 |
Monday, March 31, 2003 Quote of the Day The human race, to which so many of my readers belong, has been playing at children's games from the beginning, and will probably do it till the end, which is a nuisance for the few people who grow up. And one of the games to which it is most attached is called "Keep to-morrow dark," and which is also named (by the rustics in Shropshire, I have no doubt) "Cheat the Prophet." The players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have to say about what is to happen in the next generation. The players then wait until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. Then they go and do something else. That is all. For a race of simple tastes, however, it is great fun. -G.K. Chesterton
Instant Messenger Debate Below is an interesting debate I had over instant messenger. The opposition's screenname has been replaced by anonymous, due to his/her wishes. << anonymous: so you're saying you don't like the fact that i think it's a sin for two men to have sex? anonymous: because if you are, you're not the first to catch that subtle point in the column TheProducer74: I think its misguided to condemn the act, but supposedly support the gay person... and the point was not subtle anonymous: okay, so it wasn't subtle anonymous: how is it misguided? TheProducer74: because it is impossible to accept the homosexual without accepting homosexuality anonymous: is it? anonymous: i accept the adulter without accepting the adultry TheProducer74: I've heard this argument before.... the key difference is that God did not create people to be adulterers, he did create homosexuals anonymous: define adultery for me then TheProducer74: we both know what adultery is... the point is that two homosexuals can engage in a loving monogomous relationship, just as two heterosexuals can TheProducer74: the adulterer breaks the moral imperatives of love, respect, devotion etc.... the homosexual need not break any of these moral imperatives anonymous: need not break them? can they break them/ anonymous: ? TheProducer74: of course they can break, just as a heterosexual can.. but the mere act of homosexuality does not break them... as I said before, two gay people can easily enter into a loving devoted marriage anonymous: what do you mean by easily? TheProducer74: I mean that 2 gay people can choose to have a committed relationship with a promise between them, just as 2 heterosexuals can anonymous: yes they can anonymous: anyone can do anything anonymous: (well, except texas and other states), but you get my point TheProducer74: adulterers are sinners because they break many moral principles (devoted love, respect for committment, etc.)... homosexuals break no such principles... therefore any biblical passage that condemns homosexuality, condemns God's creation, rather than referring to overreaching moral values... and therefore, such a passage is meritless anonymous: so which shall we discard? turn the other check or an eye for an eye? TheProducer74: by the way, I could have typed out both sides of this debate, before it even began... very predictable anonymous: let's cut and paste ourselves a bible that makes sense in today's culture and every 50 years, we'll revise it... we can have a Bible 1.0... Bible 2.0... anonymous: uh huh anonymous: i've had it before TheProducer74: to ignore man's influence on the Bible is folly... to ignore the fact that the Bible is inconsistent with itself at times, it pure ignorance (remember what I said about ignorance in my earlier away message) TheProducer74: understanding the moral imperatives from God requires a wholistic reading of the Bible as well as an empirical approach to life in general TheProducer74: I don't think God hides from us the lessons that life has to teach us about his will >> Well, there it is: typos, spelling errors, bad grammar, and all. By no means an exhaustive argument of both sides. Anyways, you decide. Sunday, March 30, 2003 Site Reorganization Okay, so I've learned a couple of things in the time since this site's birth. First, the Quote Board was a bad idea, or perhaps an idea ahead of its due time. I couldn't figure out if I wanted to put philosophical quotes on it, quotes of my own, or random quotes overheard from my friends. In any case, indeciveness led to inaction, and inaction to no quotes on the Quote Board. As the site's traffic picks up and the subsequent reader comments also pick up, I'll add a Reader Response section. Second, to keep page loading times low, I've decided to only keep the last 7 days of posting on the front page. The remainder of the days' postings will be placed in the Archive. Finally, I have now added three of my own poems to the Poetry section. Enjoy
A Defense of Operation Iraqi Freedom Check out this letter to the editor of The Observer, Notre Dame's daily newspaper. Written by three of my fellow semester in D.C. students, this letter does an excellent job refuting the "blood for oil" argument against the war.
