I just got out of Contracts class, and I would be negligent to not share this tidbit from the professor:

"...for example. When you get out of my final at the end of the semester, you'll drink quite heavily afterward. And I highly encourage that..." [uproar of laughter follows]

From the wife of the dean, no less.

This is going to be stream of conscious... bang bang bang. So expect a bit of incoherence.

First observation (actually given to me by Dan Ornelas): the networks did not carry the convention tonight, even though two of the GOP heavy-hitters were up as speakers: Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Seeing that they covered the Dems big nights, this seems like obvious media bias.

Second, the Republicans seemed to be taking the 9/11 stuff too damn far. It's important, as McCain and Giuliani noted in their speeches, to consider Bush's policies on the war on terrorism and his leadership on the matter. However, the emotional stories and imagery used by both Giuliani and by the actual set-up of the convention hall are almost despicable. Behind the speakers' podium, the GOP had a massive video screen set up, with a large photo of NYC displayed.. sans World Trade Center towers of course-- the absence still a striking image. Juxtaposed on another screen, as if we hadn't already caught the obvious imagery, was a photo of NYC with the towers standing!

Finally (for now), one of the commentators on Fox News made a pretty neat assessment of the character of the speeches tonight. He said, and I paraphrase, 'At the DNC convention, it seemed like John Kerry was saluting himself. Tonight, both McCain and Giuliani sincerely seemed to be saluting President George Bush.'

Indeed, Giuliani's speech was awesome and showed a versatility held by few others.

And surprise of surprises, the ads are not being put out by Republicans, but rather by the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual advocacy group.

The ads quote the VP saying that he thinks that the issue of gay marriage should be left up to the states-- an implicit opposal to the Federal (anti)Marriage Amendment.

Congressman Schrock abruptly announces his retirement.

Here's the rub. Some people have been alleging that he is gay. Refusing to specify those allegations directly in his resignation speech, but also not confirming or denying them, the Congressman is doing a great injustice with his resignation.

Being gay is not a disqualification for Congress. If Schrock is not gay, then just deny it and move on. It's not like people are calling him a Nazi... he can govern with these personal allegations ongoing. And if he is gay, then shame on him for letting that disqualify him, and shame on him doubly for staying closeted!

I promised to keep you up-to-date on the news surrounding the Russian jet crashes last week, and so I am (despite naysayers to the contrary).

According to this recent Reuters article, the presence of explosives on board the two Russian jets has again been confirmed, but officials have no evidence that the jets were hijacked.

Also, some of the chemical traces in the explosive residues recovered at the crash sites are consistent with the explosive RDX, frequently used by the Chechen rebels.

I have found nothing to confirm the earlier reports that Al Qaeda had claimed responsibility.

This is a topic you're going to see me harp on with increased frequency. It's a real problem and our politicians are largely ignoring it. The failure of both Bush and Kerry to seriously address the problem in their proposals made this issue a draw in my Bush apology (see before).

Alan Greenspan is sounding the alert. And you know what? I think we should listen to him. His record speaks for itself.

Well, for starters keep coming back here. I'll have commentary, of course.

For other people's opinions, and some direct blog reporting from the convention, check out this list of bloggers covering the GOP's big dance.

I mean, seriously, who wants to hear about this stuff from the blatherings of Dan Rather, or wait until the next day to read about it in the outdated medium that is a newspaper?

First we have stupid NPR (well, not always stupid) getting in on the act, and now Andrew Sullivan is also dissing August.

August is an absolutely wonderful month-- a wonderful month I tell you!

[thanks to Dan for the NPR link]

So... here's my apology for President George W. Bush... and no, it's not your typical apology.

To this end, I pose a politicophilosophical question: 'if two candidates running for an office of national importance each hold positions that you find either morally reprehensible or likely endangering to the nation, should you vote "for the lesser of two evils" or vote in abstention?'

When I was discussing this issue with one of my friends a couple days ago, I asked hypothetically if he could vote at all in an election for president in which each candidate proposed we legalize slavery. And if this hypothetical is not tenable enough for you, how would you vote if each candidate supported abortion? To many individuals, support for abortion would certainly attain the level of "moral reprehensibility," so it's not an impossible hypothetical.

My friend brought up a good point. When you vote, you must consider the likelihood that a candidate's positions will actually become national policy. A vote is a your urging that a particular reality come to pass, and that reality is contingent on more than a candidate's stated positions.

Let me apply this framework to the Bush v. Kerry contest before us:

- Bush opposes abortion. Kerry supports it. Each will likely nominate judges based partly on this issue and urge abortion-related legislation (+ Bush)

- Bush supports the death penalty and would uphold it in federal sentencing. I do not know Kerry's position on it. (?)

