Yep, its that time of year again. The time when kids dress up as their favorite monsters, superheroes, and boy band peformers, and collegians dress up like drunken idiots (oh wait, that happens every Friday)... known as Holloween. I'll keep to my long standing policy of not showing myself on this blog (I mean, the mystery just makes it more fun), but I will give you a glimpse into what I'll be going as tonight. Its just downright spooky!

If Microsoft does end up eating up Google, then their status as a monopoly will be complete in regards to the internet. Think about it: Microsoft would own the web's most powerful search engine/index, the operating system used by 95% of computers to access that search engine, the web browser to access the internet, their own ISP (MSN), as well as a stake in numerous websites and services across the web.

Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.

-Albert Einstein

[ed. note: think about this quote on a deeper level than just math]

You may notice the new feature at the bottom of each post: "IM it." Click this and your computer will automatically open up a new AOL Instant Messenger window with a link to that particular post in the message body. A slick and easy way to forward DC posts to your friends. :-)

I'm not gonna go into detail over the surprising Q3 GDP growth, because everybody and their sister that reads the internet has already seen it, but I will make one point.

Bush inherited a lagging economy from Clinton. Bush passes large tax-cut measure to improve economy. After a 1-2 years, the economy picks up and shows strong growth. Sound familiar?

Its no coincidence that the last time the economy grew this much in one quarter was 1984-- that's right, just after Ronald Reagan implemented his tax-cut to improve the lagging economy he inherited from Carter.

He's got some good stuff today, including:

Another reason why some of the French are downright bastards

Gay marriage now legal for the first time in Asia

The Void


Love tears me asunder
waking me at night
like a clap of thunder
in a nightmare's sight.

Stealing my days
a driving craze
the soul's constant prick
not a passing phase.

Love's jolt to the heart
nauseates the mind.
Tis thrust in like a dart
that terrible find.

The One who doth betray
The One who completes
The One to whom I pray
The one with great feats.

Stealing away from me
a ghost in my midst
love's haunting potpourri
Why do I persist?

Not worth the try
I want to cry
All thats left is hate
Nothing left to die

Now I've turned to stone
Only I ask... why?

Chris Letkewicz covers the visit:

Mike Wallace, the esteemed long-time reporter for "60 Minutes" spoke at Notre Dame today and I came away with one conclusion after his talk. Mike Wallace is senile. The talk involved a Notre Dame professor, Robert Schuml, asking Wallace a number of questions, which was followed by questions from the audience. Wallace responded to these questions by talking very slowly and then just suddenly stopping in midthought. Sometimes he wouldn't even answer the question that was being asked. For example, one person in the audience asked him if he would have done anything different in the Jeffery Wigand story (note: Jeffery Wigand was a tobacco whistleblower and "60 Minutes" would not initially run his interview due to fears of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit from the tobacco companies), Wallace responded by saying that it was a long story which was made into the movie, The Insider. Then Wallace began talking about how the producer of the story, Lowell Bergman, was an excellent reporter, but wanted more attention, and was talking to the producers of The Insider while he was still working at "60 Minutes", which created a lot of tension. Wallace went on to say that he did not lose his moral compass nor did he need help from Lowell Bergman in finding his moral compass as the movie suggested. He concluded his answer to the question by remarking that he was glad that The Insider lost money.

So for the most part, I did not get much out of what Mike Wallace had to say, but he did have a few of interesting points, which I'll note. He stated a few occasions that the current administration is the most unreachable, abrasive administration he has known as a reporter. He also said that news is of a lesser quality today because much of it seems to focused on people shouting at one another. Wallace also commented that journalists focus on the negative because negative stories are generally more news-worthy than stories about how something went right, and also that it is the negative stories that win the Pulitzer Prize and other awards. I found that last statement by Wallace particular interesting because it seems to indict reporters as being self-serving, and provides some insight into the state of journalism today.

