. You know you want to!

It has become abundantly clear to me that the Law School Admissions Test was specifically designed during the Spanish Inquisition as a device to torture Jews until they converted. Did I say that out loud?

As weeks turn into months, many observers, even conservatives, are beginning to doubt the reasons given for going to war with Iraq. Citing that we have not found any WMD yet, some in the public, influenced by the constant harping by the media, are starting to think that Bush misled the nation into thinking Saddam was an imminent threat. Two points.

1. Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat. What he said is that we cannot allow rogue states to become imminent threats, because at that point, it is already too late.

2. And as to why we haven't found WMD, Rush and I both proffered a theory a while back. Saddam's scientists, fearing for their lives, lied to Hussein, saying they had weapons and were ready to use them. In reality, the scientists were either working against Saddam, or simply unable to complete their work. In any event, U.S. and U.K. intelligence services were led to believe in the WMD just as Saddam was. If this is the case, Bush is blameless. Time has picked up on this very idea.

A brief word to newbies. Thanks for coming to my friend Luke's site, Daily Contentions. Luke runs his own "blog" which is short for web log. Think of it as an online journal. The fun part is, this week is guest blog week, and I'm up first. Your responses are welcome.

From the State of Ohio, which has brought you such greats as Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Neil Armstrong, eight Presidents, and Ed O'Neil, now comes: me, Dan Ornelas. For anyone who's still reading, I'm 22, from Youngstown, OH, and I'm a senior political science major at Notre Dame. I enjoy watching "Lord of the Rings" (again and again), being a foot soldier in the Republican party, and drinking the best damn beer in the world for under $3, George Killian's Irish Red. Many thanks to Luke for having this guest-blog week. I hope this works!

The schedule is as follows:

Monday: Dan Ornelas
Tuesday: Chris Letkewicz
Wednesday: Mike Romano
Thursday: Brendan Magee
Friday: Christy Ruggiero
Saturday: Kristine Lam

Expect each blogger to have an unique perspective as well as expertise in some areas that I do not. Maybe they'll even take positions that I disagree with :)

At the beginning of each guest blog day, I'll introduce the blogger in that day's first post; from then on, the reins will be in his or her hands.

Bob Kravitz has another excellent sports column in today's Indy Star, "Stu stars, but should he have sat?" Apparently, Purdue star safety Stuart Schweigert pled guilty to public intoxication two days ago. This was his second such offense in his tenure at Purdue. The problem is, he was more than just publicly intoxicated; he was driving with a .18 BAC! Due to a technicality (he was pulled over by Excise police rather than State police or local police), he could not be charged for a DUI, and therefore got away with a slap on the wrist.

Even worse is how Purdue handled it. Head coach Joe Tiller refused to suspend Schweigert or even specify what disciplinary measures, if any, were taken. In response to questions about Schweigert, this is all Tiller could muster:

"I think at age 22, I heard what was said to him by the judge and I thought he did an admirable job," Tiller said after the game. "He talked to him like a father. Maybe Stu needs more of that, someone to speak to him more like a father.

Wrong. As an adult, what Schweigert needs is punishment, just like any other offense carries in our society. Driving while drunk is not minor; it carries with it the dramatically increased risk of accident injuring or killing yourself and others. Kravitz sums it best:

On Friday, he was in court, receiving his sentence. On Saturday, he was on the football field, making Purdue history. Is there something wrong with those pictures?

I would hope and expect that Notre Dame would have handled such a case better.

Chris Arabia's article for FrontPage Magazine, "Satire: The Vicious German-Polish Conflict" is the best thing I've read in a while this side of TheOnion. Framing a fictitious conflict between "oppressed" Germans and the Polish "aggressors" Arabia strikes hard at those who apologize for Palestinian militants. Here is a couple power quotes:

"We demand that the occupied territories of the East Bank of the Oder-Niesse and the East Prussia Strip that were taken by force [by the Polish] be restored to the Federal Republic of Germany," said a man who phoned in a claim of responsibility for the attack.  The man claimed to represent the Alles-Aachen Martyrs Brigades, a coalition of German activists and freedom fighters.

...and then poking fun at the ignorance of academic apologists:

"The Poles are pretty clearly the historical aggressors in the Middle Europe," asserted Prell, a 29-year-old protestor from Fresno who last year capped a remarkable 10 year undergraduate run by collecting a B.A. in some social science he can’t remember.  "For the 58 days that I have been closely following this crisis, the Poles have been in the position of occupying force."

