I'm not sure if this is a rational or a purely emotional response, but watch this for yourself and judge:

U.S. helicopter taking down people in Iraq (not graphic)

There is no magic bullet to create a limitless and clean energy source. Its that simple.

While most estimates say we have enough coal to last at least a few centuries producing electricity, many reports say the earth only has enough crude oil to last between 50 and 100 years. Even if these estimates are incorrect, eventually we will face a situation when we need some other fuel source and engine type to power the majority of our transportation needs.

Some tout the fuel cell and hyrdogen as the answer, but its not that easy. We do not have an abundant source of hydrogen in its pure form that could be used. Furthermore, to extract it from different sources around us (e.g. water, gasoline, etc.) takes a lot of energy itself, and sometimes still involves non-renewable resources. Recently, its been reported that researchers at the University of Minnesota have pioneered a new reactor that extracts 1/4 more hydrogen from ethanol than ever before.

Too bad we'll never have even close to enough corn to power all of our cars. Ultimately, barring any amazing technological breakthroughs, mass transit will be the answer.

Well, I'm back at ND after a quick stint in Indy. The meeting went well. One more week here then spring break.

Because I'll be down in Indy for Saturday into Sunday to meet with the Mitch Daniels campaign. While I'm gone, feel free to comment on some of the posts :) I mean, surely my review of The Passion evokes some contentions.

-lds

In short, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is a masterpiece. It was stirring, poetic, narrative, and enlightening-- accessible to practicing Christians and to others alike. In fact, the point on which many reviewers are criticizing the movie-- that its focus is too narrow and that it does not do enough to develop characters or other parts of Jesus's life, is actually its greatest strength.

The focus of the movie is narrow, and because of that it excels in its goal. What is that goal, you may ask? Very simple: Gibson sets out to explain and show the viewer the immense challenge that faced Jesus... and that faces each of us in a different way today. That challenge lies in making a choice between God's will and the will of the worldly, or even that of Satan.

The opening scene in the Garden, with His Apostles the night before His crucifixion, sets the challenge in motion. We see Jesus's stirring prayer to His Father, asking the burden to be lifted from Him, then asking that God's will be done. Juxtoposed to Jesus's prayer is Satan-- visualized as a sexless and pale angel of death in a dark cloak. Satan tempts Jesus to just give up on His mission and to let the cross pass over Him.

This visualization of Satan, which I appreciated for creatively showing the challenge of faith facing Jesus, is one of the very few instances of artistic license that Gibson takes. The rest of the movie does a good job of not straying too far from the Gospel narratives, neither adding, changing, or subtracting. The only exception I would find, and the only instance when I was disappointed with Gibson's portrayal of a theological matter of substance, occured when Jesus was being "tried" before the high priest. He is asked, 'Is it true? Are you the Son of God?' And in response Jesus states strongly, "I am." And then proceeds to explain how he will rule from Heaven. This is an overly strong change from the Gospel's response, "You say that I am" and minimizes Jesus's humility.

Similar choices of faith face others in the movie as well. Certain Jews in the crowd, high priests, and Roman soldiers are all showed to disgust, in varying degrees, the crucifixion of Christ. In a few scenes, Jesus makes eye contact with these individuals, and their respective facial expressions say far more than words ever could.

The film also does a good job of connecting the Passion narrative with Jesus's preachings and actions by interspersing scenes that take place earlier in the Gospels (such as the Sermon on the Mount and the Last Supper), also serving to tell the viewer something profound regarding the Christian faith. A couple of these scenes seem rushed and a bit out of place, but most of them do an excellent job explaining the challenge that faces us in Jesus's own words.

I'll decline to delve deeper into the actions of other Passion characters, such as Mary, Peter, John, Simon, etc. so as to let the movie speak for itself. I will say briefly that these characters and several more minor characters all act in ways showing utter bravery and love, with a very recognizable human side. One of the brilliant themes of the Passion story which is clearly portrayed in this movie is the dichotemy between Jesus's actions which we know we'll never be able to attain, and the actions of the followers of Christ which we must try to emulate.