But overall, I found myself quite befuddled on what Mike Wallace was trying to say and it might be time for him give up "60 Minutes."

Thanks to The Onion for this horoscope:

Libra: (Sept. 23--Oct. 23)

You weren't aware that you could go to hell for wearing the wrong pants, but then you saw it in the Old Testament.

Kristine Lam pointed me to this flash game made by her friend Evan. Its called "Catch Christina" and is pretty fun to play. Check it out. My high score by the way, is only 15.

...I feel the weight of the world on my shoulder
As I'm gettin' older, y'all, people gets colder
Most of us only care about money makin'
Selfishness got us followin' in the wrong direction
Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria
Kids act like what they see in the cinema
Yo', whatever happened to the values of humanity
Whatever happened to the fairness in equality
Instead in spreading love we spreading animosity
Lack of understanding, leading lives away from unity
That's the reason why sometimes I'm feelin' under
That's the reason why sometimes I'm feelin' down
There's no wonder why sometimes I'm feelin' under
Gotta keep my faith alive till love is found

People killin', people dyin'
Children hurt and you hear them cryin'
Can you practice what you preach
And would you turn the other cheek

Father, Father, Father help us
Send us some guidance from above
'Cause people got me, got me questionin'
Where is the love (Love)

Where is the love (The love)
Where is the love (The love)
Where is the love (The love)...

-Black Eyed Peas feat. Justin Timberlake, "Where is the Love?"

Washington Post reporting:

Rod Roddy, the flamboyantly dressed announcer on "The Price is Right" whose booming, jovial voice invited lucky audience members to "Come on down!" for nearly 20 years, died Monday. He was 66.

Will anyone make being flaming so cool again? :-)

...cause one of the biggest solar storms to ever hit earth (since we've been recording them) is going to strike tomorrow. The massive solar flare is several times the usual "large type" flares emitted from the sun every week. Also, right now it appears that its on a quite direct collision course for Earth. No reason for alarm of course, but scientists are speculating that the solar storm could cause interference or even blackouts with cell phones, radio, TV, and maybe even power.

A friend and I were talking online a few days ago, and she asked me a pretty tough question: "where does your faith come from?" This is a question I've constantly entertained and given much thought to. The origins of my own faith are necessarily based on principles I feel should apply universally. Although, each person must discover them on her own. What started as a post on the matter quickly turned into a full-fledged essay. See the excerpt below and read the whole thing:


One's Christian faith must arise from her upbringing, Holy Scripture, the Church, and from prayerful observation of God's creation (in no particular order here). All four components are necessary to varying degrees, and relying on only one of the four results in a weakened, and often misplaced, faith. I'll look at each component separately.

First is upbringing. A child is naturally ignorant in matters of religion. They are unaware of the history of Christianity, the origins and content of the Bible, and of the full nature of his creation. These are issues that all of us tackle as we grow older, all the way until our death. Our upbringing, then, naturally guides us initially in our quest to answer the questions regarding the mystery of God's existence and His creation. Ultimately, our upbringing should teach us the questions to ask more than try to inculcate in us the answers. We can overcome a poor upbringing through natural curiosity and conscious, but the faith-building process in such a situation is ultimately slower and less likely to be successful....

It looks photoshopped, but funny still:

As promised, here's Michael's thoughts on my partial-birth abortion post:

