Secular Fundamentalism

A very interesting article out of Great Britain. I have no idea what the standard is in GB to claim an infringement on "religious rights" (aggregating "establishment" "separation" and "freedom of speech" ideas). I know that in the U.S., if the law itself is facially neutral as the one in the article below appears to be, then you have to show that the legislature intended the law to have a discriminatory impact AND that the law does in fact have such an impact. In other words, Impact + Intent = prima facie case in court! (And, thinking historically, I'm sure many a brave Christian soul would not be surprised at all at this article...think the Lollards and the Wycliffe bible).

"Purity ring" schoolgirl goes to High Court

LONDON (Reuters) - A teenage schoolgirl will appeal to the High Court on Friday to overturn a ban on her wearing a "purity ring" at school to symbolize her decision to abstain from sex before marriage.
Lydia Playfoot, 16, from West Sussex, says the silver ring is an expression of her faith and should be exempt from the school's rules on wearing jewellery.
"It is really important to me because in the Bible it says we should do this," she told BBC radio. "Muslims are allowed to wear headscarves and other faiths can wear bangles and other types of jewellery. It feels like Christians are being discriminated against."
Playfoot's lawyers will argue that her right to express religious belief is upheld by the Human Rights Act.
There have been a series of rows in schools in recent years over the right of pupils to wear religious symbols or clothing, such as crucifixes and veils.
Last year, the Law Lords rejected Shabina Begum's appeal for permission to wear a Muslim gown at her school in Luton. That case echoed a debate in France over the banning of Muslim headscarves in state schools.
Lydia Playfoot's parents help run the British arm of the American campaign group the Silver Ring Thing, which promotes abstinence among young people.
Members wear a ring on the third finger of the left hand. It is inscribed with "Thess. 4:3-4," a reference to a Biblical passage from Thessalonians which reads: "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin."
Lydia's father, Phil Playfoot, said his daughter's case was part of a wider cultural trend towards Christians being "silenced."
"What I would describe as a secular fundamentalism is coming to the fore, which really wants to silence certain beliefs, and Christian views in particular," he said.
Leon Nettley, head teacher of Millais School in Horsham, denies discrimination, saying the ring contravenes the school's rules on wearing jewellery.
"The school is not convinced pupils' rights have been interfered with by the application of the uniform policy," he told the Brighton-based Argus newspaper. "The school has a clearly published uniform policy and sets high standards.

This Article is Not About Paris Hilton

The following is by Matt Kaufman. I said "Amen" so many times while reading the article, I'm sure I brought pride to my Baptist heritage!

Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton.

There: I just had to get everyone's attention. And now that I have, here's an announcement I hope many of you will welcome: I'm not really going to talk about Paris Hilton. Well, not much, anyway — just long enough to talk about why we need to find something else (almost anything else) to talk about.

The only thing worth exploring about the Paris press orgy is why she's such a big deal. You can say that she's just the ultimate manifestation of our vapid, celebrity-obsessed culture — that she's just (in the words of about a zillion pundits) "famous for being famous." But as an explanation for her getting this much attention, that's a bit shallow.

It's true enough that Miss Hilton hasn't made any, shall we say, noteworthy contributions to society so far. In fact, she hasn't made any impact on society at all, for good or ill. Other celebrity girls-gone-wild — Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan — have made an impact: Millions of girls have wanted to be like them. (Though not so much any more.) No one ever wanted to be like Paris. Everyone knows her, but no one ever looked up to her. Just the opposite.

And that's the real reason people talk about Paris Hilton, I think — beyond the usual money/fame/beauty reasons. They can look down on her. They see her as a spoiled ultra-rich kid who takes plenty and gives back nothing, who makes messes and expects other people to clean them up, who breaks the rules the rest of us are supposed to live by and imagines she's entitled to do it.

Someone like Paris Hilton is easy to look down on. All too easy.

One of the devil's favorite tricks is to make us dwell too much on someone else's vices. We can be most vulnerable to him when we feel most virtuous, and that's easiest to do when we disapprove of real character flaws but spot them mainly in others, not ourselves. Celebrities who act outrageous fit well into his strategy. We can go on and on about them without ever feeling like grim, censorious judges: Deriding and mocking them just makes us feel like hip cultural observers.

It should go without saying that a great many celebrities have richly earned the public's disapproval, and they should get it. But we just shouldn't spend much time talking about what's wrong with them — certainly not as much as many of us have spent lately on Paris. We can start enjoying it too quickly. And since it's a lot more enjoyable than thinking about our own vices (how mean or manipulative I was to my girlfriend the other day, how nasty and short-tempered I was to that driver who annoyed me today), it's bound to draw us away from repentance and toward judgmentalism.