- Bush opposes gay marriage and is pushing for a Constitutional amendment to that end. The amendment has next to zero chance of passing. (neutral)

- Bush opposes gay marriage and will likely push for discrimination to that end in federal rules and in legislation he urges. (+ Kerry)

- Bush urges measures that are disrespectful of the Constitutional process by pushing amendments that have zero chance of passing, and urging Congress to pass laws that spit upon judicial review (+ Kerry)

- Kerry's Supreme Court nominations would be aspirationalists rather than textualists (+Bush)

- Kerry would appease our fellow nations in the UN instead of urging the reform that is utterly necessary for that international institution to fulfill its mission (+ Bush)

- Both Bush and Kerry would support out-of-control spending policies, that ignore the pending Social Security collapse (neutral)

- Kerry does not understand the greater strategy of the Middle East, which Bush does (+ Bush)

- Bush supports tax cuts more than Kerry and will not play the tired Democratic game of class warfare (+ Bush)

- Kerry is more likely than Bush to seriously consider research into alternative energy sources, but Kerry is more likely to support economically damaging agreements, such as Kyoto (neutral)

- Bush supports No Child Left Behind, a program which I think needs a fair chance, but he has been unwilling to give it the necessary funding to succeed (neutral)

- any issues that I'm forgetting? let me know

So, right now the score is Bush 5, Kerry 2. Hence, my vote goes to George W. Bush. I do recognize that one weakness of this system is that it does not vary the respective weights of the issues. I will say this, of issues that I consider to carry a moral weight to them, the two candidates' weaknesses cancel out.

Well, next Saturday is ND's first football game, at BYU. Therefore, it's also prediction season, and your's truly is not beneath such. So here we go:

@ BYU - Win (come on, it's BYU)
Michigan- Loss (come on, it's Michigan)
@ Michigan St.- Loss (Mich. St. is going to be better than predicted this year)
Washington- Loss (Washington is going to be tough this year, but this one I'm shaky on)
Purdue- Win (it's at home, and the Boilers will have a decline year)
Stanford- Win (Willingham has his old team's number)
@ Navy- Win (this one I'm worried about; we've beaten them so many times in a row)
Boston College- Win (the Irish surely are fed up with losing to BC)
@ Tennessee- Loss (by this time, the Irish will be strong with a winning streak, but it's at Tenn.)
Pittsburgh- Win (who knows)
@ USC- Loss (USC is going to be great this year, even if they aren't champions, they're in a different class than ND right now)

Ok, so that makes 6 wins and 5 losses... not a good year for the Irish.

Now let's look long-term. With 5 losses, Willingham is gone. The pressure from the ND's alumni is reaching a fever pitch... Finally, the new coach comes in (Spurrier is one of the names being tossed around) and in 2-3 years, ND is back in the national championship hunt-- proving that all this dismal talk about ND's academic standards being too high for a football team, is a bunch of hot air.

The latest ad to come from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accuses John Kerry for being deceitful for saying he was in Cambodia Christmas Eve 1968. I, for one, hate the ramifications of these ads. Of course part of the reason I hate these ads and this group is because I am a Kerry supporter and this is obviously not helping his campaign. But over the past few weeks, I've just gotten really fed up with this group and those who are defending them.

Vietnam is an ugly wound in American history that really hasn't healed over time as it should have. At a time when we are in another controversial war, the message we are sending to the men and women in the military today is that their medals, their honor, their courage, their valour, and their patriotism can be questioned thirty years from now for whatever reason. The records show that John Kerry served in Vietnam and served honorably, nobly and is deserving of his medals. John Kerry shouldn't have to defend himself against a group of people who without solid evidence accuse him of purposely lying and of having a "grand scheme" to win medals and get out of Vietnam as soon as possible. That is ridiculous considering the number of priveleged men who received several draft deferments that Kerry too could have received. Instead he volunteered to go to war. In that alone, John Kerry's courage and honor should not be questioned. I think the Washington Post handled this the best, concluding that nothing can be 100% positive in the fog of war.

I understand the argument that Kerry opened himself up for these attacks by centering his nomination around his war record. I also understand the anger a lot of Vietnam Vets feel toward Kerry for what he did after the war. Watching Bob Kerrey on Scarborough Country, I have to agree, not this war which still has so much pain behind it for so many people. Not about his war record. I believe that what Kerry did after the war (i.e. testifying in front of the Senate) is "fair" game. In the sense that there is solid foundation for criticism there. Although his quotations are taken out of context and can be considered "unfair," it, troublingly is, campaign politics. But it doesn't hit below the belt as the ads questioning what he did while in Vietnam.

Bill O'Reilly thinks that Kerry should call a press conference in which he answers questions about his time in Vietnam and also about his Senate testimony, putting the press on notice that after this the subject should be dropped. I actually think this is a good idea. This is what Bush did in 2000 in regards to questions of why he has suddenly stopped drinking. Bush didn't even have to address the possibility of whether he was an alcoholic or whether he just had a drinking problem. He gave the press a simple answer and now there is a moratorium on his life before he became Governor of Texas. That is one story the press doesn't run with.

Bigger blow to Notre Dame's reputation? George O'Leary or Tariq Ramadan?

We all remember the O'Leary debacle so let's not go there lest we anger the football gods and lose to BYU.

Like a few years ago when ND was short one head football coach, it is now short one professor in the Peace Studies department. Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim Swiss citizen hired by Notre Dame to teach a Peace Studies class this fall, had his work visa revoked by the government at the request of the Department of Homeland Security presumably for his links to Islamic militants.

After I first read this story, I felt the government was just being crazy. There should be enough academic freedom in this country for a person to write something other than a straight condemnation of militant groups (along the lines of relativism). Then I watched Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox News. Because the University has been quite secret about the situation, as it often is with controversial issues, Fr. McBrian of the Theology department went on the air to talk about it.

(As a side note, I think Fr. McBrian loves the media a little too much. Everytime there is a Catholic related news story or the like, it is Fr. McBrian who appears on television with the Notre Dame Professor title under his name. I'm not making this up.)