Secondly, the partial-birth abortion ban. I probably disagree with you more on this than on the gay thing. I'm of two minds: as a Catholic, I find the culture of "cosmetic abortions" (the birth control of last resort) to be horrible and sinful. However, as the son of a doctor, I find it incredibly arrogant that lawmakers think they know more about medicine than doctors. In certain, extremely limited circumstances, dilation/extraction may be the best procedural option, and given the situation between a partial-birth abortion and having both mother and child die, the only person to choose the latter is a fool, and the only doctor to allow the latter should be sued for malpractice. (Even in the case of delivering the baby live but killing the mother, most doctors would probably recommend the abortion, and it would be the mother's choice whether to kill her child or herself.) I won't pretend to be the constitutional scholar that you are, but the refusal to include a health exemption in this bill (I feel) illegally interferes with the ability of a doctor to give their patient the best medical advice and care, which they are Hippocratically and (ironically) legally obligated to do. Is this a legitimate constitutional basis to overturn the law? I don't know. However, if the law is upheld, it sets a dangerous precedent, and other legitimate medical procedures that some find morally wrong (early-term abortions, contraceptives, etc.) could possibly be criminalized. Slippery slope, etc etc etc. I do agree with you that the Commerce Clause must stop being stretched to include everything under the sun, but I'm also saying that the health exemption in and of itself could be a legitimate basis for finding this law unconstitutional, and lawmakers should generally stay out of the realm of criminalizing medical procedures.


Ok, the question at hand is whether a partial-birth abortion ban must necessarily contain a health exception for the mother. (One should note that the the ban that just passed does contain an exception if the woman's life should happen to be in danger.) While I agree in principle that doctors should have choice over procedures, a growing body of evidence suggests that the partial-birth abortion procedure (dilation and extraction) is never medically necessary to maintain the health of a woman. Some in the scientific community dispute the facts on this issue, and these competing viewpoints will no doubt surface when this law gets challenged.

Another question is whether this abortion procedure is safer than other late-term procedures. Recent evidence also suggests that this is not the case. Regardless, a cursory look at the history of health exceptions in abortion laws shows great abuse by doctors. 'Health' has been stretched to include emotional distress of any level, thus creating abortion on demand. Including a health exception in the partial-birth abortion ban, therefore, would allow for partial-birth abortion on demand, thus nullifying the ban altogether.

Reader, Michael Manning, wrote the following in an e-mail:

Lucas-
Hope you're enjoying your fall break and the wonderful atmosphere of friends at Cornell. I have a cousin that goes there. Anyway, a pair of outstanding articles about gays & genetics and the partial-birth abortion ban. [ed: I'll post his thoughts on partial-birth abortion tomorrow]

First, the gay issue. Almost on cue, Nicholas Kristof (a liberal-moderate public school grad from a conservative rural Oregon town. Sound familiar?) wrote this article in today's (Saturday) New York Times.

Obviously there will always be people who are discriminatory toward sexual minorities, just as there will always be people who are discriminatory toward ethnic or religious minorities. However, I think if more and more evidence accumulates that sexual orientation is genetic (which I think is the case) and not simply a personal choice, then the "silent majority" of Americans will move toward acceptance of sexual minorities.

However, two unintended consequences. First, if genetics is the foundation of sexual orientation, given today's inhospitable culture toward gays, will this lead to an increase in suicides among gays, especially teens? If sexual orientation is impossible to change, won't some inevitably choose to end their lives to escape a culture of hate? Secondly, a certain church recently said that homosexuals and homosexual relationships are "inherently disordered", and that sex between homosexuals is "evil" and a sin. If sexual orientation is is genetic, this obviously cannot be the case, unless one is willing to believe that God would create something "inherently disordered". However, I think the Vatican would be loath to admit that they made a mistake, especially considering the attitudes of Pope John Paul and most of his potential successors. Other institutions (the military, the tax code) that discriminate against gays will also probably resist such change.


Michael, suicide has always been a problem among homosexual teenagers. And even when there was not as much scientific evidence showing homosexuality to be genetic, I think most homosexuals felt that way in their hearts. In other words, I'm not sure the average homosexual feels he has a choice in the matter now more than before. Therefore, this evidence, and any potential changes towards greater acceptance should only decrease the number of suicides. Regarding your comments on the Church's take on homosexuality, I find your case compelling. The counter-argument, as best I understand it, is that God creates several people with certain handicaps that present special challenges in their lives (some people are blind, some people are not as smart, etc.). As such, He calls us to make sacrifices in our lives to overcome these challenges; such adds to the greater whole of His creation. Thats me playing devil's advocate.

