So asked the Joker with grudging respect after Batman ruined his (nefarious) fun in the Tim Burton Batman movie (around 1989).

I’m asking myself the same question about Microsoft.  It seems all we hear about nowadays is Google–they’re the hot topic and the cool company.  Isn’t Microsoft old and stodgy by now?  Hasn’t Apple gained majority market share over them?

The answers to those questions are no and no.

Microsoft is still crushing Apple in market share; it’s still not even close nor will be in the forseeable future.  Apple’s ads are better, and I love to watch them, but Macs are a small fraction of the computer market.

As far as stodgy, software developers know better.  Microsoft makes the best software development tools in the world.  Period.  The only people who will challenge that obvious truth are fanatical Linux or Mac developers, and even then they will usually admit that debugging with Microsoft Visual Studio is better than with gdb.

Microsoft has taken another massive leap forward recently in the software development world by unveiling WPF, Visual Studio 2008, C# 3.0, and Silverlight.

I don’t have time to explain all those buzzwords, and readers of this blog for the most part would not care what they mean as far as details go, so I will summarize:

WPF is their new way of designing user interfaces and making it easy for developers and graphics/usability designers to collaborate, as well as connecting the user interface to the meat of the program in powerful ways.

Visual Studio 2008 is the latest edition of the premier software development tool in the world.  It runs circles around the competition, which for the most part was humiliated by this tool in version 6.0 which they released 11 years ago.

C# is Microsoft’s Java + C++ programming language that offers more powerful features than either of those two languages.  In version 3.0 they made it even more powerful.  And this is coming from yours truly, a novice C# programmer and a professional C++ programmer of 7 years.

Silverlight is the Microsoft’s answer for the web and cross-platform (Linux, Mac).  It allows developers to write code in C# and run it on the web!  Think awesome games that can run in your browser and on all platforms.  It’s not here yet, but it will be soon.  Think rich internet apps that make Gmail look primitive.  Those will come too.

He who controls the spice, controls the universe.  Microsoft controls the software development spice, and they cannot be defeated by Google or anyone else until this dominance is broken.  Right now, no one is even close, and in the ways that Microsoft has fallen behind Google and other companies in the past few years, they are catching up quickly.

Don’t get me wrong: Google is a great company.  I own their stock.  I switched my email to them.  I look at my iGoogle homepage more frequently than any other with news, blog feeds, my stock portfolio, and Google calendar.  It’s going to be an awesome battle, but I don’t see how they can top Microsoft with Microsoft’s courting of the people like me who write the software.

The elephant is pornography.

The sin of lust by way of pornography is widespread amongst men in our country, yet we rarely talk about it.

Why? Because many men have lusted after women by looking at pornography and rightfully feel ashamed of it, such that the very mention of the word evokes this shameful feeling.

I had a conversation today with some friends of mine when I brought up pornography as evidence that good sexual desires, when twisted, can be manifested in multiple ways. That led to a discussion of pornography and whether it was right or wrong for a man to look at it and lust.

When I became a Christian, I became convinced that pornography was wrong, but it was not until I became a Catholic that I understood the full reasons why. I hope to explain why it is wrong and offer some encouragement for men struggling to overcome this sin.

For me, pornography evokes regret that I ever looked at it, sadness for the hurt it caused to God, to myself, and to the world, and at the same time gratitude for the fact that our Lord, Jesus Christ, has forgiven me of these sins and turned the tide from lust to love in my heart, giving me the grace to become a man of physical integrity.

Pornography weakens men because it is a sin, and giving in to the temptation to lust weakens our self-mastery.

Eventually, if this sin becomes a habit, it further erodes our masculine strength because we feel helpless against the temptation.

The solution is perseverance and grace, along with educating our minds in the truth of who we are as man and woman.

You see, pornography does not show too much of the woman; rather, it shows too little. In a man’s heart, pornography reduces the woman, a glorious creature made in the image of God as the substantial union of body and soul, to just a body, which can then be an object of lust and sexual gratification for the man.

This sexual gratification has neither unitive nor procreative capacity: It does not unite the man with his wife, nor is it possible to procreate from the act, which proves that it is altogether selfish and an attempt to frustrate the good design of our Creator and Father.

Men need to form their minds and hearts with this understanding of the human person by studying the Theology of the Body and learning all that the Church teaches on this most important matter. Armed with the correct understanding of the human person and with God’s grace through prayer and the sacraments, our human wills can be strengthened to overcome the temptations to lust.

Men are often afraid to speak out against pornography because they themselves have been in its grip and may even still be struggling to overcome an addiction to it. “Who am I to talk about it, when I have done it myself and still sometimes fall to temptation,” they ask themselves.

