NFL Week 9

HOU @ MIN: HOU (I think HOU has the drive and the ability, but they still have yet to prove themselves. MIN has been inconsistent as well. They're weak on defending the pass, but strong offensively on the run. It will be interesting to see which proves to be the dominant factor. 24-23)

NYJ @ BUF: NYJ (I think Favre is going to have one of his "on" games, and if he can strike early, it will mean that BUF has to scramble to keep up. With the mistakes Edwards has been making, it is quite likely NYJ will break is losing streak to BUF. 21-15)

DET @ CHI: CHI (I'm not quite willing to say this will be the week for DET. It is coming, though. 27-20)

BAL @ CLE: CLE (Back in the Pound, CLE will probably do well. 17-14)

TEN @ GB: GB (TEN losing. It has to happen one of these days, right? 30-17)

ARI @ STL: ARI (Against a division rival that ARI has performed well against, we should see the NFC West leader pick up another game. 31-20)

TB @ KC: TB (Either KC will show up like they did against DEN, or this will be an excellent chance for TB to turn their game around after last week's loss to DAL. 35-10)

JAC @ CIN: JAC (CIN needs a high-powered offense to keep up with what its defense lets through, and it just isn't up to snuff yet. 27-15)

MIA @ DEN: DEN (Home team sentiment here. DEN has to prove they can stop the opponent on defense. If it becomes a high-scoring punch-out, DEN can't keep slipping by with last second luck. 33-23)

ATL @ OAK: OAK (Two rookie QB's combat! I think this might be a battle of pratfalls. 23-20)

DAL @ NYG: NYG (I think NYG's defense will prove the crucial factor here, sacking Johnson at least 4 times. 28-19)

PHI @ SEA: PHI (PHI is just the better team. SEA made strides against SF, but hasn't managed anything decent against tough opponents. 35-26)

NE @ IND: IND (This might just be a prejudice pick, but I think IND will put NE down. IND is capable, even banged up as it is, to go the distance, and NE's last two victories have been over STL (total of 5 wins over the past 23 games), and DEN, who folded like a lawn chair. IND showed some capacity at defense last week, and that might be the difference. 24-21)

PIT @ WAS: PIT (PIT's defense should shut Portis down, and while Big Ben might face a few more sacks and a lot of blitzes, he can manage his team to victory. 23-20)

Confidence: 8-6

Week 8: 8-6
Week 7: 6-8
Week 6: 8-6
Week 5: 9-5
Week 4: 7-6
Week 3: 12-4

Solidarity in action

A very touching article about a woman who purchased a foreclosed home and then gave it back to the original owner. That we could all be this charitable.

American Catholic Doings

I have a new post up at The American Catholic, rambling about how Obama isn't a cause, he is the effect. To say it here as I didn't in the article: Obama is not the face of change. He is the face of what change has brought about. He is not the leader; he is the poster child. He is the graven idol that the left worshiped before the left even knew his name. He just happened to step into the mold.

We reap what we sow. We have sown anti-life, pure materialism, and elitist relativism. We have reaped Barack Obama. So don't blame Obama--he's the just the rubber stamp on what has been here for years.

Random Thoughts

Having a cold is terribly uncomfortable, but most colds are not life-threatening and run their course in a week or so. Seeking a doctor is usually a waste of money because the doctor can’t really do anything but prescribe medication for the symptoms, and you can usually buy just as effective medication over the counter. But there are some tragic cases where the cold becomes much more than just a cold, even to the point of hospitalization. Insurance exists for this reason; it is an attempt to pool money together from many, many people to help pay for those things which very rarely happen. It is a gamble. When someone has insurance that covers everything, that no longer is insurance but health care. When everyone has this insurance, it is universal health care. The question becomes: who pays for this? If we divide up the costs, the people who need the insurance can’t pay their portion, else they wouldn’t actually need the insurance. The deficit has to be made up by those who have more money. This isn’t problematic assuming that the rich are voluntarily covering the difference. If they are not, then this becomes theft.

I look at taxes to the government as renewing my subscription to the services the nation has to offer. I just wish that I could pick and choose the services for which I pay. But then, I might not pay into the services the nation really needs.

Part of the difference between left and right seems to be who we trust to have money. The left doesn’t trust the rich to have money because they fear the rich will hoard it and never help the poor unless forced. The right trusts the rich to invest wisely and donate to charities. Catholics understand that wealth can corrupt, and thus there are rich people who do despicable things in the pursuit of more wealth. Catholics also acknowledge that a man who works hard to earn wealth shouldn’t be punished for working hard. Work is one of the great means with which we glorify God, and when you punish the rewards of work, you deter man from working.

We hear a lot on the campaign trail about the merits of a man who is willing to come across the aisle and work with the other party to pass bills. We hear endless talk about partisan politics dividing the nation. We see so much activity in Congress directed towards blocking bills from the floor, keeping bills from debate, filibustering bills, and in general accomplishing nothing. The message of change continually bantered about is a change in which all differences are set aside and Congress actually passes bills the help our beleaguered nation.

Yet there is a fallacy inherent in this thirst for change, and I hear it from people who view partisan politics with cynicism and dismay. They hear radically different views from the left and from the right—there is global warming, there isn’t; capitalism, socialism; pro-choice, pro-life—and conclude that the reality must be somewhere in the middle. Maybe there is global warming, but it isn’t as bad as the Democrats make it sound. Surely some amount of socialism is necessary to rein in the unbridled greed of the capitalists. Obviously abortion is bad, but it shouldn’t be eliminated for some of those rare, tough situations. Thus all the stalling and partisan politics should take a back seat to compromise.

The fallacy is this: compromise works in favor of the party that realizes it can eventually pass its agenda by forcing the other party from its position. If we feel anything should go on television, we get the prudish critics to approve some mildly offensive language. And then we get them to approve some adult situations. Then we ask for scenes that are somewhat sexually explicit, and after long rounds put them on primetime television. And then we go for more and more offensive language, more adult situations, more sexually explicit material. After so many compromises, it looks as though one side completely folded, and the other held firm to its guns.

It is amazing how far we have compromised ourselves from the truth, from what is right. As bad as an Obama presidency would be, we still must realize that a McCain presidency is a compromise.

As a final note, there is something uncompromising about “You shall love your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength.”