Now, many critics have deemed the film ovely violent, even to the level of sadism. I respectfully disagree. For the viewer to truly understand the choice which faced Jesus in the Garden, we have to see the suffering that he endured (that he knew he would have to endure). In a society in which people have become so desensitized to violence, there could be no other way to convey that physical suffering without being so realistically graphic. Could the Roman soldiers have whipped Jesus a few less times? Sure. But the overall level of violence and detail was absolutely necessary. In this regard, the movie is unrelenting and should not be watched by the faint of heart. Only at the very end, do we see the utter triumph of the resurrection.

I'll be quite blunt: go see this movie.


Footnote: I really wish I would not have to address this final criticism, but I must. Some critics, such as Maureen Dowd and Andrew Sullivan, have called the film anti-semitic. This is an utterly rediculous claim without any merit whatsoever.

'Anti-semitism' is commonly defined as a hatred or general prejudice against the Jewish people. Nowhere in "The Passion" does Gibson paint the Jews, as an ethnicity or as a religion, in a hateful fashion or with a generalized prejudice or reinforcement of stereotypes.

In fact, we see several instances of Jews behaving in support of Jesus in addition to condemning him. Further, we also see numerous incidents of Romans being hateful and mean to Jesus in addition to some Romans acting with kindness. All of this of course follows the Gospel portrayal closely.

I'm seeing it at 9:50 EST tonight, so stay tuned late tonight/early tomorrow for a review, if you haven't already seen it. I'm going in with an open mind, and I'll be coming out with an opinion... and maybe a friendly contention.

And I promise I'll get that article on the Gay Marriage Symposium up as well. I've been uncharacteristically busy this week.

Today, the Notre Dame Law School Journal held a symposium on gay marriage. All three panelists were very well spoken and the dialogue was excellent. When I have more time, I'll make a full post tomorrow. I even took a notepad with me and took notes and quotes and such. Its fun to play journalist :-)

Well, today is Ash Wednesday which marks the beginning of Lent in the Church. As per custom of the season, I have made a resolution: I'm giving up arguing with people I know. This includes debate on this blog and on blog comments. I'll still contend points made by others, just not people I know personally. So, feel free to say whatever you want about me or something I say, but just know that I won't respond with an argument :-)

This is a direct response to several instances in the last couple of weeks where I have let arguments with people make me overly emotional or involved in a subject. In one particular instance, I allowed myself to insult somebody and say something I didn't even mean. For that I am sorry, and I will let this Lenten resolution aid in my penance.

In President Bush's speech today, he made a call for clarity surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage in America:

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard.

Unfortunately, Bush's remarks today, in regards to the proposed Constitutional Amendment do precisely the opposite-- they muddy the waters. Let me explain the confusion that has arisen.

The Amendment that Bush expressed support for in closed-door meetings was proposed by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a Republican from Colorado (HJ 56):

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Read that very carefully-- it took me a few times. According to this text, same-sex unions of any sort would be outlawed, in every single state, regardless of their own legislature's choices. Furthermore, heterosexual domestic partnerships and common law marriages could also be forbidden under a strict interpretation of it.

If the NYTimes was right about Bush supporting the Musgrave Amendment, then his remarks in the recent speech are completely incongruous:

[the amendment] should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

Furthermore, if his only goal is to oppose judicial activism, then why support an all-out ban on same-sex marriage? Why not just support an Amendment that would merely say that currently existing laws and Constitutions across this country shall not be construed to guarantee a right to same-sex marriage?


[Note: The NYTimes story on this matter has been changed at least once, just during today! An earlier version of the story, as quoted by the Volokh Conspiracy (the site I linked to above), is what said that Bush supported the Musgrave Amendment in closed door meetings.

That same version of the story also quoted the amendment differently, by not including the first sentence defining marriage as between a man and a woman. If this were the actual text of the amendment, then it would in fact not ban gay marriage at all, but just prohibit a reading of the Constitution that would ensure gay marriage. Eugene Volokh explains that either the Times had the quote incorrect, or the amendment has since been changed at some stage. If this were the actual text of the amendment, then it would not be consistent with Bush's remarks today.

In the current version of the Times story, it only says that Bush made no reference to the Musgrave Amendment in his speech, and it does not quote that amendment at all. So, either the Times simply has some facts incorrect, or Bush's position is a moving target-- or both. None of these possibilities would surprise me. I'm going to e-mail the reporter, David Stout, and try to get some answers.]

Now that Ralph Nader is in the race for the Presidency, people are asking what kind of effect he will actually have on the race. The common consensus is that he will hurt the Democrats-- but how much?

