Monday, April 30, 2001, 11:14pm

     Picture. Those of you that know me well might understand this. You might not. I have a feeling that a greater majority will not.

Monday, April 30, 2001, 6:40pm

     I want to say things. You want me to say things. But I don't want to say the things I want to say. That does not follow logic. I'm a bit uncomfortable at the moment. Perhaps I will feel better tonight. Perhaps tomorrow. Perhaps next week. I will probably be fairly quiet between now and ... whenever. Don't be concerned, just use your time for yourself. No, really, be selfish for once. Just enjoy your moment. I'll try to do the same.

Sunday, April 29, 2001, 7:12pm

     I really need to type my papers, but I think I just discovered the greatest game ever (potentially): the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy! I wonder how long it will take me to own that after it's released.

Sunday, April 29, 2001, 6:59pm

     Several people have asked what the seven candles above are supposed to mean. I guess I could make an attempt to answer that. I originally chose the seven candles for two reasons. First, candles are symbolic in several ways, and they especially are symbolic of life and love. Second, the number seven is symbolic in many ways, but I drew the connection of the number seven to the Seven Deadly Sins and the seven virtues that they oppose: pride, envy, wrath, sloth, greed, gluttony, and lust; humility, kindness, patience, diligence, liberality, abstinence, and chastity. (I'm not sure if those are the same seven virtues you may know, but this is how I know them. They seemed to have come about countering the sins anyway.)

Sunday, April 29, 2001, 6:45pm

     Everyone of all ages do yourselves a favor: if you're going to watch the news, watch Fox News. If you want to actually be entertained by the news, watch The O'Reilly Factor, the only cable news program out there that tells it like it is. If you really want the news behind the news - what it really means instead of what they try to tell you - and if you really want wholesome family entertainment with a little education on the side, watch Bill O'Reilly. 8:00pm (eastern) on the Fox News Channel. Com'on, just humor me. It's quality news, it's informative, and it's what much of the media is afraid to tell or doesn't want you to know. Watch!

Sunday, April 29, 2001, 4:25pm

     Don't you love it when you're writing the very last two very significant English papers of your life as a college freshman on the very last Sunday of your career as a college freshman, and your father decides that right now is the best time in the world to take ninety minutes of your time and coerce you into mowing the lawn? You know you do. I know I do. </sarcasm>

Sunday, April 29, 2001, 2:37pm

     Something amazing has just occured to me. Tomorrow is my last day of class as a college freshman. There will be final exams spread out over next week, but tomorrow will be the day for my last freshman classes. Wow. Time flies, especially when you enjoy the people around you. It's not what you're doing, it's who you're with. I'm glad that I have the friends that I have, and that I've met the people that I've met. This year has been one of the best of my life. (Well, the best, considering the last year that would compare would be kindergarten, and we know that that doesn't really compare.)
     So, tomorrow being my last day, I naturally have a lot of homework to do. Two papers to write, to be exact. The first is a written-from-scratch essay on A Doll's House, a neat little play concerning a woman's awakening to independence from a husband concerned far too much with appearance instead of reality. The second is a revision of a previous paper on the novel Like A Sister. I have no idea what Dr. Wilson wants out of a revision, so I will just do what I can and hope for an A. That's all I can do, right? Wish me luck, and I'll see you tomorrow (or possibly later tonight).

Sunday, April 29, 2001, 5:34am

     I haven't stayed up this long for these reasons ... ever. I'm not up working on my web page. I'm not up doing school work. I'm not up chatting with a friend (although that was an added bonus). I'm not up surfing the net. I'm not up reading or researching or anything else. I'm thinking. I'm reflecting. The events of the last day or two suddenly have acquired so much more meaning because of two conversations. Two significant people in my life made significant comments ... and those comments have had a significant impact on the meaning of, well, everything that my life is about right now. I'm beginning to wonder how far I can go with this, and I almost don't like the fact that I'm trying to restrain myself from saying more. I don't feel like I should have to do that, and I also don't feel like I should be saying this now because of that will to restrain myself. However, it is the middle of the morning; where else would I go with it? This is my way out. This is how I share my life. This is my therapy. This is what gets me through. This web site is everything that makes me who I am: my experience, my philosophy, my politics - my opinions through my words. This is what I have to offer to myself in the future, and any one in the world now that may be interested. I do not ask that any of you read what I write here, and if it upsets you in any way, I would rather that you not. My purpose here is to share my point of view, my objectivity, my life. And I will continue to do that. Of course, necessary adjustments are always made, but when one doesn't know exactly how to adjust or to handle a situation, one must simply confront it. I would love to do that right now, but 5:30am doesn't allow that.