The Political Quadrant Too often political ideology in America is mapped upon a linear spectrum. Many civics textbooks graph it this way, as do many of the numerous talking heads who create the voluminous political hot-air that is expelled by this nation every day. At one point in the last few years (I wish I could remember where) I saw a much better tool for visualizing the landscape of political ideology in America: a Quadrant rather than a Line of ideology. The basic premise behind this graph (see below) is that political ideology can be split into two axes: economic and personal. One's position along the axes depends on how much they think government should be responsible. Libertarians and Populists lie at the quadrant's extremes, therefore the two political parties are polarized around the Conservative and Liberal ideologies. The colored shading in the graph represents general voting affinities.
The Chimera of Journalism, cont... In today's Washington Post, Rick Atkinson and Thomas E. Ricks have an article entitled "War's Military, Political Goals Begin to Diverge." This appears to be yet another scare tactic by the American left-wing media. For one, the headline is completely misleading. The article discusses differences of strategy (how many troops, what timeline, etc.), not differences of goals: the removal of the current corrupt Iraqi regime and its supporting military elements. For another, the article makes a bad assumption. Its first paragraph reads as follows: Ten days into the invasion of Iraq, the political imperative of waging a short and decisive campaign is increasingly at odds with the military necessity of preparing for a protracted, more violent and costly war, according to senior military officials. For "journalists" who are supposed to try to be unbiased, Atkinson and Ricks fail miserably. They speak about the political imperative of waging a short and decisive campaign, yet what evidence of such a political imperative do they present? In fact, there is none. Support for the war has steadily gained since its beginning, and polls decisively show that Americans are prepared for a war that could last longer than the extremely optimistic estimates of 1-2 weeks. The article itself states that the current military campaign could grow to resemble the first Gulf War with several weeks of air strikes before further ground advance. But this comparison defies their statement regarding a political imperative for a short war. If Americans accepted Gulf War I, then why would they not support Operation Iraqi Freedom in the same timeframe but with greater overall goals? If there is a good answer to this question, this article certainly does not contain it. An article on Rush Limbaugh's website places this conflict in historical perspective and further debunks the Post's negativity. Friday, March 21, 2003 The Thursday That Was I apologize for not blogging more often in the last week. I've had a few scattered thoughts, but nothing that I could firm up. As the old quote says, 'A thought isn't finalized until it is written down.' I've thought a lot about the war in Iraq, but with the volumes being said and written currently on this matter, I'm afraid that my share would have been overkill. On a more personal note, yesterday (Thursday, 3.20) was a day worthy of remembrance. Thursday is my day off during the week. I don't have work or class, so I usually use the free time to catch up on reading and to do my laundry. This Thursday I was glued to the television. With the United States beginning the war in Iraq (along with the unprecedented embedded media coverage of the war), and with the first day of the NCAA College Basketball tourny, my TV viewing was an orchestra of competing emotions and priorities. Being an Indiana native, basketball in March is a near religion for me. Nevertheless, I split my viewing time between the war and basketball. Then, at 7 PM, I attended the National Symphony Orchestra along with several other Notre Dame students. Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet provided an ominous orchestral backdrop to the images flying through my mind, including a queer mix of images of war and basketball. After the symphony, several of us watched Notre Dame play Wisconsin-Milwaukee in the first round of the Big Dance. With ND up only one point and only a couple of seconds left on the game clock, one of Wisconsin-Milwaukee's player shot a lay-up. As the basketball hung on the rim, so did the fate of the game hang on that moment. The ball rolled off and ND came away victorious. In the same manner, the fate of Iraq hangs on the numerous decisions of heroes, villains, and ordinary men. "Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do," Johann von Goethe. Thursday, March 13, 2003 