However, Joe Carter lists 4 reasons why Nader's entry will hurt the GW Bush rather than the Democratic candidate. Among these:

Kerry is farther Left than almost any member of Congress. He makes Joe Lieberman look like Rush Limbaugh. But set him up next to Nader and he suddenly becomes a "centrist."

To be honest, I'm not that convinced by the rest of his reasons, but check it out and see for yourself. In fact, as Josh Claybourn points out, Nader is already pulling in 4%, so I think he will have an impact on the Dems. Those 4% aren't coming from conservatives, I can promise you that.

Note the sarcasm in that post title. But on a serious note, Andrew Sullivan asks an excellent question: why are conservative Protestants not more active in condemning faultless civil divorce?

Except when its at their own front door of course. Glenn Reynolds has this interesting story that the Dems are severely restricting free speech outside their convention in Boston.

I noticed this story on Drudge yesterday, and it caught me off-guard a bit. Has anyone else heard about mass protests planned in NYC for the GOP convention? I wonder how big this might be.

Some assert that George W. Bush enjoys the support of middle America right now, and that may be true. But I think its also true that the left side of the Democratic party has been polarized against him. I've observed so much emotion against him by opponents. If this emotion is well-organized in the form of protests in NYC, things could get ugly. And if that did happen, I wonder how it would affect his popularity in the rest of the country.

Despite Dan Ornelas's well-reasoned column calling for confidence in Bush's reelection, I'm not completely convinced. I feel in my heart that this nation is ideologically quite evenly divided and that the election will be close. In due time...

The time is now upon us for my 2nd installment on Daylight Savings Time and Indiana. I just know you've all been waiting for it ;-)

In the last post, I decried the assertions that Indiana should unify on one time and that switiching to Central or Eastern Daylight time would have a very large economic impact. I delayed judgment on Daylight Savings Time (DST) itself until this post. Unfortunately, however, due to a post by D. Pulliam, I am forced to address the original points again, with the utmost precision in language.

Dan: I do not feel that it's in Indiana's best interest to have its own time zone... We see it when we set the clocks on our computers. We are not Eastern Standard Time or Central Standard Time; we are "Indiana (East) time."

This is factually inaccurate, though I think its merely a problem with your terminology. Indiana is NOT in its own time zone. We are in the Eastern Time Zone, just like New York or Cleveland. To be completely precise, we observe Eastern Standard Time (EST) all year-round. Cleveland and New York work on a Daylight Savings system, so they can be said to observe Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). This technically does not place us in different zones. The reason that computers call it Indiana time is a matter of convenience for Hoosiers. They could just as easily list it as Eastern Standard Time.

Dan: Nor do I think Hoosiers living near Chicago should be on Chicago time and Hoosiers living in Cincinnati should be on Ohio time. Our current policy is ridiculous and the state must become unified around on standardized time zone.

This assertion is never supported anywhere in the post. I ask the simple question: why does it matter if our entire state is in the same time zone? It makes more sense for the people living near a major metropolis in a different time zone (e.g. Chicago) to be on that time, because a majority of their interactions (business and otherwise) occur with people in that zone. Since Dan's argument on economics is largely centered on convenience and perception then I say for convenience sake, we should not force the entire state into the same time zone.

Dan: People in other states look at us and wonder why we have our heads stuck up our butts thinking that the rest of the country can adjust to our isolated view of economics. Actually, they won't. They'll just go to Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. I have lived in two of these states (Ohio & Mich.) and that is how business leaders view Indiana when it comes to our time zone issues.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that any company has ever chosen to not come to Indiana because we observe EST. Just because Dan talks to some business leader in St. Joseph, Michigan (hardly a bastion of economic might), and that person does not like Indiana's time, does not mean that important business leaders are actually going to refuse to come here because of that reason. If Indiana had a vibrant job market, better tax codes, and strong tax incentives, as well as other important changes, business leaders would certainly want to come here-- time zones would be a quite small impediment.

Dan: As far as the issue of DLS [DST] goes, it is simply not efficient for us to be on our own time zone and ignore the benefits of DLS. People used to (and maybe still do) think that DST would kill the cows, or something like that... if people like Luke want to keep us isolated in our state of confusion and tangled time zone issues, then so be it.