     I'll make two more quick notes before I go to bed. First, everything about April 27 and April 28 was awesome. April 29 is a bit questionable so far, and I'm not even a quarter of the way into it. Second, tonight (or last night, considering the hour) we through Tony an awesome surprise birthday party. The best surprise of all was when [my mom's boyfriend, I guess?] Andy came up with this brilliant idea to answer the door and pretend that it was his house, threating to call the sheriff if Tony and Mike (Tony's driver, "invited to dinner" as cover for the party) didn't leave. It was awesome. They know the house well enough, and they were hesitant to reach for their car doors as we all snuck around to surprise them. (Even Mike had no idea about this part; it was highly spontaneous.) What made this perfect was driving all the familiar cars and parking them way down the street, the Honda closest and blocking the view of all the others. Why? They could both recognize my car, or Claire's car, and so on... But everyone seems to have a Honda, so why would that look suspicious on the side of any street? Oh, it was priceless, and perhaps the best surprise party that I will ever throw. (And thanks to everyone that came, especially Claire for the awesome cake and cookies, Carrie for the wonderful sugar cookies, Mike for driving Tony around and being subject to a prank himself, and Mom for allowing me to use her house, which I would have done anyway! Hahah! Well, not if she actually told me no, but why would she do that?)
     So much for quick notes. Oh, and mom, drop what you're doing and give Andy my web site address.

Sunday, April 29, 2001, 4:40am

     A friend and I recently had a conversation, and I came to the following revelation. Think about the importance of every little detail of your life and how it has shaped you. Every little detail Then just think, if that works for you and your life... If each individual detail of your life has meant so much in making you who you are, then doesn't each individual detail of existence, each person, each event, each decision, mean so much in making life on earth what it is? Maybe the consequences aren't immediate, but your influences carry on for far too long to even comprehend. If even only in ripples, the influence is there, and it is always significant.

Saturday, April 28, 2001, 3:18pm

     To Peter and Claire, who sent in answers to two of my "I ask, you answer" questions about two weeks ago, I apologize for getting them up just now. Here you go:

What do you care of others' thoughts of you? (aside from friends) (answer)


Is the glass half empty or half full? (answer)


     I identified Peter's allusion ... with the aid of a search engine. And yes, he actually sent me a nickel. I do not have a Paypal account, however, and I did not feel like signing up for one, so the nickel is still sitting out there in cyberspace as we speak. As for the questions, I have added and updated both questions, as well as many other articles of reasonable interest, to that great list of writings that I keep so that you may peruse them at your convenience. There is nothing in there that you haven't seen on the main page yet, but I plan to add a couple of my school papers hopefully sooner than later, so expect that soon. Also, I have another question that I would like answered, probably moreso than the first two, simply because this is a question that many of you will probably have to really think about, if you have even payed attention at all for the last ninety-nine days.

What is your opinion of President George W. Bush? (answer)

     It has been ninety-nine days since Bush's inauguration, and many things have happened in that time: the election "scandal" talks, the arsenic in the water, the tax-cut, the mini-crisis in China (the spy plane and Taiwan), and the Democratic Party's opposition. These are only a few of the major issues that I can think of off the top of my head; I'm sure more has happened. You could compare Bush to any of a number of men, like former or current leaders, politicians, historical figures, etc. You could compare Bush's policy. You could simply state that you think he has done a good or bad job, and give me a couple of reasons why.
     I do not care how you go about answering the question, but don't give a flat answer without justification for any bold opinions, please. I'm open, and I would hope that the very few visitors to my site are as well, so I am not going to blast your comments just because I don't agree with them. So please, no worries, and tell me what you think!