Well, I'm back at Notre Dame now.

Ithaca totally rocked. Its pure 'college town' all the way, with Ithaca College and Cornell University by far the city's largest employers. Also, situated at the southern tip of Lake Cayuga (in the Finger Lakes region), Ithaca is quite hilly; the view from the apartment I stayed at was very pleasent and refreshing. There are several nice state parks within 20 minutes of Ithaca-- including gorges, waterfalls, and enough autumn foliage to last a lifetime. Anyways, I'll shut up and let some photos do the talking.


...view from the apartment


...(left to right) Loren, Alice, Dave, Peyton


...view of Cornell from Johnson Museum of Art


...(left to right) Alice, Chris, Naomi @ Americana Vineyard


...a nearby waterfall

Part of me rejoices to see some sensible anti-abortion legislation become law, but the strategic and Constitutional parts of me are more apprehensive. Namely, I'm concerned that this new law stretches the powers of the Federal government further than the Constitution ever intended. The incessant extension of the Commerce Clause must stop. Strangely, few journalists or legal scholars are mentioning this Constitutionally questionable aspect of the ban. Instead, they are harping on the lack of a health exception, which will be interesting to see how the Supremes decide.

Dan Pulliam has finally posted some content again, after quite a lull, and has some interesting material on it. Of course, I voiced these same federalist concerns with the partial-birth abortion ban way back on March 13. I guess I was just way ahead of the game.

However, I have a few contentions with Dan's take on the matter. He writes:

Another hypocritical move by the conservatives in Congress, passing a politically charged law to help them raise money and get re-elected.

I fail to understand Dan's underlying pessimism here (maybe its par for the course for journalism "training" these days). A vast portion of this country feels that the partial-birth abortion procedure is barbaric and should be banned. I've even heard some of my most ardent pro-choice friends echo this sentiment. Why is it then hypocritical for Congress to act on the behalf of a large portion of Americans? Just because a law is "politically charged" does not mean that our representatives should back away from it. Dan also writes:

The Supreme Court should strike it down, giving the right another piece of am[m]o to say that the court is stacked with liberals (when it is not) and further stratify our country.

Ok, this statement shows ignorance on a couple of levels (maybe partly intended). First, the Supreme Court should only strike legislation if it is unconstitutional, not as a political maneuver. Secondly, if the Supreme Court struck the law based on federalism issues, rather than the "health exception" issue, it would not look liberal at all, but rather more like a group of strict textualists (although, I don't foresee the Court ruling this way). If they strikes the law based on the lack of a health exception, I feel they would be acting in error, and I'm pretty sure that Pulliam thinks the same. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is fairly ideologically divided. On many mundane issues the conservatives have a 5-4 majority, but on "key" social issues like gay rights, abortion, etc., the liberals rule, often in 6-3 victories (with O'Connor and Kennedy switching sides). So, in this sense, Dan is mistaken and the Court is liberally leaning on the most contentious issues.

Well, I'm in Ithaca, New York now, and I must say its a beautiful college town. The 10+ hour drive from Notre Dame was brutal, but worth it. And the speeding ticket from Indianapolis to ND didn't help either :-(

Nevertheless, I've wanted to see the Finger Lakes region of upstate New York for a while, so this trip is a small dream come true. I'll take some photos and post them when I get back to ND Sunday night.

Well, after coming home to Indy for a few days and meeting one of the coolest girls ever (Laura, please stand up), I'm now heading out to Ithaca, New York to meet two more of the coolest girls ever: Alice, and Naomi who turns 21 on Friday :-). How lucky am I?

Needless to say, I probably won't be blogging much, if any, over the next few days. Catch ya on the flip side...