This is just too good, you must read the whole thing.

Despite what I may or may not think in regards to many of Tony Blair's policies, his firm and unwavering stance on the war with Iraq shows moral and political fortitude. He continues to assert the "rightness" of that war and remains defiant to a hostile press and slumping public opinion polls.

Thats the only way to describe any Notre Dame loss to Purdue. Its simply unacceptable. Sorry, Ryan, but nice try with the prediction.

By the way, today, I encountered first hand the "scorn and distrust" towards ND that Mark Massa described in that block quote.

Its more than just football:

Notre Dame's "athletic tradition" (as coaches and administrators in South Bend like to phrase it) emerged in the era of rabid anti-Catholicism, so that the national prominence of Knute Rockne's teams from an obscure and penurious Catholic school in one of the most Protestant states in the Union became a source of both pride and group esteem for millions of American Catholics who never set foot on the campus, as well as the target of scorn and distrust by other Americans.

-Mark S. Massa, "Catholics and American Culture"


Also, Ryan Reynolds is predicting that Notre Dame will beat Purdue today 23-19. I seriously doubt that ND's offense is capable of putting up that many points, but I could see the defense contributing some to the scoreboard. But so far, Ryan is perfect in his predictions, so we'll see.

In my German class today, a couple of things caught my attention. First, our professor pointed out that "ein Amerikaner" while the word for 'an American' is also the name of a particular type of doughtnut. Its modern roots provide an interesting example of how a particular word originates. The German word "Amerikaner" came to being after WWII in Germany, when American troops were present in the nation. The Germans noticed that some American troops were white and that some were black. The doughnut in question is thin and round, covered in chocolate on one side, and powdered sugar on the other, recognizing the diversity of the American troops.

The other thing that caught my eye was the verb "kriegen" which means 'to receive or to get.' Compare this to the German noun for 'war' which is "Krieg." The similarity of these two words is not coincidence, but rather a matter of history. As my professor explained, around a 1000 years ago when the noun and verb forms split from each other, the concept of war was known to the Germanic tribes as the act of getting or receiving by force of opposing tribes' land and resources. As we see, the German language first represented war an an advantageous notion. Only as time has passed has it also encompassed defensive perspectives.

Next week, starting Monday, Daily Contentions will be hosting Guest Blog Week 2003. On each day, a different guest will have the reins of the blog. I'm excited; this might be a first in the blogosphere.

The only challenge will be keeping myself blog-hushed for that long. Maybe I'll keep one post each day :-)

With President Bush's polling numbers showing a negative trend and with the media's naysaying "Bush is vulnerable!", it is important to put these polling results into historical perspective. Indiana Republican Party Chairman Jim Kittle has written an excellent article which does just that. In regards to polls asking the respondent to choose between the President and his opponents:

Every incumbent President for the last 25 years has trailed the opposition in the latter part of his first term. Throughout 1983, former President Ronald Reagan trailed Walter Mondale by as many as nine points. Even at the beginning of 1984, the polls showed a dead heat. As you know President Reagan won in a landslide carrying 49 states.

And in regards to polls that ask the respondent if they would reelect the President:

As this expected cycle continues, Democrats and the media will also talk about public response as to whether President Bush should be re-elected or not. A quick glance at history tells us President Clinton’s re-elect hardly ever rose above 40%. In April 1995, it stood at 21%.

Keep in mind that President George W. Bush's current reelect numbers have been consistently in the upper 40s. So, the message to Republicans is clear: "The sky is not falling."

