I updated my sports links on the sidebar to reflect the BearTerritory.net since I’m writing there now and while I was at it, I added the blogs I thought were worth of adding at this time.

If you’re asking yourself, “why am I not on the list?” this is where you’re going to get your answer.  See, I’m very picky about what sites I will link to because I don’t want to end up with a huge blogroll that is meaningless.  Here are the criteria I use for my blogroll:

1. No vulgarity – I’m very picky about this.  My brother’s blog doesn’t make the cut for this reason.  That’s how picky I am.
2. No over the top comments.  Although I sometimes enjoy the ridiculously over the top put downs of others (political opponents, sports opponents, etc.), I generally prefer a more rational discussion with charity towards others.
3. Regular posting.  While I’ll accept sites that don’t post in the slow times of the year, I want the site to have at least one post a week during the peak periods/season.
4. Meaningful content.  Only blogs that are adding their own meaningful content/commentary (or doing a meaningful job of being a collector of articles) are worth the time to read.
5. Optional: Cross links to me.  Although I don’t require this (there’s kind of a chicken and an egg problem here if everyone had this as a strict policy), I definitely appreciate those who appreciate me.
6. Stood the test of time.  There are a number of blogs out there that I’m reading and  might later make the cut.  I have a fairly long evaluation period and any slip-ups in vulgarity and the such require a long probation before being added/re-added.

That’s it.  If you have a blog you’d like to promote, this is the post in which to make a comment about your blog.  I’ll add it to my daily reading list.  I’m always looking for good material to read.

Wynette and I have been having a discussion down in the comments for the Slimy Politics post that I think is worth the focus of a new post.  I’ll start by quoting Wynette’s latest comment:

I fully understand the temptation to find the “all-perfect” third-party candidate to vote for, particularly after being disgusted by the recent headlines of political immorality, but the simple botton-line is a vote for anyone other than Doolittle will result in a Democratic win, which would be very damaging to critical life issues.

Father Pavone addresses the quandry of trying to decide between too less-than-desirable candidates and being tempted to vote for a third-party, “Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate out of office.”

I’m not in Congressman Doolittle’s district, but I have read about the business allegations made against him and his wife, which are certainly a moral concern. However, with just a few weeks until November 7th, I encourage you to consider voting for him in order to keep the “worst candidate out of office…”

I have a great deal of respect for Father Pavone and what he has accomplished and continues to fight for, but I think it is important not to take a too politically expedient perspective on how to vote.  While keeping a bad candidate out of office is an important factor, there is also a time to make a more principled stand.  This is not about finding a “perfect” candidate, it’s about sending a message to the Republican party that seems to be drunk on power.  Drunk enough that without a stern repremand will only continue to head down the path of supporting new evils just like the Democratic party did earlier in the century.

So the question remains, how does one decide when one should make that stand?  After trying on my own to come up with some criteria, it occured to me that we have a blue-print to follow: Just War Theory.

See, when faced with the possibility of needing to vote for a 3rd candidate, it generally means we’re accepting that evil will occur in the short term (as neither candidate will prevent it) and we’re willing to accept that to find a long term solution.  This is very similar to the choices one must make when deciding to wage war.

Obviously not all of Just War Theory is relevant to an election, but here are the aspects that I think are:

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
2. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury. 
3. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
4. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
5. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

I’ll re-word these to address an election:

1. Both candidates must be signficantly morally compromised without hope of redemption to consider looking elsewhere.
2. There must be specific ways in which both candidates are morally compromised.  For the encumbant this means a voting record that includes injustices and for the challenger a threat of a voting record (or a previous record in other capacities) that is similarly compromised.
3. Voting for the 3rd party has a resonable chance of making an impact.
4. The goal of voting for the 3rd party must be to effect positive change down the road.
5. The differential in evil that would occur should the worse of the two candidates be elected must be less than the long term evil that the lesser of the two candidates going unchecked.

As I mentioned in the previous post I haven’t done enough research to know whether my current Congressional race has reached this level particularly in regards to criteria #1 and #2, but what I will say is that in areas #3 and #4 it would definitely be justified.

The Republican party is suffering right now from unchecked power.  They know that they are the only alternative to the rabbidly immoral Democratic party and that position of comfort has led to unspeakable immorality on their part.  This inexcusable move towards allowing torture is an example of it.  The growing list of personal moral abuses is another.  The continued exaggerated favoring of business interests even in the face of abusing human beings is a third.  A significant setback in the 2006 elections would force them to re-think their positions and I believe would help to purify the party.

