My gut reaction at seeing this story and its accompanying photos, was unadulterated anger.

I asked myself, "How can these Iraqis celebrate death like this?" The whole concept seems so foreign and disgusting to me. It is exceedingly clear that there is a cultural divide on this, and my initial anger was aimed at this divide. Of course, I let my head clear and more peaceful thoughts take over. Afterall, it is the fact that warring sides act out of violent reactions of mindsets that continue the cycle of violence. This has been the status quo in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for years now.

I think some people too easily write-off Islam or Arab culture in general in explaining incidents of the celebration of death like this one. I prefer a more specific analysis. Let's look at examples of Palestinians or Iraqis and look at their "spiritual" uprbringing. If they have learned from a young age from imams using (misusing) Islam to teach hate and celebration of death, then it is natural that they have grown up with these attitudes. Islam needs to exorcise these brutish leaders to truly end this culture of death.

Here's a quick history lesson on technology and business. Starting in the late 70s and into the early 80s Apple Computer was making the most popular home computers out there. With the introduction of the Macintosh in 1984, Apple came up with a relatively cheap computer with a revolutionary user interface and took the home computer world by storm.

After their peak in the 80s, however, Apple saw their market share and profits slide, until today where they only have about 5% share. Part of the reason for this slide, was that Apple allowed their prices to get too high. But the main reason, is that they kept their technology proprietary and did not license it to other companies. Contrast this with Microsoft which licensed Windows to dozens of computing companies and took the OS marker over.

For what reason do I share with you this lesson? Simple: 'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it!' Apple has done with the digital music industry what it initially did with the home computing industry, with the iPod, which now has over 50% of the market. Apple's music store is also easily the dominant player.

So, the question now is whether Apple should go proprietary with the iPod or aggressively license its software and hardware specs out? Here, we see they are trying to develop a patent. Here is a great column which argues they should license. Judge for yourself... but remember to learn from history.

The Massachusetts legislature has passed, with a close vote, an amendment to their state constitution that would ban gay marriage, but also provide for gay civil unions with full and equal rights and privileges. This amendment is a response to last year's Mass. high court ruling on the matter. For the amendment to become law, it will have to be passed by next year's legislature and then be voted on by the people in a referendum.

In the meantime, barring any further action by the court, gay marriage will be legal for at least a year in Massachusetts. This will open the door to further legal questions and cases at the state and federal levels, as these married couples try to get their marriage recognized elsewhere.

Andrew Sullivan has more.

Beauty is truth, and truth beauty

-Keats, "Ode on a Grecian Urn"

Many Christians unquestioningly accept the claims of their respective churches that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Many of the major denominations hold such a position, though they proclaim it at different dogmatic levels. Upon closer inspection, however, this condemnation of homosexual behavior is anything but a clear Scriptural directive. A faithful Christian must examine his or her position on this issue with scrutiny and honesty, rather than reflexive agreement with his or her church’s stance.

Such a careful analysis, I believe, does not lead to the conclusion that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. I will not condemn others who reach a different conclusion, as it is ultimately a matter of faith, but I offer this analysis with the sincere hope it be received with an open heart and mind.

<...read the whole thing here>


It is also accessible on DC here, and in Notre Dame's The Observer

Who can come up with the best caption for this interesting photo? Leave a comment with your caption below...

I think its time for the liberal U.N. apologists in this nation to take it off the unnaturally high pedestal on which they have placed it. The story has come out that certain elements in the U.N. (perhaps all the way to the top) were involved in corruption in the Iraqi Oil For Food Programme. Their actions were selfish, harmful to the U.N.'s credibility, and harmful to the people of Iraq.

One of the problems is that many U.N. institutions, as well as many EU ones, lack a sufficient degree of transparency. This lack of public scrutiny is but only one factor in the democratic deficit from which they suffer.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... the U.N. needs major major reform, with an entire new charter. I'm not one of those conservatives who says we should pull out, but on the contrary, I think we need to push steps to strengthen the U.N. as a viable international body.