First of all, nobody in their right mind today says that DST kills cows. Thats not a very fair way to put farmers' position on Daylight time. To see a well-explained argument for the farmers' side, check out this post I made on April 10, 2003, on which Dan at the time even said was the best explication of their side he's heard. Interesting that he's now back to talking gibberish about killing cows again. That said, I see no reason this issue for farmers today should be an impediment to DST. More on that later.

Second, I do not wish Indiana to remain in a state of confusion-- such a claim is without merit. In fact, until the end of this post, I will not have even explained my proposal for Indiana's time. All I have done is to counter notions that Indiana must unite on one time zone or that it would reap great economic benefits from any time change.


My position: Ok, now that I've been forced to counter much of the illogic in this discourse, I will now concentrate on what I support.

1. A vast majority of the state should remain in the Eastern zone but start observing Daylight Savings (EST --> EDT). This would unify the southeastern part of the state with the rest, and would eliminate any confusion or inconvenience for people wishing to do business with the rest of the Eastern zone and make television viewing more convenient for all Hoosiers who were bound to miss a program or two in the past. Eastern is preferable to Central (as Mitch Daniels proposes) because all of our bordering states are Eastern except for one, and because we would be on the same time with a greater percentage of the population. Even though the economic impact would be only slightly positive for going to DST in my opinion, it would still outweigh the consequences of it, which are negligible. Due to the extended hours of most stores today, farmers would not have to worry about losing time under the sun to work their fields, so the single largest consequence of DST no longer really exists. Don't get me wrong, I still think that DST is kindof a stupid idea, the fact that the rest of the nation except for Arizona goes on it, necessitates our acceptance of it.

2. The counties near Chicago should remain in the Central Time Zone and also observe Daylight time. In this manner, they would always be in sync with Chicago. The would hassle the fewest number of people, as I explained earlier in this post.

This is my final post on the matter-- ever. It has been stupid of me to devote this many words and this much time to a topic which just does not matter this much. Nevertheless, I think this analysis of the matter has been quite precise and thorough.

All of this stuff is funny, and some of its a bit violent (cartoon only). I'll list in order of violence.

First, we have a group advocating a 28-hour, 6-day week. This is a complete no-brainer (literally).

This Indianapolis Star headline: 'Toxic air raises unhealthy odds,' makes me just want to say, "Holy crap! Really? No way!"

Check out this little video animation of a stick guy to see what its like for guys on the dating scene these days. Well, I don't have to worry about these female folk, now do I.

Play Bush Shoot-Out, the web's hottest flash game! The White House is being besieged by terrorists and you play as President George W. Bush (an honorary ND degree-holder) and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice (an ND grad and our next VP?) to shoot your way out and escape. (Thanks to Chris L. for this pointer)

And finally, this flash animation had me with the line, "Dude, you're going to hell." Its a take-off of the old Dell commercials with the annoying guy and his line, "Dude, you're getting a Dell!" It turns out the Dell guy is the devil. Whouldathunkit? Anyways, any animation that features Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana," a chainsaw, and the Dell guy is an automatic success.

This article says that another newspaper claims that it has credible sources that U.S. soldiers have Bin Laden surrounded and are just awaiting a go-order. Lets pray that this is indeed the case.

Ok, I have two stories of note. First, and more significant, there is now legal gay marriage in Colorado-- at least for the time being. According to this Denver Post article, Colorado's marriage law is gender-neutral, but has never been used in the past as a test-case for same-sex marriage. Now, the Sandoval County clerk's office has began issuing same-sex licenses. Some in the state are condemning the licenses saying that a 1961 NM law regarding the actual wording of marriage licenses, does mention gender. Both sides are awaiting an opinion from the state's Attorney General.

Story #2: San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom, is continuing to defy California state law and issue gay marriage licenses there. In a small victory for gay rights activists, a judge recently declined to issue an emergency stay in San Francisco. The judge ruled that the high standard of "irreparable harm" is not being met in this case so a stay is unnecessary. Further, he said that two sets of rights are at work here: voting rights and equal rights, so the case deserves a full hearing before any action is taken to stop the procedures.

...Gavin Newsom (AP photo)

Hero for standing up for California's equal protection clause in an act of civil disobedience, or villain for an irresponsable act by a government official charged with upholding the law rather than judging it?

