Mas Random...

Here's some stuff I found interesting since I've been home (and nothing about the trip home yet...I'll write all that in time):

Here's a Catholic Theologin who said exactly what I've been saying for years: despite widespread ignorance of the true theology, at its core, Catholicism is far more accepting and embracing of others than most religions.

The Judge in the Dover case about Intelligent Design finally made a ruling, against ID. Not only that, but he wrote one of the best decisions I've read in a while:

....Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on I(ntelligent) D(esign), who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

The Bush Administration has not only approved wire tapping of civilians without a court order, which is illegal, to fight the "War on Terror", but they have also been monitoring and wire tapping campus groups opposed to the war, and four which are opposed to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy...so much for fighting Terrorism when we can fight our own citizens...oh, other groups deemed worthy of being spied upon: Greenpeace, Catholic Workers (founded by the saintly Dorothy Day) and PETA.

So how did the Administration get away with it (other than the usual widespread double-play of fear and ignorance)? Well, apparently SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito not only gave a green light, but pushed the administration to take such steps. His argument in 84 was that the government should have blanket immunity, when prosecuting terrorism, against domestic laws. He pointed out that this is unpopular, so an "incremental" fight should be waged, but that the ultimate goal was complete government immunity from domestic laws while fighting terror was a good end. At least he was ahead of his time...

So, the man who will replace O'Connor in the last stand we have against government intrussion into our personal liberties is himself involved in an illegal operation to curb those liberties and extend the government eye into our personal lives. I, for one, feel safe with him on the Courts.