Certain words you just don't want to mix up. For example, I have the nastiest habit of mixing up 'duvet' and 'bidet.' Make that error in the right company and you'll become the laughingstock of the gathering-- I assure you.

duvet - (n) A quilt, usually with a washable cover, that may be used in place of a bedspread and top sheet.

bidet - (n) A fixture similar in design to a toilet that is straddled for bathing the genitals and the posterior parts.

I read the same link you mentioned on your site. Ive always heard most homosexuals say that its not a choice, and Ive taken them at their word. What I have never quite understood is the feeling, by both sides, that having homosexuality be genetic is key for equality and acceptance. Also it seems almost a matter of pride for some homosexuals that its genetic and not a choice. Do you think one is better than the other? The gay-bashers insist it is a choice... which way do you think is easier to hate? Which way is easier to tolerate? Which way would have rathered be shown to be true, homosexuality being a choice or genetics?

-Matt Geiger


Matt raises some interesting questions, one which I've given much thought to in the past. So, when I read his e-mail, I set my mind working, and this is how I see things. Let us suppose for the purposes of this thought exercise, that all humans can be grouped into three categories based on their sexual inclinations: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. I use the word "inclination" only to denote what a person is attracted to at this given moment: opposite sex, same sex, or a cross-section of the two sexes. Empirically, there can be little doubt that a straight man is attracted to females or that a gay man is attracted to men.

The next question, therefore, asks how an individual grows to have certain attractions. I see only three possibilities: genetics, environment, and choice. This is the question that causes tension between homosexuals and people who believe homosexuality is a choice. As a gay guy myself, who has spoken with numerous other homosexuals on this topic, I can report that in no instances do any of them have any memory of a choice of orientation-- no more than a heterosexual would have such a memory. So, when Matt speaks of this as being "a matter of pride with homosexuals," what it really amounts to is a devotion to the truth. I could no more accept the claim that homosexuality is a choice than I could accept a claim that the World Trade Center towers are still standing.

Now, when the question is narrowed between genetics and environment, the issue gets more tricky, though less divisive. Either way, the individual's sexual inclination is an 'orientation' rather than a 'preference.' An understanding of this principle has resulted in the change of language that describes homosexuality. From a moral standpoint, distingiuishing between orientation and preference can be important when looking at homosexual behavior. If homosexuality were a choice, then homosexual behavior would be unnatural (and if you're a Christian, against one's Godly creation). Otherwise, homosexual behavior is merely the fulfillment of natural tendencies and processes. Therefore, so-called "gay bashers" assert that its a choice, despite their inherent ignorance on the matter, because they wish to cast judgement on homosexuals as sinners.

Furthermore, if environment is the primary cause of homosexual orientation, an argument could be made that corrupt society or that the sins of others somehow cause one to be gay. If this was the case, homosexuality could be natural to an individual person, but unnatural to God's overall scheme of creation. I think this argument holds some weight, so I care greatly whether or not homosexuality is primarily the result of genetics rather than environment. Through much introspection (as well as discussion with other homosexuals), I see nothing in my (and others) upbringing or environment that "made me gay." In my heart, I feel I was born gay-- genetics. But I also realize that sometimes the heart misleads, tells us what we want to hear, so I also keep a keen eye on external evidence, including scientific evidence that homosexuality is primarily genetic in origin. I know that other homosexuals have the same concerns in mind, and that ultimately is the answer to Matt's question as to why this latest study is important.

Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine have recently concluded that gender and sexual orientation (collectively sexual identity) are determined by genetics, in the case of lab mice. This study is but one in an ever-growing field of evidence showing that homosexuality is not a choice.

But of course, ask any gay man or lesbian, and they could tell you the same thing.

Well, Sunday I'll be driving back to Indianapolis (Greenwood actually) for an entire week of Fall Break :). It will be nice to get a break from the studies, but going back is always bitter sweet, cause I love it up here at ND so much. But then again, I'll get to see the fam again after several weeks, which will be nice.