Fox News is reporting that Ralph Nader plans to enter the race for the White House. Maybe I'll kick in a few bucks to his campaign ;-)

Former guest-blogger, Daniel Ornelas, has written a column on why he feels Republicans don't need to worry about George W. Bush's reelection chances in November. Its called "7 Card Stud." Here's the opening:

1. The Terror Factor: Let us begin with what we know best: George W. Bush is a consummate wartime president. September 11th put a heavy burden on the administration to go out into the world, hunt down, and destroy the terrorists and the regimes that harbor them. It was not an enviable position to be in, since the American people have a historical aversion to interventionism abroad, especially in the post-Vietnam era. However, the 9/11 attacks have changed the security calculus for many an American voter, most especially independents. No longer do our oceans offer protection from foreign threats; no more are our cities immune to the specter of terrorism. If nothing else, Bush can run on the platform that he, and he alone, can keep the nation safe. Even Democrats have to admit that when it comes to national security, they will lose a head to head contest with the President. And if, as in the opinion of some of the top military brass, Osama bin Laden is caught or killed this year, there will be little contest at all.

Read the whole thing...

I've written before about Daylight Savings Time (DST) in Indiana, but now that the issue has crept its way before us again, I feel compelled to write about it again.

For those readers not fully acquainted with Indiana's time idiosyncrasies, I'll provide a brief summary. Indiana has 3 time "areas" within the state. A few counties in the northwest part of the state, near Chicago, are in the Central Time Zone and switch to Daylight Savings Time at the appropriate time of the year. A second time "area" is in the extreme southeastern part of the state, where the counties are in the Eastern Time Zone and also observe DST. Finally, a vast majority of the state (at least 90%) is in the Eastern Time Zone, but does not observe DST. This time area, which includes Indianapolis, South Bend, Fort Wayne, Bloomington, Lafayette, Muncie, Terre Haute, etc., remains on Eastern Standard time all-year-round.

Now, before I explain my position, I'll point out some mistakes in other people's arguments. First, my fellow blogger Dan Pulliam: "I think it's about time we went to DLST. It would bring Indiana into the 20th century."

This is a silly polemical (Dan, you can look that word up). Indiana has several problems that are causing it to lag behind economically. I seriously doubt that any change in our time zones would suddenly jolt us into the future in that respect. Even proponents admit that any economic benefit of clarifying our time would have minor economic impact at best. Second, the "wise" editors at the Indianapolis Star:

Now, a reasonable compromise -- adopting daylight-saving time but moving Indiana to the Central time zone -- has been pushed forward late in the legislative session.

Of all the options, this is probably the least reasonable (as I'll explain in a future post). And furthermore, it certainly would not have the best economic impact on the state-- a point on which Dan agrees with me. More from the Star:

And there's plenty of evidence to suggest that many Hoosiers want the economic benefits of setting a uniform time standard for most of Indiana. Gov. Joe Kernan, for instance, wants it. His leading challenger, Mitch Daniels, wants it... And, according to a poll conducted for The Star and WTHR (Channel 13), 58 percent of Hoosiers think the entire state should be on the same time.

Excuse me, but I don't think that two politicians necessarily speak for most Hoosiers. And it makes sense that a majority of Hoosiers would like to see the state unified in its time, but that does not mean that a majority support the Star and Kernan's "reasonable compromise" of going to Central Savings Time. Finally, to be frank, what a majority of Hoosiers want in this case may very well not be what's best for everyone in the state. For people in central Indiana its easy to say that we want the whole state to be in the same zone, but ask that question to residents living near Chicago or Cincinnati. I have a feeling that they would object to suddenly being yanked away from their respective time areas, one way or the other.

I'll talk more about this later, but I've already said too much for one post.

...with this wonderful satire on what it means "to be gay." Nothing like attacking the stereotypes by mocking them. All in good fun of course.

While the blogosphere may serve as an important fact-checker of the mainstream media, I don't think they will be capable of properly fact-checking theselves. One need look no further than the top internet news man himself, Matt Drudge, to see a loose dealing with the facts.

I've gotten used to his misleading headlines and exaggerated stories, but his latest accusation of infidelity by John Kerry, without concrete support, is deplorable. Drudge owes Kerry an apology at this point, now that the "jane" in question has denied any romantic relationship with Kerry. If I were Kerry, I'd be tempted to sue Drudge for libel.