Well, it is vital that we speak out against it and challenge other men to fight for the virtue of chastity, of manly physical integrity. If we don’t do it, who will?

It is similar to the women who courageously go to pro-life rallies with signs proclaiming “I regret my abortion”. They had an abortion; they have realized it was wrong; now they want to help other women not make the same mistake they did, to realize that they do have a choice other than aborting their baby.

It is the same with us men who are striving to live virtuous lives: Even if you have sinned in this way before, you can courageously stand up and condemn the sin of pornography while sympathizing with the men who suffer under its slavery and encouraging them that they can overcome it.

With Christ’s aid, we can become the men of honor and strength that He created us to be.

Happy Thanksgiving, everybody. Devin and I had a good visit with my family (more about that later) and an adventuresome trip back to Austin from New Mexico. What happened, you ask?

Well, we left Deming, NM on Saturday morning and drove from El Paso to Fort Stockton in heavy snow. We pulled in to Ft. Stockton for the night, due to forecasts of heavier snow and freezing rains the next 120 miles to Sonora. We were blessed to even get a hotel room. Soon after we checked in to our hotel (appropriately Alpine-themed Best Western) and enjoyed our dinner at K-Bob’s, Fort Stockton lost power. The hotels were flooded with travellers due to the snowy roads and hung “No Vacancy” signs, forcing people to sleep in the schools, churches, and in their cars. It had all the makings of a snowstorm disaster, and we were glad to see I-10 clear the next day so that we could drive home.

I hope your holiday travels were not so dire as ours. Do you have any Thanksgiving travel stories to share? I’m glad you’re home safely.

I have great memories of camping with my family as a little girl.  Eating freshly caught trout for dinner.  Telling stories around the campfire.  The boys’ tent emitting various odorous gases, if you know what I mean.   So, I told Devin that camping would be a lovely addition to our little family life, and off we went to Colorado Bend State Park.

Except, I lost my temper at least three times while we were there.  That darn fire was smoking right into my lungs and heating our food erratically.  Those darn crickets were singing all night long outside our tent.  And, did I mention that cooking over an open fire is not as predictable as cooking in the comfort of my own kitchen?  Somehow, I remembered my own mother whipping up meals with ease during our family camping trips and felt frustrated that I couldn’t do the same.  My memories of childhood camping contained no mention of nasty mosquitoes and crickets and so forth.

Except, my memory was faulty.  Because, after we got down from the mountain, I called my mother to say, “Mom, I have a whole new respect for you.  You fed 10 of us (my 7 siblings, my parents, and me) on camping trips by cooking over the open fire.”  And, she said, “Honey, I didn’t do the cooking when we camped–your father did.  I’d put together sandwiches, maybe, but he did all the cooking.”  Oh.  Turns out my mother wasn’t such a domestic outdoor goddess after all and enjoyed a little break from cooking for 10 people.

It’s funny how the memory does that.  Or, maybe my memory’s not faulty; perhaps as I child I wasn’t bothered by the smoke and crickets and greasy hair.  Maybe I didn’t notice that the eggs weren’t cooked to perfection.  Maybe this ought to teach me a lesson about what really matters.

Or, maybe Devin and I will just be day-campers from now on.

I took Katie out on our first camping trip together this weekend!

Many thanks to all of our friends and family who offered to lend us their camping gear and gave us good advice: Katie grew up camping often with her big family, but I only camped a few times growing up, so there was much that was new to me.

Here is Katie at our camping site (Gerardo and Roxanna let us borrow their tent and chairs):

more…

In a sermon given by my old Baptist pastor about 7 years ago, he made this offhand remark, paraphrased: “The reason I know that baptism does not wash away sins is because Jesus was baptized, and He had never sinned, so it’s purpose could never be to wash away sins.”

On the surface, it sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? I think to my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who heard this sermon, it probably even stuck in their minds because it was short enough to be easily remembered and used as an apologetic tool.

However, I came to believe around that same time that baptism does indeed wash away sins, by God’s grace. How can my old pastor’s arguments be refuted, however?

Well, there are many ways, but the ones that most get to the heart of the matter are explained very clearly by Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI, in Jesus of Nazareth, the book he wrote recently:

John’s baptism includes the confessions of sins (cf. Mark 1:5)….Immersion in the water is about purification, about liberation from the filth of the past that burdens and distorts life–it is about beginning again, and that means it is about death and resurrection, about starting life over again anew.

The real novelty is the fact that he–Jesus–wants to be baptized, that he blends into the gray mass of sinners waiting on the banks of the Jordan….Baptism itself was a confession of sins and the attempt to put off an old, failed life and to receive a new one. Is that something that Jesus could do? How could he confess sins? How could he separate himself from his previous life in order to start a new one? Matthew goes on to report for us that “Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he consented (Mt 3:15).