Fr. McBrian explained that before Professor Applewhite made the hire, several faculty members had concerns about Ramadan and his scholarly works. Then, after the hire, Professor Applewhite sent out an e-mail to all faculty defending the hire. Although many people believe that Ramadan acts as a bridge between Islam and Europe, he has been criticized for his ties to Islamic militant groups and for remarks that are considered Anti-Semitic.

Now, I have a thought and two questions. First, I think that when concerns arise about a hiring of a professor for any reason, the department chair should really take into consideration whether the hiring will be worth it. Not only is academic excellence a concern in these situations, but what kind of faculty relations will come out of it when several faculty members are already wary of this person? If Ramadan had made it to Notre Dame and was teaching as scheduled, I don't think he would be welcomed and made to feel at home among several of his colleagues.

Secondly, where were these concerns and the state department when the Political Science department hired Professor DeMars to teach Intro to International Relations and other classes in the 2000-2001 school year? That class was my nemesis.

My third concern is with the article itself. Is it kosher for only Jewish groups to criticize someone who is Muslim?!?!?! The article I linked to as well as a quotation Bill O'Reilly made on his show Jewish organizations, one being the American Jewish Committee. Remarks made by anyone, Muslim or not, that are deemed to be in support of terrorism and/or Anti-Semitic should be taken as an offense to everyone who values the decency of humanity, Jewish or not. Not everything is a tie to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I really wanted to hear from a scholar, a professor familiar with the writings of Ramadan to speak about what he has written and why it is not okay for him to be in the United States. Because of my experiences with AIPAC (American-Israeli Political Action Committee) and my studies regarding the Arab-Israeli Conflict, I can't help but feel that remarks made by Jewish groups are tainted with bias. More than anything else, I don't see how Ramadan teaching at Notre Dame would affects a group such as the American Jewish Committee as much as it affects the integrity of professors: those who research, publish and teach and Universities across the nation.

This is clearly an academic issue. For the value of academic freedom, where does a school draw the line between what is acceptable as valuable knowledge and what is not? While there is merit in bringing relativism into the classroom to better understand why terrorists do what they do, I believe it is unacceptable to support terrorists. And any person who has made public Anti-Semitic, racist, religiously offensive, chauvanistic remarks should not be allowed in a setting in which they have the power to pass these feelings on.

You know, apart from all of the "he's an idiot and can't form a coherent sentence without being coached" stuff, I believe that there are many reasons why George W. Bush and his administration have been bad for our country. Several related reasons for this were brought to my attention today by one of my professors at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. In my Hydrogeology class, we were talking about groundwater contamination. I don't know if you're familiar with the Superfund, but just in case you aren't I'll explain what it is. It's a federally-established fund that's supported by a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries. It is used for cleaning up heavily polluted sites around the country where the companies that owned the site and polluted it no longer exist.

There are over 12,000 sites around the country that qualify for this funding, while 1,200 of these are so polluted and pose such an imminent threat to the local population that they are declared National Priorites. Unfortunately, only about 125 of these National Priority sites have been cleaned up (I use the term "cleaned up" loosely here because it usually only involves moving the contamination from one place to another, more secure place). Why, do you ask? It seems like President Bush and his staff decided to remove the Superfund tax in the interest of these big businesses. Some might say it's because of his ties to the oil industry; I don't know much about that, so I'm not going to cast aspersions. Regardless, there is now negative dollars in the Superfund.

But doesn't it seem logical that the companies who create the pollution in the first place should be required to help clean it up? Do we have to wait until people start dying from TCE poisoning before something is done? The infuriating thing is that there is a problem (lethal chemicals in groundwater), we know what's going to happen(people drink the groundwater, get cancer and die), but nothing is being done about it (no money for clean-up).

Speaking of TCE (trichloro ethylene), did you know that it's official Air Force policy to dispose of it by dumping it on the ground? TCE is used as a degreaser for engine parts. You dip the oily machinery in a barrel of TCE and it's sparkling clean in moments. When the barrel gets too gunked up, you dump all of the TCE out onto the dirt or grass (although probably not grass, because we can't kill the pretty lawn, right?). TCE is denser than water, so it sinks to the bottom of the groundwater aquifer and sits there, slowly dissolving for decades. Only a small amount of TCE is necessary to dissolve your nerve casings, so depending on how quickly the groundwater is flowing out of the Air Force base, entire drinking water supplies can be rendered undrinkable. Good idea, guys.

Sorry for the long post, but I'm extremely angry right now. Living in Republican land for so long has taken me away from my roots. You just don't seem to hear about this kind of stuff much in the Observer. Forget the Alaska Wildlife Refuge. THIS is what true environmentalists care about. Not about cute little seals, but about finding out that your kids have leukemia because some generals decided that it was too much of a hassle to store up used solvents until they could be properly disposed of.

I've got some news on the Russian jet crashes. Apparently, Russian officials are saying that they have discovered residues of explosives at the crash site of one of the jets, and some are now stating that it was a terrorist attack at least on that jet.

I'll keep you up-to-date.

Also, I should note that an earlier article that said that Al Qaeda claimed responsibility, was removed after only being up for a few minutes. Something else to watch.