And that's not the only problem. Spending much time focusing on celebrities is a counterfeit way of paying attention to events in the world. There are all sorts of stories worth our attention — all sorts of events, both good and bad, that effect vast numbers of people — but hardly anyone is talking about them because they're busy going with Paris or Britney or Lindsey, on the latest antics of Tom Cruise or Rosie O'Donnell.

So let's take a break from all of them for a change. Let's find something else to do: Let's toss out ideas for news stories that really deserve to be new stories, but aren't. I won't even pretend to rank them in order of importance ("The Top 10 Neglected News Stories of 2007"): Lists like that are far too subjective to have any value. But I'll get the ball rolling with a few things that should get our attention:

• Abortion is an old topic most people don't want to discuss any more. But there's no decent way to ignore it. Every year in the U.S., well over 1 million children fall victim to abortionists' poisonous chemicals and sharp-edged tools. That language isn't graphic: It's a rather tame description of an act that is always, by its nature, ugly and violent. And it's gone on legally for more than 30 years. We can argue about exactly what to do about it. We must not simply get tired of the subject, or hide behind easy dismissals like "everyone should have 'choice.'" When something so horrible happens such a vast scale, it is always more important than 99 percent of the stories that fill the news, and equal in importance to the rest.

• You may have heard advocates of funding embryonic stem-cell (ESC) experiments with taxpayer dollars predict numerous medical breakthroughs. What you're less likely to have heard is that adult stem cells (ASCs) are already being used, with great success, to treat a host of conditions, including a large variety of cancers, diabetes and other autoimmune diseases, multiple sclerosis and sickle cell anemia, to name just a few. ESC backers are eager to sweep away ethical objections to their practice, which envisions breeding human beings for the purpose of killing them. So they often present a choice between supporting their research and sacrificing treatment. But the choice is a false one. Medical breakthroughs are already coming fast: Millions of us will benefit, or have already.

• Iraq has gotten a lot of coverage, but some of the biggest things happening there have not. One of the biggest is the refugee problem. The United Nations estimates 2 million have fled the country in the last few years, to places like Jordan and Syria, and perhaps another 1 million have been uprooted from their homes and fled to other spots inside the country: The numbers are growing, perhaps by up to 50,000 a month. One of the least-known facts is that a huge portion of the country's Christians — despised by many Shiites and Sunnis alike — are among the refugees. Whatever one thinks of the war itself, this is indisputably a major humanitarian crisis, and it ought to be a major news story too.

• Christianity is growing explosively in non-Western countries, and this is a trend that's been going on for years now. Are some of us worried that the Church is in shabby shape in the U.S. and much of Europe? We should be. But we shouldn't imagine that God's plan rises or falls based on what Westerners are doing. The rise of belief in Africa, Latin America or China may foretell a future where Christianity thrives mainly outside the lands where it's been strongest historically. Jesus may return today or thousands of years from now: We have no reason to assume God is done with His world.

As I say, that's just a starter list. You can probably think of a lot more topics to add. So talk about them — any of them. Talk about big events in the world, or talk about small events close to home (which may be just as important, if not more): your family, your friends, your job, your churchmates.

Just don't talk about Paris. And if you think about her, pray for her. She may be rich in this world, but what she really needs is to inherit the treasures of the next.

Dr. Seuss on Success

You'll be on your way up!
You'll be seeing great sights!
You'll join the high fliers
Who soar to high heights.

You won't lag behind, because you'll have the speed.
You'll pass the whole gang and you'll soon take the lead.
Wherever you fly, you'll be the best of the best.
Wherever you go, you will top all the rest.

Except when you don't
Because, sometimes, you won't.
I'm sorry to say so
but, sadly, it's true
and Hang-ups can happen to you.***

But on you will go
though the weather be foul
On you will go
though your enemies prowl
On you will go
though the Hakken-Kraks howl
Onward up many
a frightening creek,
though your arms may get sore
and your sneakers may leak.

On and on you will hike
and I know you'll hike far
and face up to your problems
whatever they are.

And will you succeed?
Yes! You will, indeed!
(98 and 3 / 4 percent guaranteed.)

A noteworthy, historical thought

From Page Six writer Liz Smith:

IF YOU ever imagined what it was like when Marie Antoinette rode the tumbrel to the guillotine, you need only survey the intense interest and joy conveyed by the media and most of the public as Paris Hilton in handcuffs was dragged backed to court and jail last week. She hadn't escaped incarceration with a nail file tucked into a spinach salad, but you'd think she'd done that and shot a dozen cops to boot the way cable TV spasmed gleefully.

Fair enough. Marie represented something monstrous to the French people at the time, and I suppose Paris represents something similar. To the press? To Hollywood? To the nation? Not sure really, but interesting.

In other news: Studying for the Texas Bar Exam absolutely sucks. No other way to put it. (And here I though I was done when I got my J.D.!)