Looking at the events in light of the Cross and Resurrection, the Christian people realized what happened: Jesus loaded the burdens of all mankind’s guilt upon his shoulders; he bore it down into the depths of the Jordan. He inaugurated his public activity by stepping into the place of sinners….The Baptism is an acceptance of death for the sins of humanity….This also explains why, in his own discourses, Jesus uses the word baptism to refer to his death (cf. Mk 10:38, Lk 12:50).

Jesus’ Baptism anticipated His death on the Cross, Pope Benedict concludes.  So, just as Jesus, though sinless, was put to death on the Cross for our sins, paradoxically he submits to John’s baptism in spite of His sinlessness.

Comparing someone to Hitler or the Nazis has become a standard way of demonizing a particular person or organization because it is accepted by all rational people that Hitler and the Nazis committed heinous atrocities.

Well, it seems that, to the detriment of respectful dialogue between Democrats and Republicans, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are now using the Republicans, and especially George Bush himself, as the new version of Hitler and the Nazis.

Two prominent stories recently showed this clearly:

The first story was the now infamous “planted question” by the Clinton camp, to which Edwards responded: “What George Bush does is plant questions and exclude people from events, and I don’t think that’s what Democrats want to see in Iowa.”

The Clinton camp sharply retorted: “What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country,” [Clinton spokesman Mark] Daley said. “John Edwards’ campaign resembles that more and more every day.”

Then just this weekend, a rumor was instigated by Robert Novak in an online column that the Clinton camp had some scandalous information about Barack Obama. Obama challenged the Clinton camp promptly for justice, and Clinton’s staff responded:

“These are the kinds of attacks that Republicans engage in, and the kinds of traps they set for Democratic candidates,” Carson said. “A Republican-leaning columnist puts out a statement, a baseless statement accusing Sen. Clinton of some sort of activity. … What (Obama) is doing is parroting Republican talking points.”

So we have 3 accusations among the 3 Democratic front-runners of doing what the (evil) George Bush or Republicans do.

This state of affairs is sad because it shows that the top leadership of this country, which includes both Republicans and Democrats, view the other side as disingenuous, and how can you have a profitable discussion with someone you think is disingenuous?

I have become increasingly convinced (or convicted) that we must assume that those who disagree with us have the best of intentions and motives rather than the worst. Only with such a mutually respectful attitude toward another person can we truly get to know them and learn what they think and why. And only after this respect is in place can we relate to one another as persons and perhaps change our understanding or even beliefs for the better.

To that end, I want to mention that, in spite of the challenges I have made toward Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, that I do think that they believe the causes they are championing are good and are real things. However, I have pointed out what I see are inconsistencies in their beliefs which I think they need to address to become more credible people.

I found this blog recently through a series of other blogs’ links written by a man who I think has been an Evangelical pastor and is considering the Catholic Church.

He posted recently about a meeting he had at a coffee shop with a fellow Evangelical pastor and a very interesting exchange when confronted with (what is today considered) a large family coming into the coffee shop, and then, surprise, them making the sign of the Cross.

It reminded me of two instances in my life when I was in a similar place to this pastor: I was an Evangelical, going to a Southern Baptist Convention church, but I had started thinking about all the different Christian denominations and beliefs and how Jesus did not want us to believe things that aren’t true.

The first instance was hearing the pastor at my church give us a sermon where he was asked by a hospitalized church member to come and pray over him and anoint him with oil, as it says in the book of James, chapter 5:

“He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.”

My pastor said: “Sure enough, I looked it up, and it’s right there in the Bible just like he said, so, I didn’t really know what to do, but I went to the hospital and took some oil with me, and then, well, I poped him!” (This “poped him” statement was made with the pastor making the gesture of the sign of the Cross over the hospitalized man.)

Raucous, sustained laughter and applause from my dear old Baptist congregation followed. I would have found it funny, too, if I had not begun to consider that the Catholic Church may well be what it claimed to be and therefore that the Pope really was the direct successor of St. Peter, given authority by Christ and to whom He gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

What is interesting about this event? Well, this church claims to believe in the Bible alone as the sole source of revelation and rule of their faith, sola scriptura, but, my pastor had never done what St. James said he should do before, that is, pray over a sick parishioner and anoint them with oil; in fact, my pastor knew that this was something that only the Catholics did, perhaps even knew that this was one of the seven sacraments of the Church.

So he did what the Catholic Church does and has done for 2,000 years: He made the sign of the Cross on him with the oil and prayed over him.