Additionally, I am pretty confident that #5 can be justified.  The reality is that the most aggregious moral abuse in this country (abortion) is only minimally relevant issue for the House of Representatives at this juncture.  95% of all abortions are protected by Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.  The partial birth abortion bans and parental notification laws although good, only affect a small percentage of abortions.

What that means is that the only elected official who can have a substantive impact on abortion is the President through his Supreme Court nominations and to a lesser degree the Senators who confirm the nominations.  But that also means that my Congressman has a VERY small impact on the issue and therefore the increased evil that a pro-abortion Congressman could do is minimal.

But what I don’t know is how bad Doolittle’s actions are.  Until I do, I won’t know who I’m going to vote for.

Boy, I can’t remember a time when a team has displayed as bad of sportsmanship as the Oklahoma Sooners football team.

For those not in the know, last Saturday they played a very tight game against Oregon.  The game went back and forth.  Late in the 4th quarter with the Oregon Ducks down by 13 points, the Ducks scored a TD to cut the deficit to 6.  On the ensuing kickoff they went for an onside kick and recovered.  But wait, there’s a rule for an onside kick that the ball must travel 10 yards before it can be touched by an Oregon player and the replay showed that it might have been touched after about 9 yards (which would give the ball to Oklahoma).  The instant replay team reviewed the play and decided the video evidence wasn’t conclusive and let the play stand.

To make a long story short, Oregon marched down the field, scored a TD and then blocked a last second field goal attempt by Oklahoma to win the game.

Oklahoma has been on a crusade the last 4 days to tell the world how large of an injustice has been committed against them.  Not only has the coach been on the rampage, the President of the University (not just of Athletics, but the whole University) wrote a letter to their conference asking that the game be declared void. (source – about 2/3rds of the way down)

Of course that is never going to happen, seeing as how this is the 4,394,328th game in which the refs “stole” the game from losing team, but thanks for the attempt.

Nevertheless, the Pac-10 conference reviewed the play in question and decided that Oklahoma was correct and that they should have gotten the ball.  They apologized to Oklahoma and suspended the refs in question for a game. (source)

So you’d think that Oklahoma would be satisfied, or at least placated, yes?

No.

Now they’re saying they’re not going to play any more games against Pac-10 teams including canceling an existing contract they have with the University of Washington in 2008 if they don’t get their way and get to pick their own refs for future games in the Pac-10. (source)

I’m sorry but this is just pathetic.  As a friend of mine says, if one call by a ref is enough to change the outcome of the game, the game was so close that any bounce of the ball could have had the same effect.  To claim that you were robbed is overstating.  If you want to keep fate out of the equation, you need to make sure that you’re victory is more decisive.

But beyond that, talk about being sore losers.  Apparently people at the University of Oklahoma don’t realize that football is a game.  I decided to file this both under the sports category as well as the morals category because it seems that we’re marching farther and farther down the road to where people don’t seem to realize the difference between a game and live and death issues.

I’m a very intense fan.  I cheer loud. I rant and rave during the game.  I call referees good judgement into question and whether they need a new optomitrist.  I question what kind of unprescribed medications the coaches are taking.  I even occasionally question whether a player deserves their scholarship.  But you know what, when the game is over, I remember that it is a game and it’s supposed to be fun.

Apparently those at the University of Oklahoma have lost sight of that.

I’m sure some of my readers have been reading about the bru-ha-ha that is growing regarding the Pope’s speech last Tuesday.  What most people have not seen is what the Pope actually has said.  Here is the pdf of the speech itself.  However I’ll go beyond that to show the quote that is the source of this outrage for those who don’t want to read the whole thing:

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.

Note: Italized quote is what is drawing the criticism, bold is my emphasis.

I will not deny that the Pope chose a poor quote for the point he was trying to make considering today’s political climate.  However, it is clear from reading the document that the Pope’s intent was clearly NOT to defame Islam, but to stress the importance of dialogue over violence.  The Pope makes it clear that he is quoting someone else and both prepends and postpends a disclaimer speaking to the harsh language being used (see bolded phrases).

What strikes me about this is how much the Pope’s point is being made in the events since the speech.  While his speech calls for dialogue, those who codemn him have responded with violence and hatred.  One influential Muslim going so far as to say “Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence.” (source)

If that isn’t an ironic statement, I don’t know what is.

When I first read about this controversy, I didn’t think much of it.  I figured it would blow over in a couple of days.  Sadly this has not been the case and violence in the middle east towards Christians is on the rise.