The problem is that the standard is, in my opinion, too high for libel: the accuser must prove either malice and/or a complete and utter disregard for the facts. We, as a society, need some manner to ensure that our media do not carelessly handle information, committing mistakes with the facts, just to hide behind the defense, "Oh, it was a mistake. I'll try not to do it next time." Oh, and as blogs gain prominence, I hope to see some of the same standards applied to them as well.

With high-powered wins over ranked Connecticut and Seton Hall last week, and now a victory over ranked Syracuse last night, the Irish are on the prow. There are a few teams I'd love to rematch, including IU and Kentucky to show them are new-found strength. And there are some teams I'd love to play now to destroy, such as Butler, who stinks this year.

So, I've been contemplating the possible reasons for the downturn and possible solutions. This is particularly interesting seeing that my readership continues to climb overall. One possibility is that people are simply unaware of the ability to make comments or that the feature is not obvious enough on the page. To rectify this, I have changed the top-right hand portion of the blog to emphasize the "new" commenting feature.

Another possibility is that I have not been contentious enough. I try to not say things on here that I cannot provide a fairly convincing argument for, so maybe that turns people off. I'll try to be more contentious now and see what happens.

-lds

Note: In case you wondered, I'm not counting the 18 comments below, because I consider them "pity" comments... by two very weird, grandpa-eyebrowed siblings no less.

Neither Ted Flynn nor Christy Ruggiero, with their status as previous guest bloggers, are strangers to DC. Now, I introduce a new segment on DC, the Ted & Christy Movie Review. Up this week: Lost in Translation. So, without further adieu:

Christy: Hi! Today Ted and I are going to review Sofia Coppola's opus, Lost in Translation, starring Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. The film has received a nomination for the best picture of the year from the Academy of Motion Pictures, and though I appreciated the artistic beauty it has, I do not feel it should take the Oscar.

Ted: I agree, although I must say that the movie touched me in a way I did not experience in any other film released this year. I really connected with its characters. Ms. Johansson plays Charlotte, a recent Yale graduate in philosophy who lives in Tokyo with her husband John, played by Giovanni Ribisi. I think the part of her performance that touched me the most is how she acted while alone in the hotel room while John was out working. She seemed to be trying everything just to keep her sanity: redecorating the room, staring out at the cityscape, and in one hilarious scene, listening to a self-help book on tape called "A Soul's Journey." Being about to graduate from college myself, I certainly understand her position...

Read the whole thing...

As someone who has worked in the technology sector a bit, I whole-heartedly agree with this program which is trying to get every state with electronic voting to institute paper trails as well.

So baby dry your eyes, save all the tears you've cried
Ohh that's what dreams are made of
Oh baby we belong in a world that must be strong
Ohh that's what dreams are made of

Higher and higher who knows what we'll find
And in the end on dreams we will depend
Cause thats what love is made of

-Van Halen, "Dreams"

I've added a few more of my poems to the 'Poems' section and I added several essays and columns by myself and others writing for Daily Contentions under the 'Essays' section.

This letter to Notre Dame's student paper, The Observer, was brought to my attention early today. I'll go ahead and publish it in its entirety for your, umm, enjoyment. But before you read it, realize my reason for posting this. This guy gives Christians a bad name. His blind religious fervor and intolerance are the reason I'm wary of the Fundamentalist types. Anyways, here it is:


"I am the Immaculate Conception."

Thus spoke the Mother of God to Saint Bernadette Soubirous in 1858, just four years after Blessed Pope Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the doctrine of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception.

Our Lady was preserved from all stain of sin from the first moment of her conception so that she would be the singular vessel of devotion in which the Word would become Flesh by the power of the Holy Ghost to dwell amongst us and to redeem us on the Wood of the Holy Cross.

Our Lady saw the horror of what our sins did to her Divine Son in His Sacred Humanity as he hung on the Cross on Calvary on Good Friday. Her Immaculate Heart was pierced with the sword of sorrow that had been prophesied by the aged Simeon in the Temple at the Presentation.

Cooperating with the graces won for us on Calvary and relying upon our sinless Blessed Mother's maternal intercession, we are called to be free from all stain of sin in this life. It is thus an evil thing to persist in sin unrepentantly, worse yet to celebrate it publicly as something noble and virtuous. It is an act of utter blasphemy to connect the Holy Name of Mary with one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, as is being done this very week on the campus of the University of Notre Dame du Lac in Notre Dame, Indiana.