Walking around I hear the earth seeking relief
I'm trying to find a reason to live
But the mindless clutter my path
Oh these thorns in my side
I know I have something free
I have something so alive
I think they shoot cause they want it

I feel forces all around me
Come on raise your head
Those who hide behind the shadows
Live with all that's dead

Look at me... look at me
At least look at me when you shoot a bullet through my head
Through my head
Through my head
Through my head

Im my lifetime when I'm disgraced
By jealousy and lies
I laugh aloud 'cause my life
Has gotten inside someone else's mind

Look at me... look at me
At least look at me when you shoot a bullet through my head
Through my head
Through my head
Through my head

Hey all I want is what's real
Something I touch and can feel
I'll hold it close and never let it go
Said why... why do we live life
With all this hate inside
I'll give it away 'cause I don't want it no more
Please help me find a place
Somewhere far away I'll go and you'll never see me again

-Creed, "Bullets"

"Educating the Rhodes Scholar"
by Dan Ornelas

Recently, the media has been experiencing a collective orgasm over one Gen. Wesley Clark's presidential bid. The former NATO commander threw his hat into the ring last week, even though he has never before held any elected office. His aspirations are grounded in what he believes are extensive foreign policy experience and superior intellectual faculties. However, as is the case with most smart-asses, time will show them to be less and less smart and more and more of an ass.

Specifically, Clark has come out swinging on the issue of the Iraq war. It took some time for the former general to formulate an actual position, but when one eventually surfaced, it amounted to something like this: I would have voted to give the President the power to go to war, but only as a bluff. I never would have supported the war unless Bush had come back to Congress with the complete authority of the Security Council behind him. Clark thus assumes that the entire war has been in error because America lacked a UN mandate.

For a bright man, the good General seems unable to comprehend the folly inherent in his own position. He contends that it would be sufficient to give the President bluffing power, even though, in Clark's own words, he would have nothing to bluff "with." Certainly, it is an interesting non-solution to the plight of the Iraqi people and the threat of WMD. But his assertion that the US should be incapable of action without a direct UN sanction is what I and many other conservative and moderates find troubling.

Let us be crystal clear about who has failed Iraq, both in the past and now in the post-Saddam era. America, together with Great Britain, used air power to protect Iraqi Kurds in the north of Iraq, and Shiite Muslims in the south. The United Nations issued sanctions, while UN members began to violate them. America demanded a more rigorous inspections team long ago; the UN refused, citing that Hussein’s regime, while illegitimate, still had rights not to be spied upon. The United States and her allies wanted the UN to get serious with Iraq and enforce at least one of the 17 Security Council resolutions passed against the Hussein regime. Most of the Security Council members, however, negotiated in bad faith. France, Germany, and Russia never had any intention of going to or voting for war, even if Iraq did not comply with the resolutions.

In Wesley Clark's erudite mind, the US action against Saddam was thus illegitimate, and Bush is worthy of reproach for acting unilaterally. But perhaps even the most intelligent of men missed some things in the aftermath of the war: cheering residents of Baghdad demolishing Saddam's likenesses, the absence of inter-ethnic and religious strife, and most glaringly, tales of torture, rape, and mass murder. Clark should know that the lack of a firm policy for dealing with Hussein amounts to tacit approbation of these atrocities.

One would think Clark would be feeling a sense of deja vu, being that Baathist Iraq is blatantly in the pattern of Milosevic's Serbia. Of course, there was a UN mandate for action in Koso... oh wait. Never mind.


[ed: One should note that the military intenvention in Kosovo never had a UN mandate; rather, it was a NATO operation from the beginning.]

Love does not consist in gazing at each other but looking in the same direction together.

-Antonne de Saint-Exupery


Thanks to my friend Kate from IU for this quote. Check out her blog.

The American newsmedia's coverage of post-war Iraq provides an acute example of the media's general devolution into negativity. Day after day bring front-page stories about an armed ambush or a planted bomb. Which, if these things are occuring, is completely appropriate. But where are the stories of our successes in Iraq? Democratic Congressman Jim Marshall asks this question, based partly in his observances while visiting Iraq about a week ago. Here's the power quote:

So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy...

Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical "can do" attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents.

The media's trend towards incessant negativity and obsession with scandal have eroded public confidence in the government, sports, business, and numerous other fields of public life. And now blogs, this one included, are focusing that negativity on the media itself. When all of our public institutions fall from the public's grace, then our society's jolt towards destructive introspection will be complete.

And at that point, just as in Iraq, the rebuilding process will begin.

One might expect the party out of power to rant about the party in power, but the Democrats have taken this blathering to a new level with their bashing of President Bush and the GOP. Evidently, they feel that negativity will earn them some points at the polls. Look no further than the DNC website for proof:

- Under the 'Special Reports' tab, 12 of the 18 total headlines refer directly to George W. Bush, and 2 others refer to the GOP. That leaves only 4 (count them) articles priortizing the issues rather than ranting against the Republicans. Furthermore, on the DNC's main page, they have a link to an entire section (a blog called "Kicking Ass") devoted solely to "...the latest outrages from the Bush administration..." and how the Democrats plan to fight them.