NFL Week 8

BAL @ OAK: BAL (A good defense can stymie OAK, and BAL has a good defense. I don't expect a high score, though. 17-13)

ARI @ CAR: CAR (I simply give this to the home team. CAR has shown the ability to both trounce and be trounced. ARI has a history of not doing well, and this season has not been doing well on the road. I think this is a game to watch, though. 24-20)

TB @ DAL: TB (Losing quarterback hurts, and last week's loss against STL highlighted problems with DAL other than offensive woes. The combination of Romo's absence and a defense that has for most of the season permitted the opponent to remain in the game does not bode well. 27-17)

WAS @ DET: WAS (In trying to debate a potential upset, I looked at a couple of factors. One, while WAS lost to STL, STL has done a major transformation in the change of head coaches. This isn't necessarily a huge negtaive for WAS. Two, WAS has done well, and they shut down a CLE offense that is quite capable of racking up the points. Three, while DET has played two close games in the past couple of weeks, consider that neither HOU nor MIN have the greatest defenses. True, MIN's defense is good against the run, but consider that MIN gives up 21 points a game and gave up over 40 against CHI. HOU is rank 31st in giving up points. These factors suggest to me another loss for DET. 24-10)

BUF @ MIA: BUF (MIA's success has come from some very well-executed gimmicks, and other teams have adjusted enough to dampen their victory march. Still, should be a good game to watch. 23-20)

SD @ NO: NO (The question becomes who can put up the more offense. SD has not been running the ball well and might try to make gains there, but NO's run defense isn't terrible. The passing game will be key, and SD is rank 32nd in pass defense. I think this will be a high-scorer. 36-30)

ATL @ PHI: PHI (I give this to the home team just off a bye week. I expect the defense will harry ATL's rookie QB, and McNabb will put up some good numbers. 27-10)

KC @ NYJ: NYJ (KC has lost Croyle and Huard for the season; Johnson is not going to play because of legal charges; the whole team is still reeling this season. I won't say it will be a cakewalk for Favre and NYJ, but I think Favre will redouble his efforts after last week's disappointing loss to OAK. 26-9)

STL @ NE: STL (DEN has a tendency to make third-stringers look like Pro-Bowlers, so NE's victory over DEN doesn't mean a whole lot. At the same time, winning against DAL and an absent Romo doesn't necessarily mean much for STL. If NE thinks it has a running game and a defense just from playing DEN, they'll choke on STL. This will probably look more like STL's win over WAS, though--uncertain until the final play. 17-14)

CIN @ HOU: HOU (HOU is better than their record shows, and CIN is just as bad as their record shows. Without Palmer and with Ocho-Cinco not performing very well, HOU should manage to force CIN to 0-8. 28-20)

CLE @ JAC: CLE (I'm going out on a limb here, but if CLE can put together a game like they did against NYG, they should do well. Consider that JAC's last victory came over DEN, who has been playing notoriously poorly of late, the two teams should be well matched up. 20-19)

NYG @ PIT: PIT (I think PIT is a slightly better team and has home-field advantage. It should be a predominantly defensive game. 17-13)

SEA @ SF: SF (Really just a home team pick here. Potential things that favor SF: new coach, division rival, has already beat SEA. Potential things against SF: new coach, division rival, has already beat SEA. 22-21)

IND @ TEN: IND (I pick this as an upset game. I don't think IND is back together yet, but who knows? 16-14)

Confidence: 9-5

Week 7: 6-8
Week 6: 8-6
Week 5: 9-5
Week 4: 7-6
Week 3: 12-4

O the Secular Outside is Frightening...

Recent news relates how a campaign is starting in London to pull ads promoting God off the side of the famous red, double-deck buses. Prominent among the protesters is Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionist and author of the "God Delusion". Apparently, the protesters are upset about messages posted by Christian groups that nonbelievers will go to hell, and they wish to counter with

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Being a devout Catholic myself, I look at that statement with a mixture of amusement and disbelief. I know that they really want to say "There is no God", but could not pull that off because of the defensible public outrage. They can't make it a definitive statement because they don't have any proof there is no God. (Oh, they offer arguments against God, but believers aren't convinced any more than atheists are convinced about arguments for God.)

I can understand the atheists' dismay at the Christian message of "Believe or go to Hell", because that tends to be an abrasive statement. And it is partially misleading, because ultimately none of us make the decision as to someone else's eternal destination. That is truly between a person and God. But the message is partly right, as well, because a disbelief in God could very easily put a person's soul at risk. If Hell is the chosen eternal separation from God, proclaiming and trying to adhere to a disbelief in God is very risky.

The reason that I can qualify that even an atheist might not face eternal damnation is because he might be seeking the Truth, the justice, and righteousness that is God, but have a fundamentally mistaken notion of God. Because of this notion, he cannot in good conscience believe in God, but he would if he had the correct understanding.

Practically, though, it must seem that the above case is vanishingly rare. Too many atheists we come across don't want to believe in God because God interferes too much with their lives. Thus the "stop worrying and enjoy your life." They think God ruins all our fun.

(John Zmirak has some good articles here, here, here, and here on how God takes all the fun out of life.)

My complaint about the protesters' slogan, though, is not their denial of God. That's their prerogative, not mine. What irks me, though, is the "stop worrying and enjoy your life" part. I know for me, coming to an understanding of the nature of God and the teachings of the Catholic Church connected all the disparate pieces together that once upon a time seemed in odd and even contradictory juxtaposition. Coming home to my faith removed a huge amount of worry from my life. It gave my life meaning. It offered clear reasons why certain actions the religious always condemn are wrong. It offered clear solutions to problems that plagued my life and plague society as a whole. It isn't easy, by any means, following these teachings, and they do carry their own bundle of worries with them, but I'm fundamentally better off for my belief in God.

Absent that, how can I stop worrying? If this life is all there is, how can I but worry? How can I hope to make a good life, when a single stupid decision or even a freak accident can ruin everything? Consider the hurricanes that have ravaged our coast lines. Consider the financial crisis. Consider the terrorists in the world. Consider all the things we do in our lives that make relating to other people difficult if not impossible. With so many calamities that threaten to destroy our fragile, ephemeral existence, how can we but worry?