As a recent scholar of The Reformation, I've noticed certain things about the Protestant-Catholic divide that are enlightening about each side. Let's look at one Protestant inconsistency (and I'm speaking of the 16th Century reformers, not necessarily of today's protestants). They say two things: 1. Justification (salvation) is gained through faith alone, and 2. the Bible is the sole source of authority on matters of belief. So how do they explain James 2:14-26 (part of which I'll quote here):

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead... You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone....

My friends and I were driving south on U.S. 31 towards downtown South Bend at 11:30 P.M. last night. At this point, the road had split into two one-way city streets.

So, we were traveling southbound in the left-most lane at about 40 mph. There is a car (with four college-age girls in it) a few car-lengths ahead in the lane just to our right.

As the front-end of my car comes even with the back-end of their car, they start to turn left... fairly sharply... Well, naturally, to avoid them slamming into my car, I turn the wheel left, gradually at first, then much more sharply as I realize they are clueless (or drunk) and are continuing to turn into me!

I quickly see that I'm going to have to turn off the road to avoid a collision, and I see a pull-in to a parking lot, so I continue the sharp turn to pull into it... But there is a telephone pole at its corner. With nothing else to do, but continue the turn, I say a split-second prayer and watch as the pole misses the front right corner of my car by inches. My car comes to a stop, with adrenalin I yell a choice word or two, and the other car pulls through the parking lot to the other side and gets on the northbound road, without stopping or slowing down.

All of this happened in well under 3 seconds... It could have turned out very badly, and I am thankful to God that we came out unscathed.

Now some at NBC have proven that they too do not deserve the term journalists, but the value-neutral term presster.

The NBC "news-show" Dateline will air a multi-hour special on Donald Trump and the TV show "The Apprentice"... the finale of which will air on NBC the next day! Its sad to see Dateline sink this way, because I'm sure some actual journalists work hard for it. Executive Producer of the show, David Corvo, makes the excuse that "The Apprentice" has become a cultural phenomenon and thus deserves this coverage. Backing up his argument, he points out that Dateline has covered Fox's show "American Idol" a handful of times in the past.

Just because NBC feels comfortable plugging other people's shows, does not make it suddenly right to plug their own show. Now, if they wanted to do a Dateline episode AFTER the finale episode of The Apprentice, then I would have no problem with this. But since it comes before, then its a clear example of using news to sell entertainment.

That's a headline currently on Rush Limbaugh's website. I love it.

In discussions with my friends, those native to Indiana and those out of staters, I have discovered that many Hoosiers do indeed have an accent. Its difficult to put a finger on it, as its not a southern accent or an urban accent such as Chicago's or Boston's. Its just.. umm, an Indiana accent. Lawren Mills, I believe, captures it well in this post on her blog.

I mean, I really think I need to worsh my hands to make them fraesh before I go down to that conference in Loueeeville on nucuhlur weapons.

Wait, what the heck is a Hoosier anyways? ;-)

Update: I was just reminded of another "hoosierism" that involves pronunciation of double "o"'s. This accent involves pronouncing the vowel sound of "noon" like the vowel sound in "June." Its subtle but funny. I was reminded of this by a girl, who shall remain nameless for her own sense of security (Sarah Pulliam) who says it this way.

The EU has ruled against Microsoft in its monopoly case. This is significant because:

1. It marks a divergence in business regulation norms between Europe and the United States

2. It will force Microsoft to change its product strategy or at least regionalize it to cater to the huge EU market

3. It could be a massive boost for Linux, Apple's OS X, and other Unix variants, and has implications for Microsoft's dominance and transitive effects on national security, and computer ease of use

Well, at least that's how I feel my life philosophy understands sometimes. Not necessarily an entirely bad philosophy, but certainly lacking in some respects.

Its just that it seems that life to me seems like a challenge to find the ultimate truth in things and then to convey that truth to everyone and "win" the argument. This isn't healthy, because nobody can convince everyone, and nobody can know the whole Truth.