From one Tech to another

My signature is in the top right, second down, looks like "Elizabeth St....".

April 16, 2007

Patent Pending, and subsquent thoughts

In Patent Weary, my favorite business writer, Michael Malone, opined the following (responding to a question regarding his thoughts on the patent war between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft over patents for MP3 technology):

In my experience, digging up your old core patents and suing everyone in sight is the best indicator of a dying company. Fairchild did the same thing with integrated circuit patent, as did Motorola with the microprocessor, and Texas Instruments with everything in between. In the case of TI, the company reached the point where the patent attorney's office was the company's biggest profit center.

Ultimately, TI managed (no doubt with some of that licensing money) to turn itself around and become a major player in digital signal processing. But in most cases, I suspect, Alcatel-Lucent included -- is there any company out there right now with an uglier reputation than Lucent -- this kind of behavior is symptomatic of fatal structural rot. The $1.5 billion the jury awarded to Alcatel-Lucent in February will likely, after various Microsoft countersuits, end up a fraction of that amount, be swallowed up before it ever reaches shareholders and will do nothing for Alcatel-Lucent's future.

Optimistic, forward-looking and successful companies don't have time for this nonsense, and the distractions that come with it. And, sadly, that increasingly seems to be true for patents themselves.

I'm just wondering, could the same be said about Verizon's suit against Vonage? The following is from Bloomberg about the latest today on the "slow-death" of Vonage.

Vonage Holdings Corp. founder Jeffrey Citron replaced Michael Snyder as chief executive officer after spiraling costs and the loss of a patent lawsuit led to an 82 percent drop in the Internet phone company's stock....

... Vonage lost customers at an average monthly rate of 2.4 percent in the quarter, up from 2.3 percent in the previous three months. Subscribers have been defecting amid concerns about customer service and lawsuits that threaten to cut service.

I think all of this is very sad. "Old" companies, being eaten alive by "new" companies with better technology and marketing strategies, use bitter tactics to kill off their competitors, while slowing dying themselves.

Personally, I do not know anything about the science involved in the Verizon/Vonage law suit. Vonage may have infringed on a Verizon patent or not. (I wouldn't trust a district/trial court judge on this matter further than I could throw him). Regardless, if Verizon was a thriving, bustling company, it wouldn't "have time for this nonsense", as Malone puts it. I agree. I'm also reminded of that "old" quarrel, between Napster/Napster-like programs for file-sharing and the RIAA. The RIAA back in 2001 started fighting the new stuff because it couldn't compete. Eventually, it killed Napster/Grogster/Kazaa, etc., but it lost in the long run really. File-sharing is certainly the most prevalent method of getting music these days...thank you Apple. (I personally do not have an Ipod..I have a relic that was once called a "Disc-man" and it works just fine, thank you Sony.) Anyway, more to the point, I certainly hope Verizon has something up its sleeve...an RND section that is currently burning the midnight oil. Else, its future seems rather bleak.

Reminds me of law school

It ain't MY fault

Daily Word

From my pastor, in today's email:


"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." --John 3:16

It seems like more and more, you hear people talking about how all the religions of the world are really leading to the same God. They want everyone to just get along, put aside our differences, and make this world a giant, hug-filled place of peace.

This kind of thinking has been especially prevalent since 9/11, when it became clear that religion can be not only divisive, but deadly.

If we're not careful, we as Christians can fall into this peaceful-sounding trap. While you and I as believers are certainly to be characterized by peace and love, we are not to give up or give in on our convictions…and give credibility to another false religion.

The truth of Christ divides people. Christ certainly preached a message of love and forgiveness, but He made it clear that not all gods are equal, and there is only one path to God. He is the ONLY way!

People of this world don't like the Gospel of Christ; they see it as narrow-minded and divisive. The world praises the idea of one religion that unifies everyone-which in fact is coming. But the problem is that it will be the religion of evil in the end times.

Don't surrender the truth of the Gospel for the sake of peace. We know that Christ is the only answer to the world's need, so be ready with that answer for people who are desperately searching for something real to believe in.

Supreme Court on Global Warming

The Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA, today, saying, "The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized..."

The court took 66 pages in total, 38 for the majority. Justice Stevens delivered the 5-4 opinion. This was really a case of statutory interpretation, the court stating in pertinent part "[b]ecause greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles" (page 35-36 of pdf). However, this will ultimately be a key policy-based decision.

In dicta, the court said:

The Government’s own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens, inter alia, a precipitate rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snowpack with direct and important economic consequences, and increases in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events.

I reserve my comments on this "statement" for a future post, perhaps. At this time, I chose simply to smile at the Court's use of its dicta. It will be interesting to see how this case and interwoven comments will fit into precedent for the Court to follow, and how it will impact the global warming debate.