Indeed, I could go on to argue that as a society grows increasingly secular and people become increasingly agnostic if not outright atheist, they find themselves with a fundament anxiety they cannot shake. They seek to fill their lives with material possessions, emotional fulfillment, and physical pleasure in order to dilute the anxiety, or at least keep their minds off of it for the time being. As we progress away from God, we only become more keenly aware of something missing in our lives. The result? We devote our lives to toys, where having the latest video game console and a high-bandwidth internet connection is the most important aspect of our lives. Or we devote ourselves to pleasure, and fill our lives with rampant promiscuity, ever on the lookout for that perfect orgasm that will fulfill our lives--for the next thirty seconds. Or we sit before the TV and vicariously experience life from the couch with the remote in one hand and a bag of potato chips in the other. (Or it could be corn chips with salsa, like at my apartment.) And all of these things can be taken away from us at a moment's notice. Our toys can break, or be stolen, or be lost in an accident. Our fall lineup can be a total flop, and then we're stuck on reruns and the miserable boredom in that nothing new is on. Or we experience that orgasm, and then try to seek it again and again with new and different people (different sex, same sex, same age, different age, animal...), degrading those people to nothing more than a penetration device or an orifice.

No thanks. I'll keep God in my life, I'll explain time and again that in all likelihood God exists, and I'll even keep the worry that hell awaits me if I ultimately choose against God. There's less worry for me that way.

Deaths in the family

As a quick note, Sara's step-grandfather, David Bollinger, died Saturday night after a long struggle with Lou Gehrig's disease. He was Zita's third husband (Zita being the mother of Sara's mother).

Also, on Sara's step-father's side of the family, Estella Graham passed away Friday night after dealing with a malignant brain tumor. She had undergone extensive treatment, and during one of her surgeries, she suffered from a stroke.

Please pray for the repose of the souls of Dave and Stella.

Dropping Heath Care Already?

Apparently Hawaii decided it couldn't continue its universal health care. Proponents of this system were greatly disappointed, to be sure, but here are a few crucial factors everyone should pay attention to:

A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program.

and:

State health officials argued that most of the children enrolled in the universal child care program previously had private health insurance, indicating that it was helping those who didn't need it.

When you're willing to offer free care, who wouldn't want to opt for it instead of paying for their own?

Of course, this program was dropped because of funding shortfalls, even though the program only costs the state $50,000 or so a month. Keep in mind that this amount covers only about 2000 of the 3500-16,000 uninsured children the state hoped to cover. Assuming Hawaii was willing to spend the same $25 per child once it had every kid on board, that would amount to $87,500 to $400,000 a month, or $1,050,000 to $4,800,000 a year. That doesn't sound like a whole lot, considering the amount of money the federal government throws around, but it is a fair amount for a state's budget.

Week Seven Picks

SD @ BUF: SD (BUF is a decent team, but they don't have a high-powered offense. The defense will hopefully make it a game, but SD will probably dominate the whole way through. 27-17)

NO @ CAR: NO (NO has the ability to play a fabulous game away from home. They just need to not hinge the game on a last-minute field goal attempt. 26-18.)

MIN @ CHI: CHI (It might be risky routing for CHI again, but MIN barely eked out a win against DET last week, and their stunning victory over NO came courtesy of NO running out of feet to shoot themselves in. It will be touch-and-go, though. 22-21)

PIT @ CIN: PIT (Two key factors are for PIT, namely that Palmer is still out and that Big Ben plays very well in Ohio. The one factor against PIT is that a team at 0-6, looking at a potential 0-7, against a division rival can play very, very hard. 20-16)

TEN @ KC: TEN (I think KC will need one more game to start pulling things together, now that Croyle is back. 17-13)

BAL @ MIA: MIA (It seems this season that MIA is no longer M.I.A. Their heartbreaking loss to HOU last week should compel them to make sure BAL won't ever come close to closing the deal. 33-14.)

SF @ NYG: NYG (I expect that NYG might be a little more conservative on play calling this week, given the trouncing last week against CLE, but the defense should harry O'Sullivan and shut down Gore, and Ward should have a good running game. 24-14)

DAL @ STL: DAL (Without Romo, it will be tough, but their running game should push them through. 17-12)

DET @ HOU: HOU (HOU managed to pull it all together against a high-scoring MIA offense, and they nearly had it won against IND. DET, however... 27-10)

IND @ GB: IND (I think this will be a slugfest, as Manning and Rodgers face off. 38-35)

NYJ @ OAK: NYJ (New coach, reeling from losses, facing an ever-improving NYJ offense. I expect OAK will actually perform adequately, but it won't be enough. 24-22)

CLE @ WAS: CLE (Sometimes a big win kickstarts everything, other times it is a let down. Everything clicked last week for CLE, and think it will stick this week. 27-21)

SEA @ TB: TB (As well as TB is playing, and as poorly as SEA is doing without Hasselback, this should be another dominating performance by TB. 21-7)

DEN @ NE: DEN (Maybe I'm just playing my favorite here, but DEN definitely has the capability of mimicking SD's performance last week. It doesn't mean they will--this is DEN after all. But with SD surging behing them, they need the win, and hopefully the loss to JAC will spark them to greater efforts. 31-23)

Confidence: 9-5

Week 6: 8-6
Week 5: 9-5
Week 4: 7-6
Week 3: 12-4

American Catholic Doings

I have a new post up on abortion. I hope I made my point clear, but sometimes it feels like you can write for pages upon pages and never stress the severity of the situation.

Credulity at its best...

It goes to show what people will believe. What is really wonderful is how our tax and tuition dollars went to bringing this fellow here. I did appreciate how he was willing to throw a bone to Christianity:

In fact, many think it is silly to believe in such things, he said. But even traditional Christian beliefs place importance on the supernatural.

“There was a guy a long time ago. This guy was walking along in the desert … and, there was a bush there, and all the sudden the bush just flamed up and the bush began to talk,” Fixico said, smiling.

Yup. Christianity is just another take on all this spirituality stuff.

Wyoming Monastery

It is small, but growing, and is a great tribute to our tiny state.

As is our growing Catholic College near Lander.

Some important links

Abortions due to rape at 1%.

AGI studies on abortion.

A 2001 discussion giving 9 reasons against abortion.

2005 abortion statistics.

Some risks of having an abortion.

A Kantian take on abortion.

A nice collection of abortion facts.

Wyoming's Attitude Toward Homosexuals

Check it out here. 10 years later, I still know nothing about Matthew Shephard except that he was a practicing homosexual and was killed by a couple of drunk people who took exception to his homosexuality.

What gets me about the article is how it immediately introduces a mother worried about whether or not one of her children might be homosexual, and how after Shepard's tragic death, she realized that homosexuals have as much value as anyone else.

The problem with the description of this mother's change of opinion is that it makes the mistake of confusing two issues. The first is the potential for self-serving, sinful behavior that occurs when one seeks sexual pleasure outside of a loving, committed marriage; the other is the value and dignity inherent in each human being, regardless of behavior or sexual orientation.