Yesterday, the NCAA denied reinstatement to Mike Williams of USC. Now I can see both sides of this issue. Yes he hired an agent and took money, which are specifically proscribed by the NCAA. However, he did make a good-faith effort to regain his eligibility, firing his agent and returning all financial assests (including a new Escalade).
However, this particular case is small potatoes compared to the real problem with college sports: the amateur requirement itself. Being a student-athlete (XC/Track) at one of the highest-profile D-I schools in the nation, I have gotten to the 'Who the hell cares' point. College sports, most notably football and men's basketball, is a cash cow for both the schools and the NCAA, without rewarding the student-athletes who actually compete. So let's give the people putting the butts in the seats something besides a pat on the back and a communications degree.
The biggest improvement would be to allow professional teams to draft players whenever they want, and use the college system as a minor league for player development, with the team fotting the bill for the education. College football is essentially the NFL's AAA affiliate, but the European club system develops talent better in just about every other sport (soccer, T&F, baseball, hockey, etc.) Implementing the club system would benefit almost every student-athlete, instead of benefitting the marquee sports at the expense of others. This would also allow schools to use the money allocated for athletic scholarships somewhere else, like easing the draconian Title IX burdens crushing many smaller schools.
I know there are a few problems with this plan. The first is it creates a class system based on who's paying for the education (that is, who's better than whom). The other is the college coach's 'system' might be different from the pro team's 'system.' I don't think these would be enormous problems though. The biggest problem would be turning sports programs into development factories. This already happens to some extent though, and the pro teams could insulate themsevles (and protect the schools) by implementing 'good behavior' and graduation clauses into the athletes' contracts. This plan is certainly radical, but the system desperately needs to be changed. Really, who can blame Williams and Michael Phelps and Allyson Felix for skipping college for the big bucks? Amateurism itself comes from Victorian England, where anyone who ever made money for any type of work was excluded from amateur soccer and cricket and polo leagues (leaving the spoiled sons of old money as the only eligible participants). Any system based on this classist ideal probably should die a painful death.

Charles Krauthammer offers an interesting and highly plausbile explanation for the unbridled hatred of George W. Bush. The article is quite telling, as even I did not fully realize the depth of disdain for our President.

Washington Post

I promise you that I won't post every case that I read for law school. But this one I found particularly humorous...

Some airlines put on a promotion where you could collect barcodes from Healthy Choice food products and exchange those barcodes for frequent flier miles with that airline.

Some wiseguy decided to take the airlines and Healthy Choice at their literal terms-- to the extreme. He purhcased the cheapest product made by Healthy Choice, their chocolate poodings, en masse. By the end of the promotion, he had purchased thousands of puddings... enough barcodes to be worth almost a million frequent flier miles.

Upon submitting the barcodes, the airlines denied him his flier miles, and he took the case to court-- and won. The contract was legally binding. [lol, guess which course this was for]

So here's the humorous kicker. The "puddinguy" realized somewhat belatedly that only a day was left before the promotion's end, and he did not have enough time to remove all of the barcodes from the puddings. Solution? He donated all of the puddings to a local food kitchen in exchange that they remove the barcodes and give them to him. So, he had his barcodes, and he even got to take a $4000 tax deduction for the donation to the food kitchen. C'est la vie

A retort to a doctor's criticism of a lawyer:

"While we [lawyers] were writing the Constitution, you [doctors] were bleeding George Washington."

Some say I take this stuff too far. And some would be correct!

Anyways, I've heard that the hot new item these days is the Daily Contentions postage stamp. It's legal and valid postage, and quite a bit more fashionable than the average bald eagle or flag stamp. Don't ask me who I heard this from, but I hear he knows what he is talking about. ;-)

I'll sell as few or as many stamps as a person may want. They are $1 a piece, which is my cost exactly. Just e-mail me if you are interested: lsayre@gmail.com

Remember that illusion I posted on Monday? Well, here is a program my friend Joe made, that illustrates the solution to that illusion. We were just goofing around when we made it, so it has some... errr... interface oddities.

Also, I must point out that the program is Windows only. But Luke, aren't you a Mac user and evangelist? Yes, yes I am. Then isn't it ironic that you are posting Windows-only programs on your blog? Yes, yes it is.

Two airliners have falled from the skies over Russia, within minutes from each other and both from the same airport.

Now, I'm not one that believes in coincidences... But I'm also not one to jump to conclusions too quickly. So yes, I cannot deny that terrorism is one possible cause of this occurance. But I can also think of others, such as a bad employee with a grind of some kind, shoddy maintenance at that airport, etc.

We'll find out.

I performed some minor tweaks to DC recently. First, due to a stupid Blogger technical change, archive links can no longer be listed on their own page, so I found the most elegant solution available by listing them by month on the page's right side.

Also, I have added Google search capabilities to the site. What used to be the 'archive' button in the page's navigation bar is now a 'search' button. Clicking it takes you to the Google search box at the page's bottom. You can search the web or just Daily Contentions from this search box, and I highly highly recommending using it. It uses Google's search technology, with DC's look and feel. :-)

Finally, I would like a little bit of feedback on something. How much/often do you use: (1.) The 'Other Sites' sidebar; (2.) The 'Previous Posts' listing on the page's right side?

As always, thanks.

By now I'm sure you have heard or read about the Paul Hamm gymnastics drama. If not, here it is in very short form (followed by my take):

In the final round of the men's gymnastics high bar competition, American Paul Hamm put on a fine performance, but so did South Korean rival Yang Tae Young. In fact, Young's performance should have been mathematically ranked above Hamm's. However, Young's starting score (of 9.9) was incorrectly set and should have been a 10 (like Hamm's). At the night's end, and before the mistake was called out, Hamm had the gold hanging from his neck, and Young the silver. FIG officials and the judges have all admitted to this mistake.