Senate Passes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Today the United States Senate passed a ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure. Sponsored by Sen. Santorum (R-PA), the bill is very likely to pass in the House without any major changes. In the recent past, similar legislation made it through Congress, but was vetoed by then President Bill Clinton. With President Bush pledging to sign this legislation, a court battle will probably ensue over the bill's constitutionality. I have two contentions to make: First, certain news sources, including CNN in their useless subtitles, have used the phrase "late-term abortion" rather than "partial-birth abortion." This must be seen as an attempt by these media institutions to rouse opposition to the legislation. In fact, the procedure banned under this pending legislation is exactly as the bill's title states, a partial-birth abortion. The baby is turned around in the womb to create a breach birth; it is then partially born until only the head remains in the birth cavity; the abortion proceeds. By calling it a "late-term abortion ban" one implies that the the bill would ban a more broad class of abortions that are late-term including third trimester abortions which are often called late-term. Let us not mince words. Semantic clarity is needed to reach a proper understanding of the topic at hand. Second, I have an eerie feeling that even while the passage of this ban is being considered a success to the Pro-Life cause, it is in fact a risky move. This is virgin Constitutional territory. For the Federal Government to pass any law, it needs to base it in one of the enumerated powers contained in the Constitution. The Constitution does not directly give Congress the power to pass legislation regarding abortion, therefore it will have to argue in front of the courts that the bill falls under another power, such as the Commerce Clause. Fortunately for Constitutional law, but unfortunately for those wishing this bill to survive legal scrutiny, the Supreme Court has increasingly taken a stance against undue stretching of the Commerce Clause. See United States v. Lopez (1995). Even if it survives this legal hurdle then it still must face a Supreme Court that has ruled against a partial-birth abortion ban enacted by a state, Nebraska. See Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). By passing this legislation, Pro-Life leaders have forced the issue to a Constitutional challenge. A defeat at this level will add unhealthy precedent to any further actions that the states' governments may be considering. I am unabashedly pro-life, but I also feel strongly in preserving the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution. Just as I oppose Roe v. Wade on Constitutional grounds, I would also oppose this new partial-birth abortion ban on the same grounds. The Pro-Life movement needs to occur in the hearts of the people, in the state governments (where they have Constitutional powers to make laws regarding the health and welfare of their citizens), and possibly in the form of a Pro-Life Amendment, should the country attain such a consensus. Monday, March 10, 2003 Bush v. Dean in 2004? Predictions are an inherently risky endeavor-- especially political predictions. Nevertheless, I have an inkling that former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont will get the Democratic nod for the Presidential race in 2004. Point one: he will not be seen as a Washington insider. Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, etc. are Washington insiders. Recent history has shown a tremendous advantage for governors: Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. Point two: he's new to the Presidential race. Strike out Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, and Hart. The Democrats haven't had new blood since Clinton; they need Dean. Point three: Dean exhibits a tremendous personality. From his performance on Meet the Press, he came across gentle, but firm and independent at the same time. His firm stance against a war in Iraq shows that he will not debase himself to follow the indecisive democratic lead that lost the party the midterm elections.
One of the criticisms of Dean has been that he is too liberal. While candidates certainly do not want to be seen as extremists in either direction, more leeway exists in the primaries than in the main race. The typical pattern is for a Presidential candidate to move to a slightly more extreme position to firm up his base party support during the primary phase and then to move to the center during the main race to capture the fence-sitters. One of the dramas of the next Presidential election will be how well Dean is able to shift his stance during each phase of the race.