I have homosexual friends, and I value their friendship greatly. Their choices to live in an actively homosexual lifestyle are not choices I can condone. There is no contradiction here, and no homophobia. It is one thing to think a friend's behavior is harmful; quite another to despise him in entirety for it.

My satire on child abandoment wasn't satirical enough

I just learned about Nebraska's safe-have laws a couple of days ago while talking with our department's Systems Administrator, and now we have this. It is sad that parents would come to Nebraska to abandon their children, but should we be surprised?

We live in a society that hates children. Oh, there are plenty of people remaining who see children as blessings, but our society itself hates children. They get in the way of careers and free time and all the promiscuous, mind-blowing sex we think we should be having. It isn't any wonder that there are 1.5 million abortions a year in the U.S., and that a tragically high percentage of babies with identifiable problems are killed because of the inconvenience they would cause.

I suppose the cynic in me is surprised that more children are dumped off at Nebraska hospitals. Maybe most people feel that if they stick with it through pregnancy and the first year or so, they may as well continue.

What ethics remain?

In a recent "stunning" revelation, another congressman, Democrat Tim Mahoney, allegedly paid $121,000 dollars to a mistress who worked with him during his campaign against Mark Foley. Mahoney is married.

I understand quite well that Foley deserved to be removed from his post due to his philandering around with the interns. Grooming homosexual partners is a terrible wrong, not necessarily for the homosexuality, but for the larger picture of what Foley was doing: preparing people to have sex with him in an uncommitted relationship. I'm sorry, but I find it despicable that an older man would try to groom an under-aged person, even if the intent is to wait until majority. The only reason to wait is to narrowly evade the letter of the law. It doesn't change the fact that Foley was only looking for a means to glut himself on pleasure at another person's expense.

And now his replacement has followed a similar path. There must be something about Florida, I guess. Can't figure out how to hold elections, can't seem to elect decent candidates.

The only way to be sure to avoid a sex scandal is to realize that sex isn't recreation. It isn't about getting your pleasure fix. It is about a surrender and giving in the most intimate way possible. I would say that it is about true love, but people don't even know what love is anymore. Love is a choice to willingly devote oneself to another. Most people seem to think love is just the warm, gushy feelings. Those are nice, but they're not always present. But that doesn't mean that love goes away.

I hope this Mahoney is canned. A man who would cheat on his wife isn't someone I want in office.

Blogging

There must be some kind of knack to blogging. Maybe it's because I think that everything I write should be earth-shattering, heathen-converting mind-candy. But when I stop and think about it, I find that I spend a couple hours each day just keeping up on all the news and viewpoints. Then it takes a couple of hours to write a decent, well-thought-out post. Then there's all the rest of the stuff that I need to do, and there never seems to be enough hours in a day for it all.

Maybe you have to be professional about it. Maybe you can't just blog in your spare time. Or maybe there is a particular knack. You go out, you see things, you write quickly about them. You link to other blogs, write a witty sentence, and then move on. Maybe part of blogging is just repeating what others have said. If you're popular enough, maybe you can become one of the stops on someone's cruise through relevant material.

I don't know. Sometimes I feel intimidated. Whenever I look at Mark Shea's Blog, I feel inadequate. Sure, he's been doing this stuff for years, but he manages something like 10 posts a day, and that's by mid-morning.

Maybe my problem is that I'm too theoretical. Maybe I have problems getting to the point with practical issues. Maybe I'm too uninterested in every detail that occurs in the world, since I tend to only concentrate on big issues.

I just peeked in at Michelle Malkin's Blog. I know she's famous, I know she's published books, and I know she speaks on Fox News like every other day. And yet her blog is rife with things. Is this just a case of her being more motivated than me, or is it her years and years of experience?

I guess I'll just have to step up my efforts. I'll have to learn how to type 1000 words in five minutes, making every one count. I'll have to learn how to read through 10,000 websites in half-an-hour, to make sure I can catch everything important and still have time to write and research.

Oh, yeah, research. I should probably get back around to that someday. I'm a terrible student, I really am.

Global Warming Conspiracy Theory

I don't keep track of very many blogs, but I thought I'd try to be among the first to connect the dots and blame Bush, not for wasteful spending and bad economic policies, but for deliberately wrecking the economy for the sake of the oil companies.

Here's how it goes:

1) Everyone knows that Bush is in the pay of big oil. He's an oil man himself. When oil profits, he profits.

2) Congress was getting dangerously close to passing a bill that would require reductions in greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide. The passage of that bill would hurt big oil, because after all, burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide.

3) The big factor with "going green" was that it would cost a lot more, both to fund subsidies for "clean" and "renewable" sources of energy and for average Joe Six-Pack to pay for his energy costs.

4) Crashing the economy was the only viable way to preserve the dominance of the oil companies. With the economy in a tailspin, Congress wouldn't dream of passing their bill to reduce emissions. The cost of doing so on top of the huge loss of savings would spark lynch mobs.

So it is all Bush's fault. The economic crisis was entirely his doing, and was a deliberate attempt to forestall world-saving bills that would have hurt his oil company cronies.

What is it that you do here?

One of the problems of being a theoretical computer scientist is that it is difficult to justify to the lay person just what it is that we do. In a flippant moment, I just say, "I stare off into space and try to think of theorems to prove." It is easier than the following: "I examine the relations between classes defined by reductions to sparse sets, because the ramifications of those sets having measure zero have implications for the relation between P and NP." The reason it is easier is because in this second explanation, I have to explain classes and reductions and what it means for a a set (i.e. a language) to be sparse, and then I need to explain P and NP why the question as to whether they are equal is important. And then I need to explain why sparse sets are important in the relation between P and NP, which involves not only those classes themselves, but also Boolean circuit classes like P/poly, and the ramifications into derandomization... It is a mess to explain, and most people don't have the hours it takes just to understand the basic principles at play.

Still, there's an answer I wish I could give, but I can't since it isn't my research. I could simply say: "Theoretical computer science tells us that it is impossible to have a 100% reliable virus detector." The explanation of that is probably a little too complex for the lay person, but here it goes.

There's a problem in computer science, a language (a set of strings) defined as follows:

HALT = { < m,x > | Program M halts on input x}

This is the notorious halting problem, which no computer program can solve. Why? Well, suppose such a program exists, and call it N. We can encode N as a string, as we can do with all programs (how do you think they're stored on your hard drive, after all?). Then we can make a new program P:

P: Input x. If N halts on x, run forever. Else, halt.