Young appealed the medal award but was denied on the technicality that he asked about the mistake too late. Now some in the media and even unidentified FIG officials are asking Hamm to give his medal back and accept the silver.

I was listening to Jim Rome on the radio this afternoon, and he adamantly called on Hamm to give back the medal, saying that he did not earn it, and in a humorous analogy compared it to carrot Top accidentally being shipped the Best Actor Oscar.

I agree. The most just outcome is for Young to receive the gold because it was only a clerical/mathematical mistake that took it from him. How much can an athlete be proud of his gold, if he knows that he was not judged to receive it based on merits?

That said, I'm more than a bit surprised at this bit of journalistic self-loathing coming from Sports Illustrated reporter E.M. Swift. He wrote, and I quote:

Last night at the news conference following Hamm's silver medal in the high bar, Hamm was told by a reporter that the FIG said it wouldn't change the results of the competition. His gold medal would stand.

Then the zinger: One official had hinted, it was alleged -- off the record -- that it would be a nice gesture if Hamm took it upon himself to return the gold. So would he? Huh? Would he give it back? Would he?

So this is what it has come to in my profession. The media a willing conduit between the rulers of the sport and the athlete, feeding the story, refusing to let it play out on its own terms, hoping to push the button that will get someone to melt down. Not reporting the news, but creating it. Destroying the Olympic experience for a great athlete and a good man. Diminishing all of us.

Like I said, it hasn't been our finest hour.

Oddly enough, I just don't see the criticism of the media here. Heck, maybe I'm getting soft in my age. Sports columnists have a right to politely urge Hamm to do the right thing here, and when an official urges the same, that is certainly news. So, what's the rub with reporting on that stuff?

E.M. Swift does make a good point though, in that the media should also be turning a critical eye at the FIG and the quality of judging at the Olympics-- for that is the bigger story at work here.

Of course, I'm not going to think that Hamm is a terrible guy if he does not give back the gold medal; he did not cheat to get it, and if he feels he was the best, then so be it. Damn the legitimacy of Olympic judging. Of course, none of this is bound to make Young feel the slightest bit better.

I'm so sorry. I really could not avoid that headline. I wonder how many other sites will use it to headline this story about chess master Bobby Fischer's deportation order.

Apparently, after Searching for Bobby Fischer, we have located him in Japan. He tried to claim political asylum, but was denied, because Japanese immigration officials determined that his criminal charges are not political in nature.

Mr. Fischer is wanted by the U.S. government for violating an international embargo against the former Yugoslavia in 1992. At that time, he played a chess match there that netted him nearly $3 million.

In numbers 1, 3, and the end of 6, Frank makes a very consistent point-- namely, that the Catholic Church is necessarily the holder of God's truth and this was ordained by Jesus to be so (with the classic Matthew citation). I take issue with Frank's interpretation of "...and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

I would agree that God would not want his Church overcome by evil. But at the same time, does that mean that His Church is not prone to error? How do we not know that by recognizing errors and correcting them, that His Church might become stronger than otherwise possible?

Now, for the sake of argument, let me give the typical Protestant response to this Matthew passage, and similar Catholic points. They would argue about the term "Church," saying that Jesus was not referring to some Roman hierarchical institution but to the entire body of His believers. Therefore, under this definition of 'Church' Christ's followers using the Bible as their soul source of revelation are the holders of God's truth.

This definition is problematic, as Frank aptly point out. In the Bible, there is a clear emphasis on communal worship. Further, why would Jesus have picked out one specific Apostle to found his Church on and invest leadership in, if he had intended His Church to have no line of authority?

Finally, let's think about this in a common sense fashion. When I walk a half mile to the east on my road, I come to a point, where if I look to my left, I see a Presbyterian church, and if I look to my right I see a Baptist church. Imagine if Jesus came back to Earth at this point, and was standing at that street corner. Do you think he would be pleased to see his followers divided in that manner? The obvious answer seems to be 'no.'

Then how then can I advocate the continued existence of both Catholicism and Protestantism? Does that not seem to be inconsistent with my belief that God would want his followers united in worship?

Let me postulate a solution to this seeming contradiction. Could it be that God's plan is for humanity to receive and grasp his Truth through mechanisms of dissent and controversy? In the justice system and democracy we intuitively believe that truth is best found via debate and competition. This is a structural gift that God has given us.

In this regard, the Protestant Reformation and continued simultaneous existence of both Protestantism and Catholicism could be part of God's divine plan. In fact, is there any doubt that it is?

But in my heart I still come back to the Jesus on the street corner example, and wonder if we must take steps to capture the spirit of dissent, without having the reality of division. Perhaps that is God's next step.

This news is unfortunate and angering:

The International Olympic Committee is barring competitors, as well as coaches, support personnel and other officials, from writing firsthand accounts for news and other websites.

This means no blogging by Olympians! It's a sad day when individuals are barred from writing about first-hand events in which they are involved. What happened to freedom of speech, press, and the idea that a diverse media is a strong media?

And unlike a gag-order in a judicial proceeding which is issued to protect the fairness of the trial, the IOC's gag-order is in place merely to protect big media contracts, which are lucrative to the IOC fatcats, as well as to the networks with exclusive rights.

Score a victory for the pressters and a loss for journalism.

Here is a delightful and informing CNet article about how cultural ignorance can cost a company-- big time. In this case, the victim (on several occasions) was Microsoft.