The Supreme Court v. the American People? As reported by the San Francisco Gate, a poll done by Quinnipiac University in Connecticut reports that 76% of those polled think that the Supreme Court should considered public opinion in making their decisions. 38% of the total poll said that public opinion should have a great deal of influence. Is this an indictment of public civics education as Rush Limbaugh suggests, or is it an ominous sign of a growing disregard for the United States Constitution? Or both? Alas, Justice Scalia places the blame squarely on the Supreme Court itself. In his dissent in the seminal abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Nos. 91-744 and 91-902, 1992) he stated: In truth, I am as distressed as the Court is--and expressed my distress several years ago, see Webster , 492 U. S., at 535--about the "political pressure" directed to the Court: the marches, the mail, the protests aimed at inducing us to change our opinions. How upsetting it is, that so many of our citizens (good people, not lawless ones, on both sides of this abortion issue, and on various sides of other issues as well) think that we Justices should properly take into account their views, as though we were engaged not in ascertaining an objective law but in determining some kind of social consensus. The Court would profit, I think, from giving less attention to the fact of this distressing phenomenon, and more attention to the cause of it. That cause permeates today's opinion: a new mode of constitutional adjudication that relies not upon text and traditional practice to determine the law, but upon what the Court calls "reasoned judgment," ... which turns out to be nothing but philosophical predilection and moral intuition. 'nuff said. Thursday, March 6, 2003 U.S. Representative Marcy Kaptur Compares Osama Bin Laden to American Revolutionaries Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio has recently compared Islamist terrorism and its leader OBL to the American revolutionaries. She said: One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown. See more of her comments at the Toledo Blade. What is so unnerving about her comments is that they are just one example of a growing misunderstanding of the history of our country including the American Revolution. The difference are simple, yet stark. The Islamist terrorists kill innocent civilians. The soldiers of the American Revolution killed British soldiers. The Islamist terrorists kill others to enforce their extreme brand of Islam on others and to destroy other cultures. The American Revolutionaries fought British tyranny over the colonies with boycotts, petitions, protests, and refusals to pay taxes. People who make statements like those of Ms. Kaptur exhibit a dangerous form of ignorance. The terrorists who plotted to kill thousands of people on September 11; the terrorists who are still at large right now; the terrorists who act to destroy the principles that this nation was built upon represent the gravest threat to our security this century, perhaps ever. Those who strive to legitimate them by comparing them to our own revolutionaries only further their cause.
Marlin Fitzwater, John Harwood, and the Role of the Television Media One of the themes that has interested me recently is that of the television media and its role in politics in America. On Monday I listened to a talk by John Harwood, senior political correspondant for the Wall Street Journal. He described how television media, including the latest cable onslaught, has dramatically increased the number of reporters that cover politics in America, specifically the Presidency. He said that this media expansiveness has limited the depth that individual reporters can cover a President. More generally, he said that today's state of journalism forces candidates to always "speak to the camera" and that off-record in-depth reporting is far less possible. Marlin Fitzwater touched on a similar topic tonight in his talk. I asked him to compare the role of the President's Press Secretary now with that of of past press secretaries. He said that Mike McCurry (under Bill Clinton) was the first to provide completely televised press conferences on a regular basis. Today, Ari Fleischer does the same thing. Mr. Fitzwater said that televised press conferences are fundamentally different from those he presided over. Specifically, he stated that the Press Secretary's job has changed from channeling information to the press to making a performance for the television cameras. He said that personally he felt this was a negative change, but that there would be no going back to the way it was. Television's effects on the reporting of politics in America are truly immense. With the rise of 24/7 cable news outlets, the full effects have yet to be seen. The pending war in Iraq will have the most coverage of any war in the history of time. With political scientists, historians, and journalists still grappling with the question of television's influence on American politics; the internet has now arrived. We are at the beginning of this new tidal wave. Wednesday, March 5, 2003 A reader responds... According to one of my friends, Brendan Magee, who declares himself to be an "occasional cigarette smoker": Calling pipe smoking one of the healthiest forms of tobacco use is like calling anthrax one of the healthiest forms of biological weapons. First of all, the fact that he chooses to smoke cigarettes completely discredits any opinion he might hold. And second, well, there doesn't need to be a second. Of course, I kid.
Daily Contentions getting too serious? Then check out The Onion Here is just one example of their fine material: "U.S. Capitol Cleaning Turns Up Long-Lost Constitution" WASHINGTON, DC&emdash;Lost for nearly two years, the U.S. Constitution was found Tuesday behind a couch in the Governor's Reception Room. "Wow, I forgot all about that thing," said U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), who found the historic document while vacuuming. "Nobody knew what happened to it. Guess it must've fallen back there during a meeting." After making the find, Dodd spent several minutes rereading some of his favorite old amendments.