Can't hurt trying... or can it?

I love reading about people who change the world for the better. These kindof people are renegades in that they don't follow in lock-step with preconceived notions and expectations, but chart out new paths. This list, put out by Wired News, contains such personalities as Peter Jackson and Steve Jobs, and thus is already dear to me. Check out the whole thing-- some very cool people.

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) has been updated to clarify a weakened stance. It now reads:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

The second sentence had included "nor state or federal law." Back on February 24, the date of the President's speech against equal marriage, I wrote a post criticizing the confusing wording of that passage. So, in that sense, I am happy with this change, only inasmuch as we know what we are dealing with.

Now, in my opinion, this version of the FMA cannot be interpreted to forbid state legislatures from passing laws allowing gay civil unions. This will anger evangelical conservatives who would like to see everything banned. However, even with the change, I still oppose it strongly. First... on conservative grounds. This amendment would amount to a federal attempt to remove the ability of individual states to develop their own marriage laws.

Second... on grounds of equality. The simultaneous existence of a national marriage ban in addition to scattered and inconsistent gay civil union laws in the states would amount to "separate but equal" all over again. The civil union framework might encourage states to only give same-sex couples some of the "legal incidents" of marriage rather than all. Furthermore, by withholding the term 'marriage' to such couples, this nation would be telling them that they are incapable of the level of commitment and sanctification, indicative of the civil institution of marriage in this country. Effectively, homosexuals would be relegated to second-class status in an official Constitutional manner.

Now seriously, do you really know:

Are You a Zygote?

The pressters at CBS show why they don't always deserve the term 'journalist.' The Drudge Report headline says it all: NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT.

Read the story of how it happened here.

According to the Drudge Report, Israeli radio is reporting that Prime Minister Sharon himself "personally commanded" the operation. Terrorist leaders have vowed revenge; see here, here, and here.

So, the question now turns to strategic implications. Was this a good thing or bad thing overall for the peace process, and from Israel's perspective, for their own security?

For the short-term, it is undoubtedly a bad thing for both. Reprisal attacks against innocent civilians will happen. And based on what certain terrorist leaders are saying, they could target Israeli political leaders as well, adding another ominous dimension to the violence. For the long term, I think it will be neutral. I'm skeptical that it will create an intensified intifada by the Palestinian people.

However, I see little to no positive value of the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin either. I only studied him briefly last year, but I seem to remember him as mostly a spiritual leader these days. If he was not actively planning and leading terrorist acts, then his death has no real value. Even if he was preaching for suicide bombers to go out and kill Israelis (which he probably was), his message of hate may be intensified by his death by Israeli missiles.

One of the greatest threats to world peace is the suitcase nuke, which can be delivered to a populated area by an individual actor or non-state actor such as a terrorist organization. They don't have to follow the deterrent of mutually assured destruction and thus have a greater likelihood of actual deploying a nuclear bomb.

With that introduction, if true, this claim by the biographer of al-Qaida's number-two guy is frightening as hell: that al-Qaida has acquired nuclear devices on the black market.

Of course, that's a huge if. If al-Qaida really did have nukes, then why hasn't their leadership threatened to use them. Afterall, wouldn't they want to leverage the nukes for political gain (the goal of terrorists)? Also, if we do in fact have al-Zawahri cornered in Pakistan, then couldn't this be a clever way to threaten us at the last minute? Just an idea.

In the interests of full-disclosure: I'm helping out with the Mitch Daniels for Governor campaign.

That said, when a gubernatorial candidate makes fun of Kentucky for being toothless and inbred, and then backs up that joke, then you have to vote for him :-)

Thanks to Josh Claybourn for the pointer.

Actually, he visited campus on Tuesday, but I did not attend so I had no immediate comments for the blog. However, one of my friends from the dorm and former guest-blogger, Brendan Magee, did attend.

Sinn Fein is the political party wing of the Irish Republican Army, so some people associate its activities with the terrorist group, and some people on campus outright called Gerry Adams a terrorist. Of course, this is a contestable point.