To make reparation for the "film festival" celebrating perverse evil on Our Lady's campus, Christ or Chaos, Inc., is calling upon all Catholics of good will to pray an extra set of Sorrowful Mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary each and every day that this celebration of perversity is taking place on her campus.

Thomas Droleskey
President
Christ or Chaos, Inc.
Alumni
Class of 1974

While everyone was in a tiff about the John Kerry thing, this kindof got overlooked by many:

The Korean researchers, led by veterinary cloning expert Woo Suk Hwang and gynecologist Shin Yong Moon of Seoul National University in South Korea, not only created a robust clone that divided into hundreds of cells, but also extracted a stem cell "line," or a group of cells that can potentially replicate indefinitely. So far the line has copied itself 70 times.

Now, my knowledge of the science of cloning is extremely limited, but I do know that this is quite an accomplishment. To produce an actual viable cloned baby, the only remaining step is to get the cloned embryo (like the one created here) in the womb, so to speak. I don't know how its done, but I know its not an easy or reliable procedure either.

Right now these are just unproven claims by Matt Drudge, that John Kerry may have had an affair recently. I'll refrain from posting anything more, until we actually know something. It would be a shame if this damaged his character, if it is untrue.

Jim in Bold was the first film shown in the Notre Dame Queer Film Festival, last night. I watched it and was very impressed. The SB Tribune did a good write-up on it. Check the festival website to see the schedule of upcoming films and events, and think about checking one of them out.

At the beginning of this school year, ND was faced with the unfortunate (and erroneous) #1 ranking by the Princeton Review as the school least hospitable to homosexuals.

And, as I wrote on October 9, 2003, the Notre Dame student body (gays and straights alike) were ready to take action to rectify this perception and improve the situation on campus:

...at 8:30 PM [this evening] a fairly unique event happened-- a meeting open to all of campus (homosexuals and heterosexuals), organized by OutreachND, our unrecognized gay support/social group.

The meeting was quite productive and I was extremely impressed by the number who showed up, around 50 (nearly half of which were straight). I truly think this meeting will spark a new era in Notre Dame's environment for homosexuals. Primarily, we have begun an informal gay-straight alliance (GSA), which we will push to get official recognition. It is simply unacceptable that ND was ranked worst by the Princeton Review in accepting of homosexuals, and many students were angered by this ranking-- vowing to work to improve our image.

Now begins the journey, and by embarking we will indelibly effect ourselves and Notre Dame. ('Gay-Straight Issues Meeting at ND', 10/09/03)


Fast-forward to today, Feb. 11, 2004. Notre Dame is now starting up a gay-straight alliance and we have a queer film festival this week. Progress can come swiftly. Anyways, our GSA made the Indianapolis Star and South Bend Tribune today. And the queer film festival made the front page of the Chicago Tribune.

...photo courtesy to Chicago Tribune

Its a bad idea, no matter who supports it. Homosexuals have fought for equal treatment in this nation too long (including the current fight on gay marriage), to now impose separation on themselves. Separate cannot be equal. We've already been through that lesson in our nation's history.

That's why I adamently oppose actions and institutions that would set gays or gay culture apart from the rest. That's why I oppose the idea of a gay radio station, or MTV's new gay cable channel, Outlet.

Don't be fooled, he's at least as liberal as Howard Dean. We saw in my last post, that he hobnobbed with Hanoi Jane. Now we see this article from the Harvard Crimson which shows his radical views in the 70s. How much does a person really change?

I'm quite sick of this stupid non-story of Bush's military record that the media have pushed forward recently. Of course, the pressters are playing right into John Kerry's hands, by trumping this up. How easily they are molded for political forces. They're too willing.

Anyways, now that the administration has offered some evidence pointing towards Bush's national guard service, this story should die a prompt death. Of course, it should have never been a story to begin with, because there was never any evidence that Bush skipped out on his tour of duty, and it doesn't really matter anyhow. Afterall, Bush has been Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military for the last 3 and a half years. Thats the only military record of his that I care about.

If the Democrats want to bring up service and allegiance to this country, then maybe they can explain this photo of John Kerry at an anti-war rally with "Hanoi" Jane Fonda:

Thanks to Dan Ornelas for pointing me to these stories.

Jim Morris is an Indiana hero. As the head of the UN's World Food Programme, he oversees an operation which feeds millions of starving children and adults every year. He also is the president of the Lilly Endowment and a former Indiana businessman.