This Crazy D.C. Weather
The weather in Washington, D.C. since January has been quite a roller coaster. With record snowfall a couple of weeks ago, many were dreading a long drawn-out winter. Yet today's high was a relatively balmy 65 F. Has Spring finally beaten Winter in this annual epic battle?
Think Different? Apple does. According to multiple sources including this article from MacCentral, Apple is seriously considering (perhaps even planning) starting a digital music subscription service. Perhaps as the over-zealous Mac addict that I am, I am overestimating the weight of this news. However, I will nevertheless be so bold as to say that such an Apple music service could create a substantial quake in the technology and music sectors. First, consider the fact that no digital music service has yet to succeed. Some people argue that such services are not even viable, so if Apple gets the right formula, then the industry of music delivery will never be the same. And as is characteristically Apple, they are plowing their own path and going to do things their own way. Remember what the iPod did to the handheld personal digital music player market? Second, if Apple does succeed, it could give them another much-needed constant revenue stream, and strategically place them to gain control of the sought-after digital entertainment delivery industry. Could this mean a comeback for Apple Computer? Tuesday, March 4, 2003 A reader responds... The same reader who sent me the link to the Daily Mirror article about European anti-Americanism {Wed., Feb. 26} also has this to say regarding the article: The thing I found interesting was the mentioning of Pol-Pot and the Nazis. Did anyone ever say the Jews deserved it? Well the answer is yes, but what do we think of those that say the Jews deserved it? Why don't we think the same of all the Hollywood salvation seekers and the like who claim that we deserved it? Those who directly say that the United States deserved September 11, are few indeed. However, how many people imply it to some varying degree and with some convoluted line of reasoning?
"Journalism: Where Even the Men Are Women " Is journalism but a chimera-- an attempt to define the vain efforts of reporters to detach themselves from their stories? What about 'justice'? Is it merely revenge as enacted by a lawbound society? Or is it something more? A couple of interesting questions indeed, although I will not be so bold as to proffer an answer for either. Instead, I will do what I usually do in such times of indecisiveness: resort to humor. For an interesting and funny read, check this article by Ann Coulter on FrontPage Magazine.
European Anti-American Watch The headline says it all: MP apologizes for calling Americans 'bastards'
A New Dawn for Pipe Smoking? I'm certainly not one to advocate cigarette use, but I freely admit to indulging in pipe smoking on occasion. Not only is pipe smoking one of the most healthy forms of tobacco use (because the smoke is not inhaled), but it is also the most sophistocated. There is an undeniable art to the process of packing, lighting, and smoking a pipe. The act takes effort, patience, and a fine-tuned care that is honed with experience. Additionally, the pipe smoker enjoys the added thrill of picking among numerous tobaccos of varying flavors and textures. While pipe smoking will probably not see a dramatic resurgence any time soon, it has historically been undertaken by many of the world's most notable men: General MacArthur, Albert Einstein, and J.R.R. Tolkien to name just a few.
Anyways, the Pipe Smoker of the Year Award for 2003 has been awarded to Stephen Fry. If you wonder who hands out this prestigious award, the answer would be The Pipe Smokers' Council of course. And yes, such an organization does exist. Wednesday, February 26, 2003 "Danish pizzeria bans French and Germans" I saw this headline from Ananova.com on the Drudge Report website (which I highly recommend, by the way). This sentence best sums the article up: He [the pizzeria owner] says Germans will be allowed in if their country joins a war on Iraq, but the French will have to endure a lifetime ban. Besides giving me a few good chuckles-- I mean, France-bashing seems to be the "in" thing-- the article also reminded of a debate I've been having with myself regarding Europe. The main question I've been pondering is whether or not European countries should give their militaries more funding and a higher priority. To be honest I'm not sure which side I take. The argument in favor claims that increased European militaries would make them less dependent on the U.S. to be the enforcement arm of NATO and the United Nations, and thus alleviate their envy of the U.S.'s powerful position. The argument against such militarization claims that a Europe consisting of nations with standing armies is a Europe prone to war and ultimately more bloodshed. Anyways, just some thoughts, no contention this time.