Thanks to Dan Ornelas for pointing this out to me.

Durex, the British condom manufacturer, has just released the results of their 2003 Global Sex Survey. Among the survey's several questions was a question asking whether or not the respondent was involved in a gay or lesbian relationship. The results are surprising, as this Ananova article points out:

Researchers have concluded more than 17% of Australians and Americans are involved in gay or lesbian relationships.

I have attempted to research this survey more, including a trip to Durex's website, but I have been unable to find the details on how the survey was conducted, what their sampling was, and what exactly the questions were. 17% is a very high number, relative to previous estimates I've heard, so I'm forced to ask a few questions. First, was this a scientific survey? Second, was the sampling limited to a certain age group or other category? And finally, does this percentage pertain only to couples or to all surveyed? If anyone has any details on this survey, I'm all ears. Until then, I have an e-mail into Durex asking for more information.

No surprise here. Just as I predicted, the 9th Circuit has come to its senses and overturned the earlier ruling of its 3-judge panel that delayed the recall. Now the Recall is back on for October 7.

Dan Pulliam blasts me for speculating on a possible Hillary candidacy:

If I see any more speculation that Hillary is going to run for President or do something besides be a U.S. Senator for the next 4 years, I will do something violent. It's horrible. Even my friend Luke has been swept up in the media frenzy. It's only for her benefit. It's like we are on the edge of our seats, watching, waiting, for the Second Coming of the Clintons! Stop the madness. She's an average U.S. Senator and a failed First Lady. Why does she get the J-Lo-Ben treatment when it comes to what she does.

The reason, Dan, is simple: every single poll done in the last year shows that Hillary would easily be the front-runner for the democratic race, if she entered. Nobody can tell me that she does not have ambitions in this regard, so it would be irrational to think that she's ignoring the possibility of running. One would be committing the utmost folly to ignore her presence and not to devise a plan to defeat her, if one is so inclined.

Now regarding Wes Clark... Jim Ryan is backing away from his theory (espoused here earlier) that Clark will be Hillary's running-mate. Instead, he says Clark will be on his own, and that Hillary won't enter unless Clark's numbers tank. Did we underestimate Clark's strength? Josh Claybourn seems to think so. Ben Domenech doesn't. Neither does Rush Limbaugh.

So, here's Dennis Miller on "The Nuclear Testing Business" in N. Korea.

Funniest thing I've read in a long while. Here's the power quote:

Now while the preceding scenario [of bombing North Korea's nuclear test site] might seem a tad exaggerated, so is the naive dream that all the world's peoples will one day drop our nukes into a huge transmogrifying Bessemer Converter of Peace operated by Rod McKuen that smelts the weapons down into gold tickets to the Wonka Factory where we all share one big multi-national lollipop together.

Pure hilarity :)

Sarah Pulliam brought my attention to this website, which will turn any website or any text you submit into one of its preprogrammed dialects (including Redneck, Hacker, piglatin, Elmer Fudd and others). Quite funny, and quite an effective form of procrastination as well. By the way, The Dialectizer is made by the same people who make the ultra-condensed books. They're on a role.

Well, ok, she's always been my hero (j/k), but my appreciation for her has been renewed. In this interview with the Herald Sun, the former Fleetwood Mac singer rants on Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. She says that they are killing their own careers by using their bodies to sell their music rather than original song-writing. She also calls that kiss between Britney and Madonna at the MTV Music Awards the most obnoxious moment in TV history. Three cheers!

You saw it here on Friday.

It turns out, Craig Crawford at CQ.com is thinking the same thing.

Freedom knows no boundaries in the human spirit, but it does know the boundaries of geographical separation of civilizations. Take for example the Palestinian Authority and its domestic control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As this Reuters story entitled "Palestinian Gay Runaways Survive on Israeli Streets" points out, the 'rule of law' in this civilization condemns identity, presumes guilt, creates false charges, and condemns others merely by association.