Misstep 1:

When coloring in 800,000 pixels on a map of India, Microsoft colored eight of them a different shade of green to represent the disputed Kashmiri territory. The difference in greens meant Kashmir was shown as non-Indian, and the product was promptly banned in India. Microsoft was left to recall all 200,000 copies of the offending Windows 95 operating system software to try and heal the diplomatic wounds. "It cost millions," Edwards said.

Misstep 2:

Another social blunder from Microsoft saw chanting of the Koran used as a soundtrack for a computer game and led to great offence to the Saudi Arabia government. The company later issued a new version of the game without the chanting...

Misstep 3 (and by far the most humorous mistake):

Microsoft has also managed to upset women and entire countries. A Spanish-language version of Windows XP, destined for Latin American markets, asked users to select their gender between "not specified," "male" or "bitch," because of an unfortunate error in translation.

We, both Catholics and heathens non-Catholics (just kidding!), hear often about failures and successes of the Catholic leadership on high profile issues.

The obvious modern example would be the priest sex scandal. Horrendous enough were the sexual advances by offending priests upon male teenagers and children. But what really grabbed the headlines were the repeated failures by several Catholic bishops in America and even the Vatican in dealing with these offending priests over the last few decades.

This is not the only high-profile failure in the Catholic leadership. Many criticize the Catholic Church for not doing enough during WWII and the Holocaust. The Vatican stood by and refused to actively intervene in any real way against the Nazi evils.

I think we should also consider the great good that the Catholic leadership has produced. For example, our current pope, John Paul II, was integral to the collapse of Communism in his home nation of Poland, which started the steamroller moving over the God-less "evil empire" of the Soviet Union.

And what of Pope John XXIII? The namesake of my high school alma mater, before being pope, he was Angelo Disepi Roncalli. As just a Monsignor and unofficial Vatican ambassador to several nations in Europe, he initiated a plan that saved upwards of 100,000 Jews in Hungary from the Nazi deathcamps.

Yes, you read that number correctly. His plan, named Operation Baptism, was an elaborate endeavor undertaken by many elements of the Church and civil officials in Hungary to issue Baptism certificates to Jews, which under Nazi loopholes allowed the certificate-holding Jews to emigrate away from danger.

For this reason, John XXIII has been considered for the “Righteous Among the Nations” award from the Israeli Holocaust museum, which honors non-Jews who helped Jews during the Holocaust. Read the details of Operation Baptism and Roncalli's involvement in this excellent article on FrontPageMag.com.

In 1958, several years after being named a Cardinal, Roncalli was chosen as Pope. Often called the "rebel pope" (a term of endearment in this context), he fought for causes not typically taken up by the Church and initiated the Second Vatican Council which controversially thrust the Church into modernity. His legacy still shines brightly today.

I write of John XXIII's example within the context of Catholic leadership for a purpose. In the Catholic Church, and other religious and civil institutions for that matter, we must never forget the character and ideals of those shining souls who have preceded us. For their goodness is not only restrained to their day, but lasts eternally in God's grace.

[ed.: thanks to Dan Ornelas for FrontPageMag link]

On Thursday I wrote of the battle between al-Sadr's militia forces and the Iraqi government forces in Najaf. At the time, we were getting mixed signals and I said to follow it closely.

Unfortunately, success was just an illusion this time around. According to this NYTimes article, al-Sadr and his forces still are retaining control of Najaf's central shrine where they are holed up. The earlier indication that he would cede control of the shrine to a Shiite leader appears to have either been a lie by al-Sadr's aides, or some sort of confusion.

Sadly, I think it will take a vicious conflict between the two sides within the shrine itself to resolve this standstill. I have no doubt that the Iraqi forces have the will to enter the shrine.

Disgrace strikes twice

Remember them? Yeah, it's been a few months, but apparently they're still getting some attention somewhere. Well, Frank over at Just Bein' Frank, has written me a thoughtful response on them. I urge you to check his blog, as it has some good writing on today's hottest topics and also some Catholic news stories you won't get elsewhere.

Excerpts of his response follow (I have edited out the ones that are just dittos of my theses):

1. CATHOLICS & PROTESTANTS ACT AS CHECKS & BALANCES - Truth cannot (and should not) be checked or balanced. The Church exists, in part, to safeguard divinely revealed Truth. The Holy Spirit protects the theological integrity of the Church, as Christ promised: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). Protestantism is based on the premise that we humans can *change* God's divinely revealed truths. (Or, at least, that Christ broke his promise and that the gates of Hell *did* prevail against the Roman Church.)

2. SECTARIANISM A THREAT TO UNITY - Indeed, Jesus prayed that all believers be united. (John 17:21)

3. CHURCH HIERARCHY NOT GUARANTOR OF TRUTH - I would disagree. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church, and He instituted the priesthood and the sacraments: "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven" (Matthew 18:18). This means that Jesus specifically gave His apostles certain authority and power (forgiveness of sins [John 20:23], baptism [Matthew 28:19], etc.), which they could legitimately pass to their successors. And they did, and the result today is the hierarchical Catholic Church.

4. COMMUNAL WORSHIP SUPERIOR TO INDIVIDUAL - I agree. "For where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them" (Matthew 18:20).