This is a time for prayer:

Heavenly Father, forgive me my sins and help me to rise above my weaknesses.  Help all of us to see the precious gift of life that you have given us all.  Help us to see that violence in your name is not your Will but an offense against your Will.  Give us all the strength to forgive those who have wronged us and that same strength to those we have wronged.  Lead us to peace in your Holy Name.

I thought this was an interesting story.  Turns out that the Pope’s parents met through a personal ad in the paper.  It’s funny to hear the ad from today’s perspective:

Middle-ranking civil servant, single, Catholic, 43, immaculate past, from the country, is looking for a good Catholic, pure girl who can cook well, tackle all household chores, with a talent for sewing and homemaking with a view to marriage as soon as possible. Fortune desirable but not a precondition.

Anybody think a woman today would answer that ad?  More likely the man would be beat by an angry mob of women.

But to all those who use a dating service, have hope: you just might find that perfect someone who will join with you to have a future Pope!

A recent story has broke that HP spied on its board members to find who was leaking info to the press.  I’m very disappointed that it has come to this, but I think the story is being spun the wrong way by the very press that enjoyed the information it was getting leaked.

First of all, there is no excuse for “leaking” news.  If a board member thinks the news media should get some piece of information, then he/she should come right out and tell them.  And if he can’t because of non-disclosure rules and the board won’t let him, he should go to the press and make an announcement that the board is refusing to release important information to the press that he is unfortunately unable to tell them.

So in that sense statments in the article like:

“Speaking out is a time honored tradition in the age of ornamental boards,” McGurn said. “It’s something that management, and CEOs in particular, have hated — but they usually let it slide.” 

are complete bogus.  They have nothing to do with the situation at hand.  This was secretly leaking information not “speaking out”.  As such, I have sympathy for the HP board and none for the press.  But there is another half of the story: spying.

Just as similarly, the board should not have been spying on anyone in the company, board members included.  If they suspected that someone was leaking inappropriate information, they should go to the person, make the accusation, and go through whatever formal steps necessary to make a determination whether that person was indeed leaking information.

What this article and so much of the discussion surrounding corporate America seem to forget is that there is a HUGE difference between honesty and transparency.  The real goal should be honesty.  Transparency is only a substitute for honesty.  It’s a way to ensure that people are telling the truth because one can see the behind the scenes stuff to verify the information.

So the difficulty becomes, where does the stock market need to “force” honesty by requiring transparency.  I don’t have the answer to these questions as I’m not a financial guy.  But what I do know is that the fundamental problem is a lack of character that is most manifest in a lack of honesty.

And it bugs me that the company I work for, once a proud example of honesty and integrity, has a management team that with the exception of Perkins (who quit over the issue months ago) no longer appreciates those values on both sides of this dispute.

There’s an interesting point/counter point opinion duel at Forbes.com about whether career women make bad wives.

My first thought is to quote Benjamin Disreali “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”

See the problem with statistics is that they aren’t universally appliable.  (This is a point that Mrs. Corcoran doesn’t seem to understand in her use of herself as an anecdotal rebutal, but I digress.)  What does it mean when you hear that career women are 30% (or whatever) more likely to get divorced?  Would it be better to marry a woman you don’t like as much instead while your heart is still with the career woman?  See, we live in a world of specifics, not statistics.

Additionally, often what happens when gathering statistics is that really you’re seeing a different trend, one that is a only incidentally related to the supposed trend.  To some degree Mr. Noer admits this in his couple paragraphs where he looks for an underlying cause.  Shouldn’t it be the underlying cause that we should be trying to avoid not just career women?

If I had to pick the appropriate attribute that a man should be looking for in a potential wife in regards to this topic it would be to make sure you find a woman who puts her marriage solidly above her career in her priority list.  And before anyone calls me a male pig, I would tell the same thing to a woman for the attributes she should be looking for in a husband.

See, the real problem that can occur with duel working families is that the priorities get out of whack.  The career becomes a non-negotiable aspect of their life even when it means the end of their marriage.  When the time comes for a tough decision to be made (and that time WILL come, it’s just a matter of time), what will sink a marriage is when one or both of the individuals is unwilling to put the marriage first.  Often you hear stories of both individuals being exhausted and never having time for one another, particularly now that kids are part of the picture, and it’s tearing their marriage apart.  OK, fine, why in God’s name don’t you do something about it?  Shouldn’t one of you take some time off work?  Can’t afford it?  Well, change your lifestyle so that you can.

See, in the end, marriage is all about commitment and being willing to adapt and make the changes necessary to succeed.  Anyone who isn’t willing to make those changes, they’re not going to be very happy in a marriage.