Homosexuals under the Palestinian Authority are often tortured and imprisoned for years. Furthermore:

"In the Arab mindset, a person who has committed a moral offense is often assumed to be guilty of others, and it radiates out to the family and community," said Bassam Eid, director of Palestinian Human Rights Watch.

As a result of this oppression, many Palestinian homosexuals have fled to Israel for safety.

I would have been a Republican, if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls.

-Wesley Clark (as quoted in this Newsweek article)


What about political ideology? That, in my opinion, should determine one's party, rather than whatever will give him relative advantage or power. Perhaps Rove didn't return Clark's phone calls, because he knew him to be a Clinton loyalist and a Democrat at heart. Clark's advantageousness is stomach-stirring.

Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.

-Mahatma Gandhi

Well, not every chapter can be happy for the story to be complete. The tradition endures.

American college football's "Game of the Century" (at least so the common wisdom goes) was played in East Lansing, Michigan, on a leaden-skied Saturday afternoon in 1966. On that November afternoon, and on many fall Saturday afternoons since, college football fans, media sports commentators, and collectors of football lore have rehashed The Game and debated the coaches' strategies -- almost minute by minute.

On that day in 1966, Roman Catholic nuns throughout the Midwest had offered their Mass intentions and tolled their beads for the success of Our Lady's Team, the "Fighting Irish" of the University of Notre Dame, in their great battle against the forces of darkness, the Spartans of Michigan State University.

-Mark S. Massa, "Catholics and American Culture"


And today we add another chapter. Tailgating, the sound of bagpipes lofting over the quads, brats, beer, dads tossing the football with their young boys clothed in the holy blue and gold... This IS the place to be on Autumn saturdays.

Go ND, beat MSU!!!

If you want peace, work for justice.

-Pope Paul VI

I apologize; I really did not want to add to the media fervor surrounding the entry of former General Wesley Clark into the list of Democratic Presidential candidates, but my hand has been forced. Too many people (media leftists primarily) are suddenly infatuated with him and are under the illusion that he'll be their saviour against President Bush in the election.

Pure silliness. The man has absolutely no domestic agenda; he's clueless in this regard. Rush Limbaugh has a clip from a CNN interview of Clark by Aaron Brown which shows Clark's cluelessness specifically regarding the role of the Supreme Court. Now, perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I don't want a President who doesn't even understand the role of one of the three branches of government. Even if Clark excels in the foreign policy arena, he cannot win on that alone. The Presidential election has always been strongly influenced by domestic issues.

Jim Ryan, of Jimblog fame, has an interesting theory (perhaps he'll explicate this theory on his blog tomorrow). That is, he thinks that this could all be strategizing on the part of the Clintons. The idea goes like this: Bill and/or Hillary urge Clark to enter the race to pull down the other Dem candidates, then Hillary enteres into the race and takes the lead, and finally as an act of patronage Hillary picks Clark to be her running mate. An interesting theory.

So I end with this quote from Clark at a campaign gathering in Florida (via this Washington Post article):

I'm running for president because this country needs leadership. It needs honest leadership, it needs visionary leadership, it needs leadership with experience.

Experience, eh? Mr. Clark, what experience do you have in civil positions? What experience do you have in politics? Elected office of any kind?

The National Review should be a little more discriminating in what it publishes. John Derbyshire, in this column, writes about a woman named Kathy Boudin (whom it would be unnecessary to desribe further):

At the time of the robbery, Ms. Boudin had been a fugitive for several years, since her known involvement in a 1970 terrorist bomb-making operation in New York City. She occupied herself in jail by getting a master's degree in adult education, assisting other inmates to get degrees, and ministering to inmates with AIDS (a fashionable venereal disease).

Excuse me? But since when was any disease "fashionable"-- especially one that may pose the greatest health threat the world has ever seen? Could it be because it is relatively recent? Or could it be that Mr. Derbyshire is showing homophobia? Michael Demmons (DiscountBlogger) seems to think its the latter, and I'm tempted to agree. Perhaps Andrew Sullivan sums up my feelings better than I can:

Some of the editors at that magazine call themselves Christians. Yet they gladly publish a smug, sickening bigot like this. This isn't funny. It isn't even pertinent to any broader point. It's despicable.

It seems that the BBC has gone the way of the NYTimes (eg. Jayson Blaire). One of my friends (whose name shall be witheld for his own good) once questioned me why I disliked the BBC-- well,