A debate ensued in our campus paper, The Observer. One person wrote in saying that ND shouldn't have invited Gerry Adams. And then Brendan responded, countering the claim that Adams is a terrorist.

While characterizing Gerry Adams as a terrorist is an overstatement, as he has never personally committed a terrorist act, the fact that he is a supporter of the IRA is significant. Brendan rightly points out that the IRA formed in response to British Protestant oppression of Catholics in Northern Ireland, but he fails to also point out that the IRA HAS targeted innocent people on numerous occasions. This is terrorism, undeniably. Brendan says he does not support terrorism, and I agree with him, but he does apologize for them.

Finally, Brendan shows an emotional attachment to the situation when he writes in one post: "Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Féin, is speaking at Notre Dame today. F*ck the Brits; up the Rebels!" He has defended this phrase by saying that its merely a slogan, and that he does not really wish ill-will against all Britons. Well, this is just me, but I don't repeat slogans from terrorist organizations, such as those also chanted by Islamicist suicide bombers. Furthermore, slogans like these can only further the hate and violence, not decrease it.

At first when I saw this story on the Drudge Report of John Kerry falling on the slopes, I thought it was really being overblown. But one part of the story was nagging me: it was reported early on that he used an expletive to describe a secret service agent, who got in his way causing him to far. And now Drudge has confirmed that he called the agent a "son of a bitch."

The language in and of itself does not bother me much, so I dismissed it early on, but then I realized the true import of it: he was saying this to a person dedicated to protecting his life! While President Bush has raised the pay of military personnel, so that they can actually live without food stamps, and has shown the necessary will to fight the war on terrorism, John Kerry is disrespecting secret service agents. Yes, he served in Vietnam, but I still question this man's current position in regards to the military because of attitudes like this.

...we realize that they may not have been all that good to begin with.

This is the lesson of Jack Kelly, the long-time reporter for USA Today, who saw his 21-year career with the newspaper come to an end after allegations that he fabricated some aspects of stories. Very recently, USA Today has issued some evidence strongly suggesting that he did indeed lie in some of his stories, and he lied to cover himself in front of the paper's editors.

Another sad aspect of this case relates to Jack Kelly's reportedly strong Christian faith. This article from Connection Magazine explains Kelly's religious motivations for reporting, and applauds them. Rightfully so, IF the article was published before the evidence of his lying. His past lies, however, taint this faith and force one to question whether he let his zeal cloud his judgment. This line from the article is painfully ironic, considering the recent developments:

When truth is a casualty. In times of war and crisis, Jack has repeatedly seen how easy it is for misinformation to color perceptions. He has been stunned by the false reports he has received in war torn areas.

Also saddening was the reflexive defense of Jack Kelly launched by other Christian writers and activists after the initial allegations surfaced... as if an outward Christian is incapable of lying, of stuttering in his faith. But this touches on a much much larger topic of theology, which I'll save for another time.

In the end, I believe people when they tell me that Jack Kelly was a great reporter, and I'm sure he was a good man in many ways. But we cannot ignore the great professional evil he undertook when he fabricated a few portions of stories.

See the AP article on our awesome t-shirt campaign. Our GSA sold 1600 t-shirts that read "Gay? Fine by me" ... and most of them showed up yesterday as we called on students to wear them in a sign of solidarity.

nothing quite like some good ole fashion bigotry (note my sarcasm)

at least what I remember of it ;-)

Why am I not on this list of most influential bloggers and columnists?

This is unbelievable! j/k

Lots of people do it... many without even knowing it. An article with a bias, a photograph capturing only one moment out of context, etc., etc. And now I learn about 'video news releases' done by the government, specifically these by President Bush that feature actors playing reporters.

I just don't like this.

I look at the current state of abortion laws in this nation and at laws regarding unborn babies and I'm forced to ask: where is the consistency here?