I'll be keeping the blog up-to-date for most of the week.

and an uncomfortable familiarity sets in

The Irish square off against the USC Trojans at home today at 1:30 EST. For anyone with the uneviable task of trying to predict today's game, I proffer these:

- ND retooled their offensive line last week against Pitt and established a ferocious ground attack
- USC's defensive line is one of the country's best I'm told
- USC's pass defense is mediocre this year
- ND QB Brady Quinn has shown great potential, but has been shaky, partially due to poor protection by the offensive line
- ND has done really well in October for the last few years, and they're playing at home

USC is a strong team, as their #4/5 ranking alludes to, so the Irish must bring their 'A' game or they could get killed. I think two things need to happen today for ND to win: the offensive line needs to give Quinn good pass-rush protection (2 or fewer sacks), and the defense needs to get at least one interception, preferrably taking one back for a TD.

Ok, I'm off to some tailgaiting and then the game... cya on the flip side

There is an unwritten rule in politics, that former Presidents and their administrations should not comment on the decisions and actions of the current administration. As the logic goes, dissent by former government officials undercuts the legitimacy of the current government.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have completely abandoned this principle during the current administration. Former Presidents Carter and Clinton have repeatedly spoken out publicly against current U.S. policy, and now, former SecState Madeleine Albright is doing it as well. Even more onerous, she is making these comments on foreign soil and attacking U.S. foreign policy, perpetuating the rediculous us vs. them mentality that is being adopted by too many across the globe.

The breaking of this rule sets bad precedent for the future. But of course, this kindof crap is fair game for the Dems this term. They also broke precedent in their astounding filibustering of Estrada and Owens as Circuit court nominees.

The Indiana Republican Party has long had its support behind ex-OMB chief, Mitch Daniels. Once David McIntosh dropped his bid for the Republican nomination, the deal was sealed.

Now to the Democrats, who have had Indiana's governor going on 16 years. I think they recognize the Republicans' hunger to regain the governor's mansion and Mitch Daniels' heightening strength as a candidate. Early on, the Lt. Governor, Joe Kernan indicated that he probably would not run, but now it looks like he might be changing his mind. Now, if he does, Andrews will probably drop his bid for the Democratic nod, so as to consolidate the Democratic position early. This is smart tactically from their vantage, and this looks to be a competive race come next year.

The best .mp3 playing/sharing/burning/purchasing software out there is now available for Windows as well as Mac. The new version, 4.1, is available on Apple's website here. Check it out for all the cool new features.

The revolution begins.

The paper is done. Now its time to focus on the more, umm, important things of the week (read: more misc. work) :-)

Updated: Ok, both of my midterms this week are now out of the way. Now I just have to finish a paper for tomorrow... oh yeah, and the ever looming law school stuff.

Isn't Life Strange Isn't life strange,
A turn of the page
Can read like before,
Can we ask for more?
Each day passes by,
How hard will man try?
The sea will not wait
You know it makes me want to cry, cry, cry.

Wished I could be in your heart
To be one with your love.
Wished I could be in your eyes;
Looking back there you were, and here we are.

Isn't life strange,
A word we arrange
With no thought or care,
Maker of despair?
Each breath that we breathe
With love we must weave
To make us as one;
You know it makes me want to cry, cry, cry.

Wished I could be in your heart
To be one with your love.
Wished I could be in your eyes;
Looking back there you were, and here we are.

Isn't life strange?
A turn of the page,
A book without light
Unless with love we write.
To throw it away,
To lose just a day,
The quicksand of time,
You know it makes me want to cry, cry, cry.

Wished I could be in your heart
To be one with your love.
Wished I could be in your eyes;
Looking back there you were, and here we are.

-Moody Blues, "Isn't Life Strange?"