5. PAPAL INFALLIBILITY IS ILLOGICAL - "Too many evil humans," you say, "have had the office of Pope for me to be comfortable to place that level of trust." So many bad Popes, but yet the Church STILL has never altered its (divinely revealed) doctrine in 2,000 years. Why? Because of Christ's promise that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it". The bad Popes are, in some sense, a better argument for Papal infallibility than the good ones! Because, throughout Christian history -- through thick and thin, peace, war, unpopularity, controversy, heresy -- the bishop of Rome has always stuck to the orthodox Faith. (And many times he was the only one!)... [ed.: edited for length]

6. CAN'T ASSUME COMPLETENESS OF GOD'S TRUTH - God alone knows everything. He has revealed "everything" to no one. Our minds are constrained by the limits of our physicality and physiology: we can never, in this life, understand the fullness of God's truth. (Once we die, we will share in God's Beatific vision, we will know the Truth in all its fullness.) So of course there will be struggles (and perhaps disagreements) in understanding God's Truth. But we are not called to *understand* -- we are called to *believe*. "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 1:7) -- faith seeks understanding, not the other way around. But He *has* revealed a lot about Himself (through His creation, His Word, His Incarnation, and His Church). And, in His generosity, He has revealed everything that we humans need for salvation. While most religions contain elements of God's truth (and point upward toward a more perfect Truth), Jesus Christ entrusted the Catholic Church with His *full* revelation. (That is, all that He *did* reveal is contained in Catholicism.)

7. REJECTION OF 'SOLA SCRIPTURA' - A good refutation of the points you made in #1, 3 and 5, Christ guaranteed that His Church would not teach untruths...

9. FUNDAMENTALISM IS BAD - I agree with what you say, but we need to realize also that people are attracted to Fundamentalism because our hearts yearn for God's Truth. When mainstream society abandons objective morality, embraces relativism of truth and moralty, the certainty and unbending nature of Fundamentalism can be attractive to people. This makes our duty to confidently proclaim all of God's word, as (non-fundamentalist) Catholics,
even more urgent!...

12. REJECTION OF THE BORN-AGAIN IDEA - I like what you say here. I remember years ago, as a boy, watching Pat Robertson on TV (before I knew better). He asked viewers to repeat a short prayer to the effect of, "I believe in you, Jesus", and then he informed us that "the Bible says" that we're all going to Heaven now. If only it were that easy!

13. REJECTION OF EX OPERE OPERATO - I would urge you to read the Catechism, paragraph 1127-1128, which reads in part:

"This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: 'by the very fact of the action's being performed'), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that 'the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.' From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them."

You see, "ex opere operato" does not mean that a participant's disposition does not matter. Indeed, it does! (A priest's intention can affect the validity of Holy Orders, or marriage; a penitent's intention/sincerity can affect the efficacy of Reconciliation; etc.) It means that a person's disposition alone is not sufficient for a sacrament to occur. What makes sacraments work is Jesus Christ, not any human will....

15. FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE - You say the primacy of conscience means "the sum total of numerous smaller decisions made throughout one's life. This is called 'formation of conscience.' A person forms her conscience by engaging her Christian faith in her past decisions." I think that the Church teaches rather that the formation of conscience is a very deliberate and systematic thing. (See Catechism 1783-5.) Although all are endowed with the basic knowledge of natural law, "conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings."...

18. FEMALE EQUALITY - If you are referring to ordination of women, then I must disagree with you. I am not well versed in this area of theology (yet), but my understanding is that, in the Catholic sacramental imagination, "stuff matters". The "stuff" of being male or female matters; it is not merely accidental. Since God works through the priest to accomplish sacraments, the priest stands "in Persona Christi" -- in the person of Christ -- particularly in offering the Sacrifice of the Mass. Women can be amazing preachers, but the priesthood is about more than preaching.

19. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS - The Catholic Church demands equal treatment of homosexuals, as children of God. The fact that somebody is homosexual doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong or that they're going to hell or that God loves them any less than anybody else. But homosexuality, whether instilled by "nature or nurture", is still a disorder (in the most literal sense of the word). For this reason, it is unacceptable to try to normalize homosexuality through the implementation of "same-sex marriages". The primary purpose of marriage is the establishment of families and the upbringing of children. To support "same-sex marriage" would be to pretend that homosexual relations are not sinful and to abandon the call to chastity. If we truly care for their salvation, then we would be wise to oppose "same-sex marriage".

20. PROHIBITION OF CONTRACEPTION IS ILLOGICAL - I'll disagree with you here. As you know, the Church teaches that two aspects of sex are its procreative and unitive elements. But you cannot procreate with contraception. And two spouses cannot be truly uniting with each other when they're protecting themselves from each other (through the use of prophylactics). The Church's understanding of sexuality wouldn't be consistent *without* the prohibition of contraception. Regarding relations between infertile spouses, the couple is not doing anything that purposefully blocks God's will. They didn't ask for infertility, and so their intercourse is completely natural and totally self-giving. The Church can't ask for anything more!...

[ed.: agreements edited out on #'s 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 21-25]

I'll try to post a response tomorrow, but I can't promise much. Things are getting busy getting ready for law school to begin. But I'll comment on the points that stand out or seem more easily refuted or that effectively refute me.

...I no longer have a flat-top haircut. Ordinarily I would not consider my hairstyle to be blogworthy, but mine has been a constant source of intrigue/criticism by my friends-- especially considering that I've had it ever since 2nd grade-- that's right 15 years of the flat-top.

So now I guess the Daily Contentions logo is out-of-date.