According to this AP story, a woman has been charged with murder for not agreeing to a C-section under labor. After choosing to have the birth naturally, and after she was informed that doing so would put the baby at risk, the baby died upon birth.

So let me get the current state of American law straight. A woman can now choose to kill her baby, and that choice is protected by law... but if she chooses to birth the baby naturally instead of undergoing surgery on HER body, then she is charged with murder. This is ridiculous!

With all of this debate regarding the civil definition of marriage, and whether or not it should include same-sex couples, few people challenge the right of religions to define marriages on their own terms.

So, what explains this story in New York? A church being punished for marrying who it wants?

Dan Pulliam has a good post regarding the recent terrorist bombing in Spain. He writes:

The bombing in Spain might wake the Euros up to the war that exists today between Muslim extremists and the West. Samual Huntington predicted years ago that the next world-wide conflict would be on the fault lines of culture and Europe is now realizing this. France and Germany may think they can avoid this culture war by opposing action against those who attempt to harm the West, but eventually they will be drawn into the war along with Tony Blaire and George W. Bush.

Personally, I'm not sure if I'm convinced that the battle will be culturally driven rather than economic driven. Anyways this is a good overall point about Europe, and I think it provides further support for the Bush doctrine of opposing terrorism by actively pursuing terrorists AND the nations that host them around the world. If the Iraq experiment succeeds, then it will be a shining strategic victory for the U.S. for many years to come. Just imagine it: a successful, capitalistic democracy in the heart of the middle-east. When extremists see the possibilities in such a country, many will be less-inclined to resort to terror and will instead work for reform in their respective nations. Of course, still others will be reviled by the "intruding" foreign culture in their area, and will probably resort to more terrorism.


The real cultural battle will be waged within the Muslim and Arab worlds and at stake is pax moderna... the peace of modernity (I apologize in advance for my inevitable latin error to any latin scholars out there).

Ok, so I'm back in the Bend now, and the first thing I did was to load all of the spring break Smokies photos into the computer and post them on the web. Click here to view the photo album, and click any of the thumbnails to get full-size versions. Here's a few of the best ones, scaled down:

...view from Cades Cove

...me in front of Abrams Falls

...view from Appalachian Trail ridge

Well, this was my last spring break of my undergraduate tenure and I only have a few more weeks left of my senior year, and I must say its given me pause to think back a bit. I would be lying if I said that this hasn't been a bit emotion-provoking. But that's healthy.

And what better thing than to transform that emotion into a neat little haiku:

The end is the start
Another fleeting chapter
in the book of life

Great time in the Smokey Mountains. I'll post some photos on Sunday when I return to Notre Dame. For now, a couple days in Indy.

Here's a rundown of the trip:

Sunday afternoon, Chris Letkewicz (a former guest-blogger) and I arrived in Townsend, TN at about 4 PM. There we met up with Alice Murphy (a friend from my D.C. tenure last spring) and her boyfriend Dave, who are both seniors at Ithaca College in New York.

We drove into the Smokeys and made camp at Cades Cove Campground. The next day, Monday, we took a drive around the Cove itself, which is absolutely beautiful, then hiked back to Abrams Falls, a good 10 miles round trip hike.

Tuesday was a rainy day, so we drove into Gatlinburg and admired the numerous stores and attractions there. Overall, its a tourist trap, but I got a good laugh at seeing all the gimicky shirts and stuff.

Wednesday, after setting up camp in Smokemount (a pretty nice campground with a large creek running through it), we drove up Newfound Gap Road to the Tennessee/North Carolina border. We hiked up the Ice Spring Trail, which also is a leg of the Appalachian Trail and follows the border from 5000 feet high to over 6000 feet. Overall, roundtrip, it was a 6 mile hike, which was stunning in the few inches of snow and overlooks from the ridge.

Thursday, we did a bit more sightseeing in the park, played hillbilly golf in Gatlinburg, and then made the 6 hour drive back to Indy.

I just found out that I was quoted in a South Bend Tribune article about the gay marriage symposium held at ND last week.