Now, in similar fashion, we can encode P as a string (which, of course, depends on being able to encode N as a string). Furthermore, we can feed P itself as an input! But then, what do we have? Does P on input P halt? Well, if it does, then P should run forever (i.e. doesn't halt), and if it doesn't halt, it does. Obviously this is a contradiction. Since this was based on assuming the halting problem has a program that decides it. So there must be no program for the halting problem.

Now let's turn to the problem of our foolproof virus checker. Current day virus checking programs look for signatures, i.e. particular patterns in the binary code of a suspicious program. But we know that isn't successful, because that requires knowing the signature ahead of time, and besides, suppose we had the signature somewhere in the code, but the program is built to never execute the signature. Then it might not be a virus at all. So we want our foolproof virus checker to be capable of examining a program and telling us decisively if it is a virus (i.e. the program is capable of replicating itself, and perhaps does damage in the process).

But here's the thing. Having a foolproof virus checker would give us a program to solve the halting problem, which we have already shown cannot have a program. Here's the proof:

Suppose we know that Program A is a virus, i.e. if it runs, it will replicate itself and perhaps do some damage to the computer. We can pad A with useless instructions that do not affect how A functions (save maybe that A will run a little slower). This is one method virus-writers use to defeat signature checking, by the way. So let's take an instance of the halting problem, some pair < m,x > . We want to know if M halts on input x. Well, we create Program B by "padding" A with the code of running M on x. In other words,

B: Run M on x. Then run Program A.

In other words, if M halts on x, B has the same properties of A. Since A is a virus, B must also be a virus. However, if M doesn't halt on x, B never executes A, and thus can't be a virus, since it doesn't replicate itself or damage the computer (besides running forever, of course).

Here's the catch: our foolproof virus-checker can then decide the halting problem. It examines B, and if B is a virus, then M must halt on x. If B isn't a virus, then M must run forever on x. But, as we said before, no program can decide the halting problem, so our foolproof virus-checker is a sham. It can't exist.

I think this statement in justification of theoretical computer science is one that would help explain our field's importance in once sense. But then, it might also turn people off to the field, if all we can do is assure the public that no computer is 100% safe from viruses!

Week Six Picks

DET @ MIN: MIN (MIN put together a good defense against the high-powered NO offense, with the result of two recovered fumbles, a blocked field goal run back for a touchdown, and general mayhem. DET, on the other hand, hasn't pulled anything together yet, and I don't expect they will do so. 24-10)

CHI @ ATL: CHI (CHI is going to shut down ATL's running game, and that will pose a big problem for QB Matt Ryan. 19-9)

OAK @ NO: NO (Head coach changes may or may not have a large effect, especially if the removal of Lane Kiffin relieves tensions. On the other hand, OAK has not managed to hold onto leads and in general has not played well. That gives NO the advantage on offense, but it will probably be close. 28-24)

CIN @ NYJ: NYJ (I expect this to be a close game with lots of points, though possibly with Favre making points for both teams with big plays and interceptions. 33-30)

MIA @ HOU: HOU (HOU performed well against IND until a last minute debacle. If they're ready for MIA's tricks and protect the ball, they'll do well. 21-17)

CAR @ TB: CAR (CAR's success has largely been due to shutting down the run and forcing QB's to throw. Against KC, they totally remove Larry Johnson from the picture, and they did similarly well against ATL. This will probably be close, though. 24-21)

BAL @ IND: IND (Just picking favorites here. BAL has a good defense, but if Manning shows his stuff, that won't be a huge hindrance, especially since IND isn't running the ball much. On the other hand, BAL could finally have a good scoring game due to IND's defense. It will probably come down to the line again. 24-23)

STL @ WAS: WAS (STL hasn't managed to do anything in any of its 4 games, and WAS has shown an impressive performances against DAL and PHI. 28-13)

JAC @ DEN: DEN (This probably just another picking my favorite, but DEN can move the ball on offense, and its defense actually showed up last week. There's a chance. 28-26)

DAL @ ARI: ARI (ARI is capable of putting up the points, and I expect this to be a shootout. 35-30)

PHI @ SF: PHI (This will probably be more of a defensive battle than it should be. 17-13)

GB @ SEA: GB (I simply think GB is struggling less, and will manage a sound offensive battle against SEA. In addition, looking at SEA's miserable loss to NYG might help the GB defense to pull together. 26-20)

NE @ SD: NE (I predict another heart-breaking loss for SD, but that might just be wishful thinking. 22-21)

NYG @ CLE: NYG (This could be CLE's chance to turn their game around. Supposing, of course, that NYG fails to show up in the same fashion that DEN failed to show up in Arrowhead Stadium in KC. 31-14)

Confidence: 9-5

Week 5: 9-5
Week 4: 7-6
Week 3: 12-4

American Catholic Doings

I have a new article up at The American Catholic, dealing with the place of religion in politics. Simply put, I am grotesquely verbose about a simple fact: everybody has religious beliefs, and those influence their policies. You cannot remove religion from politics, and simple honesty demands that we acknowledge our religion so that people can better evaluate our claims.

I didn't want the whole article to devolve into a finger-point mess, so I'll state it here. Part of the problem with our presidential candidates at the moment is that it is very, very hard to fully understand what they believe. Obama especially has spent so much time hiding his past and has such a small record that it is impossible to know where he's coming from (other than 20+ years under Reverend Wright). In addition, once politicians seize the nomination and start "moving towards the middle" to attract the undecided voters, it becomes even more difficult to tell what they really believe.

I think an honest discourse in which each candidate reveals his religious viewpoints, especially regarding the origins and ends of mankind, would help immensely figuring out whether or not we can believe them when they flip-flop on issues or change course.

Give blood!

On Tuesday I donated two units of red blood cells, which is always entertaining. They remove a pint of blood, separate out the blood cells, and then return the plasma, which is mixed with a room-temperature saline solution. Brr! And then they repeat the process one more time.

Donating blood does wipe a person out, but it is a great thing to do. I would ask everyone who is capable to donate as frequently as possible. There are lives at stake, and every bit helps.

The Second Debate is Over

I missed most of the second debate. My sister was visiting, and Sara and I were busy introducing her to Mario Kart Wii. But she left around 8, allowing me the chance to catch the last half-hour, and then the endless punditry following.