Photos for Writers

Photos by Chema Madoz, from this website.

Picture

This was way too cute not to publish!

From this website.

Awesome Website

I could do this for hours!

Drag your mouse across the screen. After you do that, left click!

http://www.jacksonpollock.org/

Zoom Zoom

An electric car that can burn rubber with the best gas guzzler's out there? Zoom Zoom baby!

Market Deja Vu and Accountability

This was posted on the Banking Law Prof Blog today:

It's the dot com bubble, it's the '80s s&l crisis, it's what happens when people don't follow prudent lending and investment principles.

What we're seeing now in the subprime market is the result of poor credit underwriting standards. Bankers know better. Regulators know better. Even borrowers know better (if they can decipher the fine print). But when the economy is good and there are more dollars chasing loans than there are prime loans to be made, it's "Let the good times roll!"

From the lenders' perspective: After all, these subprime loans yield a higher interest rate in a banking world experiencing ever narrower interest-rate margins (the difference between the interest rate lenders pay for deposits and other funding sources and the interest rate they receive on loans). In a low-interest rate environment, many borrowers can and do make the monthly payments. Lenders are looking for new markets -- and here's a big one.

From the borrowers' perspective: The American dream is owning your own home. And it looks so easy when lenders are aggressively seeking out borrowers with "less than perfect credit". Many borrowers have gambled that rising home prices and low interest rates will continue. Few really take to heart what will happen if the loan reprices in two to three years.

From the regulators' perspective: Providing "guidance" should suffice. No one likes a heavy-handed regulator -- and there is competition for charters and Congressional oversight to consider. There's no immediate problem to address. The free market will sort this out. Should there be isolated issues, informal non-public measures avoid creating a generalized atmosphere of panic and possible adverse business consequences for a given lender or for all lenders -- and may avoid the extreme case: "runs" on a financial institution.

I strongly agree with most of what Professor Graham says. The only thing I would comment on is the tone of the note on the regulators' perspective. It sounds like she would be in favor of a more "heavy-handed" approach. While I can understand in this environment that more regulation might seem good...I really disagree. I place the burden on the bankers and the borrowers. They are intelligent people. Bottom line is that, if you can't afford a monthly payment, don't borrow money. If you can't afford for someone to default on a high interest loan, don't lend them the money. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions. They need to recognize the affects on society as a whole...that is what being a responsible citizen is all about. But people do not need to be regulated into stupidity. Learn from your mistakes and move on.

My thoughts on Math

Saw this hilarious picture today on another blog. I just HAD TO post it!!

A thing, itself

From "Orinary People", by Roberto Rivera y Carlo:

This begs an obvious question: What's wrong with being ordinary? A lot, if you live in a culture like ours that has turned "ordinary" into an epithet, a synonym for "mediocre." Then, the fear of being (or appearing) "ordinary" exceeds the fear of possible humiliation or any other repercussions of inappropriate disclosure. [...]

Turning "ordinary" into an epithet requires forgetting (or denying) that "ordinary" is the stuff that real life is made of. "Ordinary" comes from the Latin ordinarius meaning "customary, regular, usual, orderly." How we handle the ordinary — and not how many people know who we are — is the standard against which we should measure our lives. It, and not some fleeting (or even not-so-fleeting) attention, is what gives our lives significance. (For the Christian, it's what Jesus meant when He said, "He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much.") [...]

I have a better idea: We should strive to experience what G.K. Chesterton called "the ecstasy of being ordinary." While Chesterton admired extraordinary men like St. Francis of Assisi, he also gave the "social scruples and conventional conditions that are normal and even noble in ordinary men" that hold "decent societies together" their due. In fact, it was because he appreciated "ordinary men" that he could make sense of the extraordinary ones.

Likewise, "Chesterton could be made happy by the sudden yellowness of a dandelion." He took "fierce pleasure in things being themselves," whether it was the "wetness of water," "fieriness of fire" or the "steeliness of steel." As David Fagerberg of Notre Dame wrote, for Chesterton, "on every encounter, at every turn, with every person, there is cause for happiness.... We have been given a world crammed with a million means to beatitude."

In other words, our "ordinariness" contains everything that is necessary to be content. That's part of St. Paul meant when he wrote "I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content." He could see those "millions means of beatitude" and understood that on some days you inadvertently turn the world upside-down and on other days you make tents. Ultimately, what matters is to live admirably, not be admired.

Maxed Out

From the Banking Law Prof Blog -
Here's a documentary you need to see: "Maxed Out" - a look at America's consumer debt crisis. Check out the Washington Post review.

The Book on Amazon with description.

The Trailer on the Main Website.

PERSONAL NOTE: I receive absolutely NO profits from this. I just think it is a good thing for people to read about and understand...so that eventually, perhaps we can do something about it.

Engagement Pics