     This is unrelated, but my internet connection has been down all afternoon. The cabel modem blinks madly as it receives the signal from where ever it gets its signal from, and then it sits idly as it does not log on to the system. When the light blinks slowly, that means that it is searching for the signal. When it blinks as it has been blinking in five minute intervals all morning, fast and madly, that means that it has found the signal and is attempting to logon. When the blinking stops, that means that it was unable to logon, despite finding the signal. This also means that the server onto which I usually logon is probably not functioning properly, hence my computer's inability to logon to the system. And there it goes blinking madly again, and again, in just a few seconds, the blinking will stop. So it goes.
     It is 3:00pm now, and the connection has been down since I turned the computer on at noon. Of course I did not sit on the computer waiting, I just glanced once in a while checking for a solid light that would indicate that the machine had finally connected. I finally decided to sit down for half an hour and straighten a few things out with the web site, and I think I've done well. Note the time that I have set for this post above, and note how many hours have passed since 1:00pm, when I was ready to upload. And now you see how long I was waiting to get all of the above information to you.

Saturday, April 28, 2001, 2:19am

     I feel like the quote needs a brief explanation. I was in a flirtatious mood, and I decided to take Anna's keys just before she reached for them, just because I knew that she was going to turn around and make it really easy. I also felt that it would be perfect because I was busy putting on and tying my shoes, several feet from the table on which her keys were sitting, so she had no idea that I had them. Of course, she figured it out... such is the nature of our relationship. We laugh. She hits me. That kind of a thing. Holding back a smile was futile, so she knew that I had them, but because she turned back around so quickly, I did not have time to put them in my pocket or anything, so they were just on the couch behind me. She said that she had expected me to put them "somewhere where she shouldn't reach," and I said that I had thought about it but did not have enough time, and she said that she "was about to reach for 'em" anyway. Only one person overheard this, and he thought it was funny. I thought it was funny too. OF COURSE SHE WAS JOKING. So you know. It was funny, and we were all having a blast.
     I hope Mike's okay. He stayed in Macon longer than me, and he has my keys and my cell phone. Ugh. I kinda need to get into my mom's house tomorrow to feed my dogs, and I need my keys to do that. Ugh. I guess I'll stop by in the morning and pick them up. But what do you care?

     Oh, heheh... Another funny quote tonight. Anna and Heather were harassing me as they normally do, and Anna noticed that my pupils were dilated. I was curious, so I wanted a second opinion, and so I asked Heather. She immediately stated that my eyes are always like that. "They're like that when you look at something you like." A few listeners caught that and we burst into little giggles. Now I'm wondering why these two concentrate so much on my eyes, and why everyone's so social with me lately. Have I really turned a complete one-eighty since middle school?