Some quick personal thoughts:

1) History does matter. I though Palin's remark to Biden during the VP debate, "Say ain't so, Joe. There you go again, looking back...", was a flake (not to mention forced and deliberately Reagan-esque). Biden was right. History is the prologue. We have to look at history to know causes and possibilities. We need to know how we reached the present, and seeing the interrelation between cause and effect will help us judge what might happen in the future. Thus it is valuable to know voting records. They help us judge how likely it is that a candidate will follow through with his campaign promises.

2) Honesty matters. A candidate who cooks the books and spins the facts is not one I want to vote for. Unfortunately, that apparently disqualifies both candidates. They repeatedly, ad nauseum, misrepresent the other's position, exaggerate numbers, and make false accusations. Each time they get called on their fouls, it hurts their causes. Unfortunately, McCain seems less capable of making firm, indignant responses to Obama's charges, and thus he loses there.

3) A person can be guilty by association. But people can change, too. Whether or not the William Ayers connection has any merit depends greatly upon how radical Ayer's views are now, and how much those views influence Obama. Dick Morris, in his interview on Hannity and Colmes, noted that there are still radical elements to Ayer's modus operandi, and that there is strong evidence that Obama is in lockstep with him in terms of education. This could be an important point.

4) Obama's campaign manager tried to force Sean Hannity to back away from the guilt-by-association charge by accusing Hannity of being anti-Semitic for having an anti-Semite on his show. He obviously wanted Hannity to say something along the lines of, "I'm not anti-Semitic because I was in the same room as an anti-Semite," which would have been a great "gotcha" moment. And it was a good point, until he kept belaboring it when Hannity wouldn't fall into his trap. Hannity made a clear point: on his show, he hosts many people who ideologically disagree with him, the point being that sometimes you have to show how crazy the crazies really are. In addition to that, we don't see Hannity making policy based on his association with his anti-Semitic guest.

5) Health care is an issue I can only gawk at. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid, imprudent health insurance policies, and out-of-control lawsuits have driven the price of health care through the roof. I feel great sympathy for those who have been forced into bankruptcy because of high medical bills. (The commercial running quite often, featuring people who had to file for bankruptcy due to medical costs could have done better than someone who couldn't fit a $50,000 bill. Sara's cousin Jason was involved in a motorcycle accident that nearly killed him, and the treatment required to save his life ran over a million dollars.) But I don't see how Obama's plan will help matters. Insurance for pre-existing conditions? It is a nice dream, but makes no sense in practice. In fact, it doesn't make sense in terms of what insurance is about. But McCain's message on health care could use a few rewrites. He needs to explain exactly how his plan will benefit the average American, and how Obama's won't. As long as that is missing, Obama can keep promising fantasies.

Who I Believe Brings Change

On a quick note, I just have to say that I don't believe Obama will bring change as president of the United States. Part of the problem I have simply comes from listening to the candidates talk and what solutions they propose. Obama, better than McCain, scores political points, has talking points a mile long, and is, in his own right, decent at identifying problems.

It is his solutions that terrify me. Part of my reaction is sub-rational: when I look at what McCain proposes, as modest as those proposals are, I have a gut-feeling that he won't do much to hurt things, though I might remain skeptical as to where he will fix things. When I read Obama's proposals, or listen to him speak, I have a gut-feeling that he is going to tank the economy, and in general make matters worse.

I have some basic knowledge of economics. That can be boiled down to three points:

1) Supply and demand. You get full points on a Econ 101 exam by simply drawing an X on a chart and labeling one as supply and the other as demand. The reason is simple: the concept itself is simple to understand, but it is vital.

2) A man can increase capital through his own blood, sweat, and tears. In agriculture, assuming decent weather conditions, a farmer could increase capital by growing more crops. Simple as that.

3) When the costs are hidden, or something is free, people will take as much as they can, regardless of need. (This excludes those rare cases of something being so bad you couldn't give it away.)

What does Obama want to do with his economic policies? He wants to ignore supply and demand; he wants to cripple capital-making processes; and he wants to hide costs.

I might be completely out on a limb on economic policies, but this seems like a recipe for disaster. In my opinion, only someone who doesn't have the slightest clue of where money actually comes from could possibly think Obama's economic strategies are sound.

It seems like if you ask a liberal where money comes from, his answer will be (with a deer-in-headlights type expression): "The rich?"

The American Catholic Is UP

The American Catholic is up and running, and I've even made my first post. I'm excited to be on board, and I hope I live up to everyone's expectations. My Catholic faith is very important to me, and this is, I hope, a first step in a lifelong journey of active apologetics and living the faith.

Hidden Costs

The problem with trying to determine the moral path through economic policies is rooted in unforeseen consequences. In almost any plan, there are hidden costs that somehow make inexpensive plans require much more funding than originally anticipated.

In college, I see this all over the place. I came to the University of Wyoming in 1999 on the Trustee's Superior Student Scholarship, which paid for tuition, fees, room, and board, so I didn't necessarily have to worry so much about costs (and therein lies a problem), but I could see how numerous costs were inflated due to good intentions, but poor policies.

In the dorms, where I lived for four out of my five undergraduate years, I had the opportunity to witness just how hidden costs keep hurting us. Now, the dorms at UW were operated fairly simply. There was a fixed cost of living in a dorm room, and that covered phone, electricity, water, heating, and internet services. There was a fixed cost of any particular meal plan for dining in the Washakie Dining Hall.

The idea behind fixed costs is that some use more and some use less, and it is more effective to charge the average. Thus you tend to lose out with some customers, but on others you gain back the difference. And fixed costs are attractive to people. I know nowadays when I page through the classifieds looking for a new place to live, the places where utilities are a fixed part of the rent seem more appealing, and for a good reason. If I don't have to worry about the electricity bill, I can use all the electricity I want without worry. If I don't have to worry about water or natural gas, then I can take all the long, hot showers I want.

Perhaps where I would like to focus my attention the most, though, is on the Washakie Dining Hall, because that is where I've seen the most waste. And it is telling. While any particular meal plan carries a fairly high cost per meal, once you're inside the hall, you can take as much as you want and keep going back for more, if you so desire.

What you tend to see, then, is people who grab the main course, or possible two, heap up their trays with all kinds of side dishes, pick at their food, and then send most of it back to the kitchens to be thrown away.

What was really interesting was that people actually justified their waste. "If Washakie is going to charge so much more a meal plan, then I need to make sure I'm getting my money's worth." Friends of mine would load up their trays with stuff they didn't want and let it all be thrown away in an infantile desire to "stick it to the man."