Chris Ptak, a fellow ND student, takes issue with my post title "Burn in hell Don Imus" and has a few other thoughts:

Luke,

First, I don't comment often enough (in fact, I never comment), but I love reading your blog. I am one of your many fans, and I sometimes get a headache if I fail to tune in for my daily does of Lucas Sayre. Second, GKC is way cool. I am currently reading his Orthodoxy. Third, I am so jealous you're Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I cannot tell you how much I wish I was you. I am only Princess Leia (I think it was the fashion question... Leia certainly has her own style).[ed: Ptak is the biggest Buffy fan to walk this earth]

And finally, most importantly, what's with the BURN IN HELL subtitle? I don't care who Don Imus is or what he has said or done, it isn't right to condemn anyone to Hell. In fact, not only is it not right or even possible, it's not allowed. We are forbidden from judging, and instructed to pray for our enemies. Refer to Luke 6:27-29 and Matthew 7:1-5 for details.

Vigilance is key. Good luck with midterms, and keep up the good work,

Chris


He is right, and I regret the "burn in hell" comment. It was said in some heat. Perhaps I should have lessened it to "Go to Purgatory!" to give it a humorous tinge.

It may be conceded to the mathematicians that four is twice two. But two is not twice one; two is two thousand times one. That is why, in spite of a hundred disadvantages, the world will always return to monogamy.

-G.K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday

You are Buffy

You are Buffy from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
You are one cool chick.
You didn't ask to be the Slayer,
but you still do a bang-up job
of killing demons and protecting the innocent-
and looking great doing it. Go you!

Which movie heroine are you?

Thanks to Sarah for this site.

Radio host, Don Imus, has reached the pinnacle of hypocrisy and insensitivity in his comments attacking Rush Limbaugh. Imus blathered:

Rush is a fat, pill-popping loser and an undisciplined slob... as soon as he gets caught - he starts whining.

First, why does Imus feel it necessary to make fun of Rush's weight? For one, he's not even that fat anymore; he's lost a ton of weight from his peak. In fact, that may have been one of the drives behind the pill addiction in the first place-- certainly one of the side-effects. Could the incessant jabbing at Rush's weight in years past (by the likes of Al Franken and Don Imus) have hurt his self-esteem? We say hurtful things about people too often, so why does it surprise us, when this hurt causes problems for people?

Second, Imus criticizes Rush for pill-popping, but as this New York Post article points out, Imus himself was a drug addict in the 70s and 80s (harder stuff than prescription pills, no less). Hypocrite.

Finally, Imus says Rush has started whining when his addiction was uncovered. I beg you to read Rush's full statement (or you can listen to it here) and judge for yourself whether or not he was whining. Here's the meat:

...I am not making any excuses. You know, over the years athletes and celebrities have emerged from treatment centers to great fanfare and praise for conquering great demons. They are said to be great role models and examples for others. Well, I am no role model. I refuse to let anyone think I am doing something great here, when there are people you never hear about, who face long odds and never resort to such escapes.

They are the role models. I am no victim and do not portray myself as such. I take full responsibility for my problem.

The blogosphere truly is a beautiful place where almost anything can happen. On Dubya's campaign site GeorgeWBush.com, there is a new blog. And in that blog, Andrew Sullivan is quoted as in support of our reconstruction operations in Iraq. How beautiful, George W. Bush and Andrew Sullivan standing together in the blogosphere. It almost brings a tear to my eye. They say that politics make strange bedfellows... apparently so do blogs.

I can always count on Michael at DiscountBlogger for some good comic relief, at the expense of the likes of James Dobson. While I certainly respect Dobson on several issues, I have serious problems with him on several others. In general, I think he goes way too far. This is such an instance.

Thanks to Joshua Claybourn for pointing me to this story. In an editorial in last Saturday's Indianapolis Star, the paper supported a move by a local high school there to cancel a production of "To Kill a Mockingbird." The editorial, echoing the rationale of the high school, said the play would bring unnecessary controversy to school and would offend the sensitivities of some of its students. "To Kill a Mockingbird" contains some racially charged language, such as 'nigger,' but the words are used in a positive fashion by the writers to combat racism, not to promote it.