The second instance occurred around this same time as I was becoming more convinced of the Catholic Church’s claims. I was living with three Evangelical friends in an apartment (during college). I was bold enough to make the sign of the Cross after our prayer together before eating my meal. One of my friends kind of snorted and asked: “What was that thing?” as he parodied the sign of the Cross.

I explained to him what it was, a calling to mind of Christ’s crucifixion and death for our salvation, something Christians had been doing throughout the centuries even from the apostolic times, but which our church had excised a few hundred years ago. He looked at me funny and made a comment about how it looked strange to him.

I loved my dear friend and understood that this was something foreign to him. It was the same thing for my pastor. I made many attempts to explain my exploration of Christianity with them and to invite them to join me in simply exploring it, learning about our faith and its history, but they were not able to at that point in their lives.

Two of them have now graduated from Evangelical seminaries and one of them is leading a Baptist congregation in Houston. We no longer communicate with each other, sadly. But I look forward to seeing them again in Heaven one day, when all of our differences will be corrected and we will be united fully as brothers in our Lord’s family.

I inspected our bees today and took a 5-minute video of the highlights.

The main goals were to dust powdered sugar on the bees so that they groom off varroa mites and to set a trap for the small hive beetles; both of these pests can decimate a bee hive, and the Fall is an especially vulnerable time for the hive as they prepare to over-winter.

The only other highlight, not on video, was getting my first bee sting from our hive; one of them got me in the big toe just under the toenail. It hurt.

Those were the words of the Ethiopian eunuch to Philip in Acts, chapter 8 of the Bible.

The eunuch was reading from the prophet Isaiah, and the Holy Spirit prompted Philip to ask him if he understood what he was reading. “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” was his honest answer.

This Sunday’s Gospel reading is the revelatory passage in Luke where the Sadducees attempt to prove to Jesus that men will never be resurrected from the dead. Jesus tells them something different, and in Luke 20:34 explains that when we die and meet God in Heaven, we will be like the angels, neither married nor given in marriage.

How does Jesus back up this statement? Well, the fact is that He doesn’t need to because He is God and has been given full authority from the Father, but nonetheless, he knows the Sadducees relied on the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, so He met them on their level and gave them evidence from the Pentateuch.

What evidence? Jesus reminded them of Exodus chapter 3, where Moses meets God in the form of a burning bush (that paradoxically is not consumed by the fire). The Sadducees have no doubt heard this passage hundreds of times in their lives, so which part did Jesus quote? This one: “I am the God of your father,” he continued, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.”

Jesus explains it this way: “That the dead will rise even Moses made known in the passage about the bush, when he called ‘Lord’ the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

The point I want to make in this post, and how this second example with Jesus relates to the first one with Philip and the eunuch, is that we as Christians need to have the Scriptures opened up to us and explained to us–we cannot simply read it ourselves and figure out the fullness of the Truth that Jesus has revealed.

Why not? Well, look at the passage Jesus quoted. If Jesus had not used that passage directly to explain that people do not die in God’s eyes when their bodies die but rather they live forever (ultimately either in Heaven with God or in Hell with themselves), I cannot imagine that passage being used as a proof text for the truth of the resurrection of the dead. By itself, the connection from the passage to Jesus’ conclusion is too obscure.

However, Jesus tells us the truth about life, death, and the resurrection by using this passage like so:

1. God said he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, men who have all been “dead” for hundreds of years
2. God is not the God of dead people, but living people
3. Therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must still be alive

We can then deduce the following easily: Because we know that these men are dead in the sense we normally use it, that is, their hearts do not beat anymore and they are buried in the ground somewhere, they must be alive in a different way with God right now. Their spirits must be with God and thus they are still alive.

Further, we know from revelation, including this passage, that one day God will reunite their spirits with their bodies, but their bodies will be glorified, resurrection bodies, the seed of which was their earthly bodies.

Because Jesus uses this passage to explain the truth of the resurrection, we can see how the passage does support his claim, but by ourselves we could not have figured that out. It makes me wonder, how many other passages are there in the Old (and New) Testament that are hiding gems of brilliant, revealed truth?

It calls to mind the disciples on the road to Emmaus after Christ’s own resurrection: “Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures.” (Luke 24).

He lovingly rebuked the disciples just prior to this passage about how slow they were to believe all that the prophets spoke.

Only God could reveal all of these truths to us, and thankfully He has, bit by bit over the centuries. Attacks have come against Him and the Truth in every age, and yet, even when things looked most dire, for example, when in His Church there were many bishops following the Arian heresy, the Holy Spirit has prevailed, guiding His Church into all truth (John 16), as Jesus promised he would.