For some odd reason, the cost of meal plans kept increasing every year.

I know a number of universities will offer meal plans, but then have a price attached to each course a person could select, which provides incentive to only take what one could afford. In addition, those plans carried with them much less waste, as people realized if they didn't finish what they took, then they had wasted their money. There's obviously a hidden cost factor at play here. At UW, that hidden cost factor drives the cost of food up every year, but though the students grumble, they continue to waste, because a fixed cost is a fixed cost.

The question then becomes, is it immoral then to offer fixed cost plans when it is obvious that people abuse the system? Not necessarily. A fixed plan can be very beneficial to many people, both those who offer the plan and those who accept the plan. The immorality comes from those who would abuse the system. But this comes back to matters of restraint, which we Americans don't seem to have. The moral course of action is to not waste, even when we have the opportunity to waste as much as we want without repurcussion.

Why Obama Will Win

Susan Estrich, a Fox News contributor, has new article posted on the Fox News website regarding a friend of hers who will not be voting for McCain. I find Estrich's columns to be some of the most thoughtful, well-articulated, to-the-point left-wing writing I've ever said. After all the vitriol we tend to her in the left-wing news and blogsphere, coupled with a large dose of finger-pointing and idiocy from the right, it is refreshing to read her posts.

That being said, I think there's a subtle clue in this particular column as to why I think Obama will win. It isn't because he's the new face of change, or that McCain is a warmongerer, or anything like that.

I believe it is because Obama promises goodies. End of story.

Right now, we're in a bit of a financial crisis, and there's concerns of whether this crisis will continue to develop until we're in a widescale depression. On the minds of the people of the United States is not: "how am I going to work through this?" Instead, it is "how is the government going to save me?"

I understand very well that the government exists to protect us. It gives us our laws, it maintains a military against outside forces, it provides a legislative system to adjust laws to be fair, it offers an executive system to enforce those laws for our protection, and in even hands us a judicial system to ensure that disputes are settled, be they civil or criminal. This is all very moving, very touching, very assuring.

So the government protects us from outsiders (or at least it is supposed to), and the government protects us from our neighbors. But the big crisis in our nation, and why I think Obama now will win, is that many of us want the government to protect us from ourselves.

Now, Estrich raises legitimate concerns.

[Rosie] does not believe [McCain] will help people like her: People who are "lucky" to be covered by an HMO where the lines are endless and the care is too often haphazard. It was not her first choice, it was the only insurance she could get. Blue Cross twice rejected her, the first time because she took medication for gastritis. Gastritis? She was lucky to get coverage by the HMO. If she tried now, with arthritis and high blood pressure, not to mention a fussy stomach, even they would turn her down.

The problem of getting health care to those most in need is one of the hot topics in this presidential debate. Who should have insurance and how much that insurance should cover are vital questions. The answers people want is "everyone and everything." Obama wants to promise that; McCain doesn't. And for this, Obama is heralded as a savior, and McCain out of touch with the common person.

I don't necessarily understand the problem Rosie is going through. I have insurance and don't have any health factors that will greatly impede getting insurance. But my mother-in-law suffers from Rosie's problem. For a time she had some strange abdominal pains that no one could explain, and because of this health risk, insurance agencies won't cover her. She's lucky to be on her husband's plan, though it carries a huge deductable, but on her own, she's out of luck. That hardly seems fair, especially considering that in a crisis she could find herself facing backruptcy. No one with any amount of compassion would ever wish that on someone.

Politicians, especially those on the left, want to make sure everyone has insurance, as though health insurance is this magical entity that mystically reduces the cost of health care. But health insurance isn't a panacea by any means, and the idea of making sure everyone is covered ignores the very principles that makes insurance work.

Insurance isn't a basic right owed anyone. If any thing is a basic right owed, it might be the health care itself, which is a subtle distinction, and even then there are arguments to make about it.

Insurance is really just a business. People who started insurance noted that personal disasters can be devastating and practically impossible to recover from. But such disasters are relatively rare. Now, in normal course of events, back in the days when we actually cared about our neighbor and didn't have the government looking over our shoulders to ensure we played nice and fair, lest there be a lawsuit, if one of our neighbors fell into hard times, everyone (or at least a large number of people) pitched in to help. They provided food, water, and shelter, and contacted a friend who had a brother who knew a person who could employ the downtrodden unfortunate.

In some ways, though, this neighborliness can be inefficient and no effective enough. In a small community, no one is going to be able to provide the $6 million needed for the lifesaving operation to rescue the victim of a terrible accident from the brink of death. Thus it isn't necessarily effective. Furthermore, even if at some point in time the community could have afford the $6 million, there was no guarantee that $6 million would be at hand when needed. Thus it isn't necessarily efficient.

The insurance people then offered a service. They would regularly collect small donations that would be put into a fund. When disaster hit, disaster beyond the economic capability of the members, money would be drawn from that fund to aid the victim. It was more efficient because regular payments meant a continual, calculable, and immediately accessible source of money, and if it could attract enough customers, from many communities, then it would be more effective, as well. Of course, since the insurers are offering a service, a portion of those payments would go to salaries.

Now, insurance agencies cannot cover everyone. In order to survive, in order to be capable of helping its customers, it has to have a relatively large body of low-risk customers. It has to rely on the probability that most of the people who pay insurance in fact will never need the insurance. And this immediately creates tension. People at high risk of cancer--like my grandfather, who smoked like chimney and drank like a fish--are those who will most likely face expensive medical procedures beyond their economic capabilities. But these are the people insurance agencies want to cover the least, because they will in turn need large withdrawals from the funds. It is almost self-contradictory. Insurance exists to help people who have to pay enormous amounts of money, and yet if insurance covers those people, it risks going out of business due to have all its funds drained dry.

There are a lot of calculations that need to be made in order to determine, then, who to cover and who not to cover. The agency has to take on some amount of risk, for otherwise it cannot cover anyone. But how much risk is a difficult balancing act. If an agency discovers that 75% of smokers require expensive surgeries, respirators, or other medical services, that agency might decide that covering smokers is too risky. The payouts will be more than the pay-ins, and the company cannot keep afloat. But if the agency instead discovers that only 30% of smokers require expensive treatment, then it might be willing to gamble by covering smokers.

Obama wants to offer health insurance to every American, regardless of medical history. It sounds nice. Those like Rosie and my mother-in-law would finally be able to have insurance. It would certainly be a relief and a boon, especially as the financial crisis tightens budgets, increases unemployment, ruins retirement plans, and cast a cloud of doubt on the future. But the question becomes: if offering health insurance to everyone can be done, why hasn't it been done?