When I interned in D.C., I had the opportunity to see Mr. Morris testify in front of the House International Relations committee, of which my boss, Congressman Chris Smith, was an assistant chair. Having done much research over the course of the spring semester about the food-crisis in Africa, I was deeply involved in the issue-- not just intellectually, but also emotionally.

I was moved by the sheer compassion of Mr. Morris's testimony. It was obvious that he cared for the people he was trying to help. His task of juggling emotional, political, economic, and logistical challenges, is not one I envy; but it is one I respect.

See the Indianapolis Star article on him.

Here is a follow-up to yesterday's post/column on drug companies and prescription drug re-importation. This Stateline.org article discusses how several states have plans to introduce drug re-importation despite a federal ban on such.

This is why I sometimes loathe American pop-culture. If you have a pretty face and a good voice, that does not necessarily make you a good musician, and it certainly does not make you a good actor. Anyways, the movie is called "Edison" and Timberlake will only have a small role in it, but he will be alongside Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman! See Lawren Mills post on it.

A great victory for the Irish. We've been so close to being great this year, but we've fallen flat each time and have had to settle for average: heartbreaking and close losses to IU, Kentucky, Syracuse, and Pittsburg. Its nice to have a tough schedule.. in some ways.

...photo thanks to espn.com

Many of today's hot-button political issues surround pharmaceutical companies and policies regarding drug pricing and patents. To be honest, I had never researched the issues very much in the past, and I never had an official position. In fact, I saw two main, and separate issues: domestic drug pricing and the question of allowing drug reimport (from Canada, for example) to drop prices for the American consumer; and drug pricing in developing nations where cheap drugs are in high demand to fight AIDS and other diseases.

Something inside my mind yelled at me for separating these issues, but I was never able to make the connection. That is, until now, when I read this terrific Wired News article by Lawrence Lessig.

I'll summarize his points. First, U.S. and international patent law effectively creates monopolies on new drugs. He does not argue that this is inherently a bad thing, but says that citizens and politicians must realize the reality of this patent system, which is designed to reward and protect innovation in drug manufacturing.

Second, in a normal economic model, these pharmaceutical companies would be able to use 'price discrimination' in pricing their new drugs, over which they have a monopoly. Price discrimination is the ability of a company (in a monopoly position) to price its products according to people's abilities to buy them. For example, Drug Company X could price anti-AIDS drugs expensively here in the U.S. but very cheaply in Africa where they have much lower income on average. In fact, Drug Company X would normally have incentive to do just that, because they would have overall higher sales.

But even though such drug monopolies exist, we are NOT seeing this price discrimination, which would ultimately be humane and beneficial to people in developing nations. Why not? This brings us to the third point, and the connection to drug reimportation. Mr. Lessig says that drug companies do not drop their prices in poorer nations, because they are afraid of 'arbitrage.' That is:

If pills cost 50 cents in Congo but $5,000 in New York City, there's a very strong incentive to jump on a plane in Congo with a bagful and resell them in New York.

He says that this type of private arbitrage is managable because drugs can be marked and have their distribution controlled. What Lessig is missing, however, is public or government sponsored arbitrage. This is where I had my eureka! moment. Many nations (and I assume many European nations) have drug import policies that allow them to buy drugs on the world market from 2nd-hand sources (such as the 50 cent pills from the Congo) for the cheapest amounts possible.

It makes political sense domestically, if a nation can guarantee cheap drugs for its seniors. However, if enough nations have this policy, then the drug companies will lose money and not be able to develop the innovative drugs to begin with, and everyone will lose out. If the United States creates a drug-reimportation policy (which many are clamoring for) then they will be a huge culperate in keeping drug companies from being able to employ price discrimination. And poor people in Africa will lose out.

A humane and fair solution must be found in order to help the American consumer and to save lives across the glove. Drug reimportation is not that solution.

Now that Kerry is on his way to locking the Democratic nomination (and obliterating one of my longstanding predictions: that Dean would get the nod), the talking heads and pencil-pushers are beginning their incessant speculation regarding VP candidates. One of the popular ones currently is John Edwards. I'm not gonna argue with the logic. Anyways, here is Robert Novak's take:

High-ranking advisers to Sen. John Kerry privately say Sen. John Edwards has to be considered the top candidate for vice president on a Kerry-led ticket.