Saturday, April 28, 2001, 1:48am

     I think I just participated in the best, funnest school project ever. I don't care if you think it was or was not elaborate enough; I had more fun than I could have imagined. The project was for our psychology class, and I was merely a classmate invited to participate in other students' project. (With only nine students, it makes sense that the whole class participated.) The project was a murder-mystery dinner party. When we arrived, each person assumed a character identity that would help everyone else decide who the killer was. We had to choose a killer, a motive, and the psychological disorder with which the killer was plagued that likely led to his murderous actions. Each person chose individually; collaboration was not illegal, but not abundant either. I would also like to point out that the killer had no idea that he was the killer. (Don't let he confuse you; the killer could easily be one of the females.) Now let me get down to the story from my point of view as it happened.
     Michael Vincent (I'll refer to him as Vincent because there is another Michael) was the host; it was his house and he was serving us. He and Matt put the project together. Matt was a lawyer whose business at the party was private, but we all had a sneaking suspicion. Neither Matt nor Vincent were involved in the murder in any way, and we all knew that from the start. Kristi was to be our victim, and she had been given brief instructions before dinner started.
     Although it was a bit confusing at first, we eventually caught on and began picking up with our characters. At first I just didn't know what to say, but I eventually figured it out. I was a doctor whose previous three wives had each "mysteriously disappeared." Our victim, Kristi, felt very uncomfortable around me because she suspected that I had something to do with it, and was frightened even more so because I had shown affection for her. Her sister Heather showed much contempt for Kristi, and her mother, Dr. Jardine, was fairly rude to Kristi, even for a mother. Mike knew Kristi somehow, but it was fairly unclear. He and his wife Beverly had a twelve-year-old girl, Anna, who really didn't like lawyers or doctors. Matt and Donald happened to be lawyers, and I was a doctor.
     The dialogue picked up almost immediately, and people began to assume their characters. Considering that most of our characters did not know any of the others, I believe the dialogue was almost perfect for the events that were to occur later. Matt and Vincent did an excellent job providing each of us with our characters and limited background information from which to extrapolate.
     It was obvious from the start that Kristi's family did not get along well. Heather (sister) was very jealous, and it became evident fairly quickly that she was upset because her father had left his entire estate to Kristi in his will. Jardine (the mother) was also a little upset by this, but not so much as the fact that Kristi was having her put into a retirement home. Kristi was making off like a bandit, and she didn't care much for sharing with her family.
     Michael and Beverly began to throw insults across the table, especially toward Kristi and her fortune. It became clear that their income allowed for just less than a comfortable living, and their daughter Anna seemed jealous of anyone with more money, like lawyers and doctors, and especially Kristi. Being a doctor, I felt that it made sense that I defend those that make money, but I also did not want to speak too much, because I did not want to try to come up with ways to conceal my past. I was often the mediator, trying to calm down the conversation from the incessant insults (it was hilarious), and finally my intrusiveness led to my involvement in some conversation.
     Mike was the first to speak up, asking what I do for a living. I explained that I was a doctor, and I filled up my glass of water. Someone asked what I did as a doctor, and I didn't explain it too well, but I did good enough. Someone asked what my most interesting experiment as a daughter was, and Kristi told the table that I should tell them about my "work" on my second wife. Of course, knowing very little about my past, I made it up. I claimed that she had a rather serious operation coming up, and I was the most qualified doctor for the procedure, but because of my closeness to the patient, I was not allowed to perform the operation. Instead, an out-of-town specialist was called in, and I was asked to leave the hospital. I tried to explain that it was simply the procedure in the building in which I worked, but conversation immediately sprung up that I left my wife, etc... Mike then asked what happened to her. I told him that she was fine after the operation. Kristi then asked what happened later, so I explained that my wife had died and that I would rather not discuss it. She made another insulting comment, and I gave her a glance that showed that I did not want to comment, half for my affection for her and half covering my own past. (I tried to give that look, anyway.)
     So the conversation heats up, and as more and more insults are being thrown, I'm drinking many glasses of water and trying to defend the lawyers and Kristi as best I can. Finally, as conversation was really heating up, and as everyone was slinging false insults to the characters that they were just learning to enjoy, Anna (the twelve-year-old daughter) made the comment, "I think you killed your wife!" Knowing only the details of my own past, and not prepared for such a comment, I naturally acted too defensive, and I was hoping that no one really got into that, because I was winging it, and I had no idea how to defend myself against crimes that I supposedly committed of which I really had no knowledge.
     Note that no one here knows who the real killer is, so don't just go assuming it's me. I only knew my past; they could all have had shady pasts. Maybe they were just better at hiding it. Besides, look at the lawyer Donald over there, sitting high, enjoying his meal, and completely invoiding the conversation, even though Mike and his family are referring to him as a "blood-sucking lawyer." Mike even claimed that he was not comfortable at a table with lawyers, to which Jardine replied with, "what have you got to hide?" At this point I once again decided to intervene in an attempt to calm the table. Beverly suggested that I come up with something to talk about if I was so interested in changing the subject. I had no interest in discussion; I just wanted to eat.
     It was about this time that dinner time was over, and it was time to search the house in three fifteen-minute intervals for clues. The synopsis so far (from my point of view)... At this point, the only thing that bothers me about myself is my shady past, but I have no other reasons to believe that I am the killer. I was given no personality traits to act out, so if I were to have a disorder, I had no idea what it could be. I immediately suspected Beverly. It had been determined that she had diabetes and that she was dying, and that Mike was a very caring husband who was doing everything he could to save her. My second suspect was Heather, who was very upset with her sister "stealing" all of her father's fortune. Third, I suspected Dr. Jardine, Kristi's mother, for much the same reason I suspected Heather, only less because Jardine seemed less upset about it. I did not suspect Anna, despite her contempt, at this time. She was just a bratty kid. I did not suspect Mike; I saw no relation to Kristi, and he only seemed to dislike the lawyers. I did not suspect Donald at all; he was quiet, he insulted no one, and he sat next to me... and all the while he was somewhat suspicious because of that.
     The clues sessions were rather interesting. We were to run around the house in three fifteen-minute intervals and try to find clues that would hopefully lead to our decisions on a killer, a motive, and a disorder with which the killer was afflicted. Kristi, our body, could answer certain specific questions when alone with any of the suspects (kinda cool, don't you think?) Vincent (the server, her confident) and Matt (the lawyer, who would later turn out to be an FBI Criminal Investigator undercover posing as a lawyer) could also be asked any questions, but only the right questions would be answered. Any participants could talk to anyone else.
     In the first session, the only significant clue that I found was the father's will, which made it very clear how he had banished his wife (Kristi's mother) and daughter (Heather, Kristi's sister) from his estate and left everything to Kristi. I also found a couple of clues that mentioned something about an "old folks' home," which didn't tell me much. I didn't know who it referred to at this time. At the end of the first fifteen minute session, I suspected Heather (so did two of six others). Her motive was jealousy and no one knew about her psychological disorder. After brief discussion and no hints, session two began.
     In session two I was finally able to ask Kristi a few questions about her family, namely Heather. I concluded that Heather was equally as suspicious as her mother, after this, for her mother was very upset about being put into an "old folks' home" by Kristi because Kristi did not want to take care of her. I still had no clues for any psychological disorders for either, though. I also found clues that indicated that Kristi had had a child, which would therefore be the heir to her fortune, you know, if something were to happen to Kristi. I immediately suspected Anna, because she was the only child, and upon further investigation I found that Anna was indeed Kristi's daughter, with Mike as the father. At the end of the second session, I decided that Anna was the killer, greed was her motive, and she was depressed because of what she perceived as a low-class life style. Good, I thought, but there was no evidence of such depression, and she was only a kid. I had ruled out Beverly, Mike, and Donald by this point. After brief discussion, the final session began.
     In this session I found no new clues that helped me, but I discovered that the killer had strangled Kristi, which I perceived as typically a love crime, such as in the poem "Porphyria's Lover" (Burns, I think). It didn't exactly hit me, because I hadn't found all the clues, but I guessed that I was the killer and that my motive was my love for her and that she knew too much about my past. I had found no other evidence against Anna, Heather, or Jardine, so I decided to dismiss them. I knew my own background well enough to know that I was capable of killing, so it just made sense to me. I didn't really know what disorder I would have had, but when I thought about it, I decided on obsessive-compulsive disorder. I figured that, if Kristi really felt unsafe around me but wasn't sure about my past, and since we had not found all the clues, then just maybe there was evidence of my obsession for her that I had just not found.
     So, given the evidence that you have had, who do you think did it? Think long and hard about it! Click here when you're ready to find out who did it!