Oh, and before I close, raising kids is difficult enough with a parent at home.  Anyone who expects to do have children better be ready to have one of the two parents at home at some point or deal with the significant downsides of not doing so.

I was reading an article about the recent approval of plan-B for over-the-counter sales (ugh, so let me get this straight: the low dose form (aka birth-control pills) those require a prescription, but the high dose plan-B doesn’t?) and it struck me (as it has before) how much the word pregnancy has become a bad word like cancer.  “Anything we can do to prevent a pregancy!”

Just another example of how the world has changed to see the family and new life as a bad thing.

I was reading an article about pharmacists and dispensing birth-control or abortifacients.  The arguments continue to amaze me.  It’s best summed up by one line in the article:

“The discussion often comes down to one of rights: the right of pharmacists not to do something that violates their consciences versus the right of patients to obtain legally prescribed medications.”

Since when is “obtaining legally prescribed medications” a right?  I’m pretty darned sure that if a person shows up at a pharmacy without money their “right” to that medication will be refused.  In other words, there is no right to medical treatment in this country.

It seems to me that yet again the issue is that the debate is being held in the wrong arena.  If I go to an Indian resturant and they “refuse” to serve me a steak, is my “right” to eat beef being violated?  No, it isn’t.  If I want a steak, I need to go somewhere else.  However, it is well within my rights to refuse to eat there and/or put pressure on the company/resturant to sell steaks.

I believe the same scenario applies to the medical industry as a whole.

I’ve got no problem (from a legal/governmental perspective) with Planned Parenthood protesting Target for allowing their pharamists to exercise their freedom of conscience by not dispensing plan-B.  I’ve also got no problem with Walmart firing a pharacist who exercises their freedom of conscience just as I’ve got no problem with Cattlemans Steak House firing an Indian chef who refuses to cook a steak.

But I DO have a problem with the government forcing people to do things they do not want to do, including pharmacists who would otherwise be able to keep their jobs.

So, to recap: If you want a steak, don’t go to an Indian resturant. If you want fried dog for dinner, you may have to drive a while to find a place that will serve it to you.  If you want your pharmacist to give you what he considers to be immoral prescriptions, go find a new pharmacist.  If there aren’t any pharmacists who will fill your prescription in the area, do what any fried dog lover would do: move/go somewhere where you can.

Update (after comment #8): My brother has posted on the subject.  The key quote that shows his lack of consistency: “I believe that no one should ever force their morals onto someone else, and that includes me forcing my morals onto Pharmacists, but honestly, if they don’t like the rules of being a pharmacist, they can get another  job for all I care.”

So, no forcing morals on Pharmacists… except they should do what you say or get a new career?

I was reading a blog post over at Dale Price’s blog where he was seeking advice on how to deal with daily Mass attendees who criticize his wife for bringing the children to Mass.  My suggestion was to forgive those who comment and continue to bring the kids.

But the issue got me to thinking about a father’s role in the family and forgiveness.  Moments like the one Dale points to are infuriating to the family.  It’s easy to get really angry.  Sadly forgiveness if often seen as a wimpy solution to the problem.  To use a different word besides wimpy, try efiminate.

There is frequent talk about why men don’t come to Church and a big reason is because Church is put in very feminine terms these days: love, peace, forgiveness (in the wimpy sense).  Many talk about changing the things we emphasize to cater more to men.  While I think there are some things that need to be done in this regard, the big risk here is that we miss that love, peace and forgiveness are not necessarily femine things.

Specifically with forgiveness, it takes great strength to forgive when threatened or abused.  I think of the example from the movie Braveheart where Wallace asks forgiveness of his father-in-law for the events that led to his wife (his father-in-law’s daughter) being killed by the authorities.  Wallace gets down on one knee in front of him.  The father-in-law puts out his shaking hand at first as if to grab him in a violent way.  He then recoils slightly, calms his hand, and places it on Wallaces head in an act of forgiveness.

THAT is a masculine forgiveness.  One that takes strength, honor and discipline.  One that summons all the strength one has to muster.

We as fathers need to instill that sense of forgiveness in our families.  We need to teach it to our children.  We need to be leaders with our wifes in displaying it.  We need to help our priests proclaim this masculine nature of forgiveness.  That turn the other cheek is NOT about some mild tap and a wimpy reply, that it is about being repeatedly pounded to the ground and having the fortitude quell the pain, to stand up and look your aggressor boldly in the eyes while you stand before him and proclaim “I forgive you”.