There are two potential answers. One is that the insurance companies are greedy and would rather rake in the money and never pay it back out. The other is that the insurance companies are already stretched as far as they can go, and taking on additional risk would endanger them. If too many risky customers demanded payments all at once, the company could go under.

You know, now that I mention it, that sounds remarkably like something else I've heard about just recently. What was it? Oh yeah! It had something to do with the Democratic government demanding that mortgages be offered to people that couldn't quite make the credit checks, down payments, and other factors required for qualification. When all those people couldn't meet their payments when the housing bubble burst and the economy slowed down, what happened to all those banks? That's right, they collapsed, forcing us to attempt a $700 billion bailout plan.

Of course, the analogy only works if the second case holds, the case where insurance companies are already taking on as much risk as they think they can afford. Who knows? Maybe Obama is right in thinking the insurance providers can take on unlimited amounts of risk and not suffer for it. It's a nice delusion.

The problem isn't that McCain is out of touch with the ordinary person. The problem is more that McCain doesn't have a satisfactory answer for the ordinary person. What is he supposed to say? If he toes the line Obama is, wouldn't he be saying "Well, I'll make sure you get insurance at the risk of the whole system collapsing in ten or fifteen years, just like the mortgage agencies"? Or maybe, "I'll make sure you get insurance, but at the cost of thousands of people losing their jobs as high taxation slows the economy down and forces companies to lay off their workers?" If he follows his principles, could he possibly hope to win by saying, "Sorry, but I can't make thousands of people suffer just for your benefit, so you'll have to regretably fall through the cracks" or "the reality is the government simply can't guarantee you insurance, so you'll have to rely on providence and your neighbors"? Of course he can't say anything like that. But that doesn't mean he's out of touch.

But Obama offers the goodies, which must mean he's in touch with the ordinary person. And that, of course, is why he'll make the presidency.

Vampires

For a while now, I've had the urge to write about vampires. But then, so has every would-be writer out there. The literature is rife with vampire stories, many of them absolutely atrocious. Of course, if you really want to see bad vampire literature, check out any of the creative writing forums. There's usually a vampire post every few days, and most of them will have your eyes rolling as you think, "oh, please".

If I were to write about vampires, how would I escape the terrible vampire writing that is so prevalent? This is actually quite a daunting task, especially in light of the typical trend towards "good" vampires. You know, the ones that only suck blood of willing victims, or ones that only take their blood from hospitals, or ones that try to get by without drinking blood at all. Part of the reason we see this trend is because historically, vampires have been absolutely evil, and typically only appear in the horror genre. In order to really work with the romantic aspect of the vampire, though, especially if you want to justify your protagonist throwing herself at a vampire, then there has to be some leeway towards goodness. Yet I don't necessarily agree with that trend, because the very concept of a vampire seems to require insurmountable innate evil.

I come to this conclusion because I see vampires through a Catholic lens. Let's see what we can deduce from Catholic teaching applied to some of the common details surrounding vampires. Vampires are undead, drink the blood of the living, and are usually vulnerable to holy relics in some form, sunlight, a stake through the heart, and perhaps even garlic.

Let's look at the undead aspect, of which we first need a good working definition. What does it mean for a creature to be undead? Some might try to describe "undead" as both dead and alive, or neither dead nor alive. In the first case, we see something more akin to one who has died and yet remains supernaturally animated, whereas in the second, one is somehow in a limbo between life and death, with death somehow not complete, but full life somehow incapable of being restored.

Catholic doctrine tells us that the soul is the form of the body. It is the life force, the animating factor. Without the soul, the body is nothing but dust; it is dead. Human beings are a union of body and a spiritual soul; in other words, our animating force is not some material thing, like the souls of plants and animals, which can break down and decay. Our souls are eternal, lasting beyond the death of the body.

With this in mind, we turn to death itself. Death is the complete separation between body and soul, which is obvious since the soul is life force. When the soul leaves, the body cannot be alive. While the soul remains, the body is alive and could potentially be resuscitated. This seems pretty clear-cut. But where could the undead enter? It seems to me that with such a distinction, it makes it hard to argue about a state between life and death, in which life pretty much over but death not quite complete.

What then about the other option? We know from Hebrews that we die once, and after that are judged. What we don't know is exactly what transpires when a soul leaves the body. We know that it goes to Hell if it is in a state of mortal sin, and we know it goes to Heaven if not, maybe via Purgatory. But, given that souls are not spacial entities, what does it necessarily mean for a soul to go to Heaven or to Hell? It is difficult to conceive of these things without any spacial references. Nor do we know how a soul can or cannot interact with the material world once in Heaven or Hell. It certainly seems that entities in Hell have some limited access to the material world. At least, if we believe that the Devil is in Hell, and has been since the rebellion, it seems that he and his legions of fallen angels have some interaction with the material world.

If being undead means having died and then somehow becoming reanimated supernaturally, then it seems that it must follow a procession like this: A person dies, and at the moment of death is judged (his position fixed in eternity), but due to being capable of interacting with the material world, before reaching Hell somehow latches onto his former body and through some supernatural process re-inhabits it. Perhaps the only fictional part of this process is the reestablishment of the soul in the body, which pretty much contradicts Church doctrine.

So which do we pick? Do we suppose some potential interim state between life and death, a point where we can claim that there is no longer life, but death hasn't quite taken complete control, or do we suppose that the soul somehow returns to the body, however imperfectly? The difference, of course, is important in the way that the vampire is ultimately handled. If the former is permitted, then the vampire always stands a chance of redemption, and could potentially be moved by grace. If the latter is to be the case, then vampire is beyond redemption, having already been damned, and yet somehow lingers in the world.

In my humble opinion, the latter seems the easier swallow. We have Biblical evidence of demon possession of living creatures, both human and animal. While there's not anything to say that demons possessed dead or nonliving things, this still gives us the idea that the damned can potentially interact with the world in a more physical sense than just tempting the faithful into sin, and that they can somehow inhabit a material form. It isn't a stretch to apply that to a soul seeking to take back its own decaying body. Whereas to suggest a state between life and death really stretches the notion of the role of the soul as the animating force and the nature of death.

In my next posts, I'll work with the notion that a vampire is a being that died and is attempting to reanimated its former body, and how that works, in a Catholic sense, with some of the other legends surrounding vampires.