In my opinion, this is a pathetic copout by the Star. Censorship in the name of political correctness in almost never a good idea. High schoolers, who are old enough to use hateful words, are easily mature enough to be exposed to hateful words and to learn about the great evil that those words extend. Any controversy or offense incured at the school would be the result of a refusal to face the truth and learn how to deal with it. The fact is that racism is, and has been, a real problem. Denying this will not help anybody.

The intellectually intrepid Mark Shea has an even-more convincing argument than I.

I've been making some modest changes to my baby, DC. Most of them are under the hood, such as a general scrubbing of the code to make it more efficient, so you won't notice them, but they will immensely improve the long-term health of the blog.

First, as you have probably noticed is the sub-title quote at the top of the main posting section. Its currently an Einstein quote that I find particularly relevant to this site. I'll rotate from time to time. Next, as I mentioned earlier, my Archive section is now working, so check it out for some good back DC posts.

And then today I modernized my 'Other Sites' sidebar with the Blogrolling system. Its awesome, giving me one-step control over my blogroll as well as a dynamic and sortable list of links. You'll notice that sites that have been updated within the last hour are placed at the top of the list with the word "updated" below them. How cool is that? Along this line, I've also changed the list a links a bit. Dan Pulliam's back on, but still on probation :-). I've also added Mark Shea, who has an excellent site from a Catholic perspective, and Paul Musgrave, a fellow Hoosier blogger.

Finally, I've also added a RSS feed using BlogMatrix. For those of you who don't know what that means, just ignore it. For those of you who do know what that means, maybe you can fill me in.

In the near future (after my midterms are done this week), I'm going to enhance the 'About Me' section significantly. So, for now, that is all.

I don't know if there is, or ever has been, a National Give a Hug Day, so today I will so declare it.

I was at Mass last night, and during the Sign of Peace, I noticed one fellow who gave his fellow church-goers hugs instead of shaking their hands. I found this quite refreshing. In my high school, we gave each other hugs far more often, and I'm sure other communities and groups hug more often than my cadre here at ND.

Nevertheless, we all could benefit from some more hugging. One of the main factors behind resistance to hugging comes, I think, from an unnatural fear of physical contact with others. When we fear innocent contact, such as hugging, or if we unnecessarily sexualize it, then haven't we ultimately lost a bit of innocence itself?

So why not give a few hugs today?

indefatigable -adj. Incapable or seemingly incapable of being fatigued; tireless


I think this is one of those words that you don't want to say too quickly and accidentally transpose a couple of the letters (namely: the 't' and 'g'). The result could be quite offensive in the right (err, wrong) company.

Notre Dame football rumbled to their second win of the season last night against Pittsburg: 20-14. The score, however, was not indicative of the game's true nature. Even though the Irish only outscored the Panthers by 6 points, their offense and defense were fairly dominant. Tailback Julius Jones set a one-game school rushing record with 262 yards on the ground. Apparently, the coaches made some changes on the offensive line, which seemed to have been effective.

Lets hope for some "luck o' the Irish" and say a few prayers for God's team as they challenge a quality Pitt team today in the land of the enemy.

Our collective hopes for Notre Dame football have been dashed this year, but we still must fight for pride.

More proof that Limbaugh was right on with his comments on McNabb and the media's "black quarterback" effect... James Taranto's comments on the matter

Also, Rush has released a statement admitting to a prescription drug addiction. It seems sincere and respectful to me, but only time will show. He said that he was going to take at least a month off from his radio show to commit himself fully to rehab. I wish him the best of luck in this endeavor, but remain vigilant in regards to possible crimes he may have done to get access to these drugs. These details may ultimately be more damning.

Well, I've been told that it can take t