Here is the article (see the second paragraph and last two paragraphs)

If only I had known at the time that the university was going to turn down our gay-straight alliance for club status, I would have framed my remarks a bit differently.

I've leaving for Indy tomorrow, and I'll be leaving for the Smokey Mountains on Sunday, where I'll be until Thursday. So blogging will resume next Friday. Take it easy everyone and cya on the flip side.

-lds

The group, United In Diversity (formerly the gay-straight alliance) was just denied official club status yesterday. This is the first time this particular group has tried for official status. The club constitution even included a plank about considering the stance of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, so this was the greatest step in the Administration's direction to-date.

That is... Dick Morris on what President Bush should do to seal the deal in defeating John Kerry. Check out the column, its pretty good, methinks.

When his pappablog, InstaPundit, has the following posts, it gives on pause:

One on condoms in Zimbabwe

One that quotes somebody in reference to the Democratic presidential candidates: "How did we get these fucking zombies as our candidates?"

One with a photo of some very phallic monument on the campus of Texas

...photo courtesy Glenn Reynolds

Thousands of homosexual couples across the nation have already been married, via acts of civil disobedience (lawlessness?) in San Francisco, New Mexico (which has since been stopped), and now New York and Oregon. And in a couple of months, thousands more will be married legally in Massachusetts.

In each of these cases, the protagonists (whether that be a court acting legally, or a mayor acting illegally) have referred to the Constitutional doctrine of 'equal protection' as justification for striking or ignoring laws that restrict marriage to opposite-sex unions. What will ensue in the next few years in this nation can rightfully be called a political and judicial war-- on a scale unseen since Roe v. Wade. Ultimately this war will be won or lost only when the United States Supreme Court rules on the following 14 words:

...nor [shall any State] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (U.S. Con., Amend. XIV, sec. 1)

Nicholas Kristof has a good column in the NY Times comparing this recent debate to debate surrounding interracial marriage earlier in our nation's history.

A faithful reader (in more ways than one), who also happens to be one of my professors, pointed out a factual error in my review of The Passion. In it I wrote:

...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.

In actuality, as the reader points out, Mel Gibson used a passage from Mark here: Mk 14:62. So, its not an issue of Gibson deviating from scripture at all, just picking a particular passage.

On another note, check out this review by Christy Pulliam. It looks at the movie from a bit of a different perspective:

I think the movie is especially good for Presbyterians to see, since it is quite an emotionally heart rending piece and we Presbyterians tend to rely on our intellect at the expense of our heart.

President Bush has repeatedly stated that America will fight for all freedom-loving people around the world in the years to come. He has stated this principle in the firmest terms-- this fight is not just our right, it is our duty as the world's primary superpower.

Furthermore, we extend this fight to people, no matter their religious background. Shiite Muslims, for instance, were granted new religious freedoms when the U.S. liberated Iraq, such as the ability to celebrate religious holidays and visit shrines. Others in the world have exactly the opposite as their goal. They want to bend others to their will, they want to enforce their views. It is these people who are responsible for the deaths of 125 people at a Shiite shrine in Iraq today. These people deserve swift justice.

Still others aspouse the idea of freedom, but lack either the ability or the backbone to further its cause around the world. These people and nations are certainly not evil, like the terrorists who actively oppose freedom, but their selfishness and apathy are dangerous to this world, nevertheless.

Steve Jobs opens new Apple retail store in San Francisco

You know the first reason...

...because if you didn't, you'd miss hilarious gems like this one: "Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens to Gay Marry"

I'll sum up the Oscars quite easily: The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King takes home 11 Oscars! Art Direction, Visual Effects, Sound Mixing, Editing, Best Song, Costumes, Make-up, Score, Adapted Screenplay, Director, Best Picture

And it deserved each and every one. This ties it with Titanic and Ben Hur for the most Oscars. Oh yeah, and Ian McKellen and Scarlett Johansson were well-dressed, and Peter Jackson... well, yeah.