Is it just me or did the 2000 Sydney Olympics not happen? I distinctly remember the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and all of a sudden it's 2004 and Athens is hosting the Summer Games! Maybe it was my preoccupation in Summer 2000 with going to college and dealing with life in Indiana, but seriously, I can't recall one single memorable thing about the Sydney Olympics. Okay, I lie. I remember the mascot did look like a sperm in tennis shoes. I don't know what this means.

I think my favorite quote from an Olympic athlete comes from Lamar Odom who said, "I'll be honest as hell with you. I did write out a will before taking this trip." Speaking of the Men's Basketball team, I have no words for their level of sucktitude so I rely on Bill "the Sports Guy" Simmons to articulate my feelings. In this article, he predicted the doom they would face. And then he is trading e-mails with Chuck Klosterman. This is truly an enjoyable piece and I highly recommend it. After reading it, I did have to ask myself though: Is the failure of USA Men's Basketball team karma kicking the US's butt for being a pretty crappy society in general for the past few years? As Klosterman writes: "Everything wrong with America seemed to manifest itself during the second quarter of that [US's 92-73 loss to Puerto Rico] game.

Sports Guy and Klosterman also had some other fun thoughts. Here are a few quotes that made me laugh out loud:

Klosterman: "Even if we somehow bounce back and win the gold, it's over for us as a nation; this is like when the Spanish Armada got iced in 1588. We might as well start caring about soccer."

Sports Guy: "This entire Olympics has been creeping me out. First of all, there's nobody there. Bob Costas tried to explain that last weekend was a holy weekend in Greece or something, as if that was an adequate explanation why we're holding the Olympics in a place that only had 40 fans for every event. It's like watching an Atlanta Hawks home game for two consecutive weeks. For 2008, they should just move the Summer Olympics to Egypt during Ramadan."

Sports Guy: "As for the "women's" (and I use that word loosely) gymnastics on Sunday night ... I mean, what would possess someone to direct his or her daughter toward the seedy world of competitive gymnastics? Would you ever send your kid to the Karolyi Ranch? After the ongoing Michael Jackson fiasco, isn't it every parent's duty to avoid sending their kids to a place that features someone's last name with the word "Ranch?"

Klosterman (on the hot hot bodies of swimmers): "Well, of course, they do; there has to be some upside to being wet all the damn time. Don't these dudes realize that's how the Vietcong used to torture people? "

Funnies aside, the US Men's Basketball team is apprently the most hated team in the Olympics, but not only by the Greeks and other Euoros, but even by their fans. Jim Caple questions whether anyone on the Dream Team should even be considered Olympians? This MSNBC article sums it up with the following paragraph:

"Fans have been getting more and more put off over the years by the disppearance
of basic skills and team play in the NBA and a simultaneous surge of young
players who think the game is all about dunks, sneaker deals and $100 million
contracts."

But we really shouldn't blame this particular "Dream Team." Donnie Nelson cites flawed player development that has gone on for years. Remember last year's World Championships? The US got sixth place! SIXTH PLACE!!! In all of history no one has ever remembered the sixth place finisher...except the US Men's Basketball Team in the 2003 World Champsionships.

More than a few sports writers blame the lack of maturity for the team's troubles. In addition to an international explosion of the sport, this Washington Post article (by PTI's Mike Wilbon) argues that the US isn't producing good all around players anymore due to few athletes going to college and/or spending more than a few years there. NCAA basketball could and would teach these people a few things about defense, selflessness and being part of a team. More than anything though, the Olympics are more like the NCAA tournament than the NBA playoffs. The Olympics aren't a best of seven series. Every team needs to survive to play another game until they win that Gold medal.

Also, I don't like the Greeks for not taking advantage of hosting the Olympics. I can't talk about this right now, but I am very upset.

If I had to characterize the situation in Iraq right now, I'd call it tenuous positive.

The vast majority of violent attacks in the nation are being perpetrated by insurgents and militias-- a majority of the ladder being controlled by extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. His forces and other enemies of peace in Iraq have found refuge in the town of Najaf, which has become target numero uno for the U.S. and Iraqi military forces.

The Iraqi government (boy it feels good to be able to write that) has issued an ultimatum to al-Sadr, demanding that he disarm and disband his militias or face seige by Iraqi forces in Najaf. In a bout of good news, according to this Washington Times article, a spokesperson for al-Sadr has informed Iraqi government officials that he will agree to their terms to achieve peace. If sincere, this marks a huge milestone in Iraq's gradual move towards peace.

But not so fast. According to this CNN article, Iraqi officials report that they still have not spoken with al-Sadr in person. And fierce fighting still continues in Najaf. So I guess we wait and watch this one closely.

I know from past studies that Indiana is in the bottom half of the states in terms of obesity rates. Fairly typical of the midwest, with super-high carb food in abundance and lazy summer nights. Anyways, there is hope. According to this report, Indiana receives a grade C in both categories: "State Efforts to Control Obesity" and "State Efforts to Control Childhood Obesity."

By itself this grade isn't that great, but in relative terms it bodes well. In each category, no state received an A, only a few states received a B, and the vast majority received D's and F's.

On a sidenote: Back on July 9 I wrote about my strategy to lose weight for the summer. It basically included cutting carbs and jogging more regularly. I stated in that post that I was burning my bridges by publicly stating that I would post my weight loss or gain every month.

In that effort, I guess I fibbed, because I made no subsequent posts. Anyways, I'm now down 15 pounds for the summer, which isn't bad, but considering I was down 10 pounds on July 9, it is obvious I did not follow my strategy very well. Time to redouble the attack on the carbs.