European anti-Americanism Here is an interesting article from London's Daily Mirror-- incredible really considering that the Mirror is largely considered a strongly left-leaning publication. Written by Tony Parsons, the article does a good job separating a stance against war in Iraq with the anti-American stance that many in the United Kingdom and all across Europe have taken. Parsons' main point is a criticism of those that adhere to a philosophy that in some way America deserved 9/11. In short: An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing - nobody deserves this fate. Surely there could be consensus: the victims were truly innocent, the perpetrators truly evil. But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is increasingly seen as America's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism has increased over the last year. Brought to my attention by a friend via e-mail, this article is definitely a refreshing read. With all of the venim coming from our fellows across the ocean, a columnist wiling to make complimentary comments regarding America tells me that Britain will not go the way of France, Germany, and Belgium. On the flip side, however, this column affirms one of my great fears-- that is, the great degree to which anti-Americanism has pervaded European liberals (and some liberals in the U.S. as well). A Europe with so much distaste (hate even?) for the United States cannot be a good thing. The attitudes of anti-American Europeans are distorted, possibly because of their lack of any real military power in the world. If this is indeed true then the aforementioned debate is finished. Tuesday, February 25, 2003 Quote Board I must admit that I'm excited;I've already thought up some new features for the site. For one, I have added a quote board (see tab on left). If you're like me then you hear a lot of inspirational and funny quotes from day to day and want to record them. Some of them will be from my friends, and some will be from famous intellects; all of them will be cool.
Food Crisis For my internship I am currently researching a project dealing with the impending food crisis in Africa. If you are not familiar wih the food crisis, I don't think you are alone. I, myself, didn't know that such a crisis was evolving, and most of my friends are not familar with it as well. This is why I think its important to mention. The bleak fact is that 25-35 million people (depending on the estimates) in Eastern and Southern Africa are in great need of food supplies in the next several months or the regions will see famine. The United States is giving a substantial amount of aid to the World Food Programme via the Department of Agriculture and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Check each site out for more information. Currently, the U.S. contributes slightly over half of the entire food aid to the WFP, so its clear that other countries need to do more along with the U.S. Thankfully, Congress and USAID are looking into the problem and trying to find solutions. Andrew Natsios, the Director of USAID, spoke in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning (at which I was present) and will speak in front of the House's Committee on Thursday. From hearing him speak, I was very impressed. He was not the typical bureaucrat; he spoke directly and answered every question givin him. He was blunt when necessary yet also passionate about the urgency of the problem. Two points from his statement stood out. First, mere food aid is not enough to provide a long-term solution to the food shortage problems of Africa. Developmental aid is necessary and also critically under-provided. Second, while erratic weather is a substantial cause of food shortages in many of the problem areas, corrupt governance and inept economic policies are equally important factors that must be considered. Monday, February 24, 2003 Welcome Hello and welcome to my blog. As is easily apparent, it is brand new, but look for some insightful thoughts and informative links as I add to this page on a daily basis. So, Luke, what is a Blog? A good question. A Blog is short for web-log. Get it? It is a daily or weekly online journal of sorts. Often times, blogs offer political, cultural, and misc. thoughts from the author (called a blogger). I hope to include all of the above and then some. Only time will prove my endeavor productive or not. The site will also include some of my poetry and essays, once I have the time to put them up. To see what blogs are all about, check out some of the blogs that I have linked to on the right side of the page. These I can only hope to aspire to. If you have any comments, rebuttals, or suggestions, my e-mail address is below. I welcome comments and will soon create a section on the site to feature readers' responses.
Contentions? Contention- n. 1. The act or an instance of striving in controversy or debate; 2. A striving to win in competition; rivalry; 3. An assertion put forward in argument; I have envisioned this site to be something than simply another source of news or mindless opinions, but rather as a site where opinions and facts are contended with, challenged in order to best ascertain the truth. But of course, no debate is complete with only one person, so this site will remain incomplete without the input of others. |
As always, I encourage feedback-- comments, criticisms, arguments... you decide which
|
John
Kerry parody... photo courtesy
rushlimbaugh.com