     After the murder-mystery dinner party ended, we hung around and discussed our own psychological problems for a bit. It was unintended, but I am glad that we were all able to sit down as a group and openly discuss a few things like we did. I don't think I've had as much fun with any group, even my best friends, as I had tonight with a bunch of people whom I barely know (outside of school, I mean).
     After our little therapy session, several people went home, leaving Vincent, Kristi, Matt, Donald, Anna, me, and a friend of Kristi's. After discussing several things that -oh-my-god- I wish the rest of the class had been able to hear, we sat down for a nice game of truth or dare. Oh, I hadn't played that in years. I knew Anna was going to pick me; I just knew it. And she did. And she dared me to kiss Kristi. Don't worry, it was extremely innocent, like the kind of kiss you would give to an aunt or uncle. I guess we were just loosening up for the potential of the game. I was having moral issues, you know, having a girlfriend and her not being there... it was tough. Then Michael's parents arrived, and the game ended abruptly. But not before a few things were said and done. Oh, this has been one of the best nights of my life! Sad, isn't it?

Friday, April 27, 2001, 4:14pm

     While I think Tony prefers to keep a low profile regarding such things, the world should know that today is the day that he has chosen to celebrate the 19th anniversary of his existence. (Technically, he existed approximately up to or around nine months before, but he wasn't actually alive until nineteen years ago.) So, there you have it. Happy birthday, Tony. (If any of you actually care to know, I got him this.)

     FOXNews has an interesting report on Timothy McVeigh, which includes his letter that he wrote to Rita Cosby, senior correspondent for the Fox News Channel. I'll hold back my comments on the McVeigh note; I would rather you read it for yourself without my bias influencing your opinion one way or another.

     Has anyone ever noticed that Puerto Rico is an island with very selfish inhabitants (okay, not all of them)? Puerto Rico would never think of declaring its independence from the United States because they absolutely love all of the benefits and special treatment that they receive as an American territory! They don't want to be burdened with the responsibilities of an independent nation; they like their current state of being spoiled and nurtured! However, now that the U.S. Navy is test-bombing and shelling a very isolated location, Puerto Rican protesters seem infinite. The protesters have thrown stones at and damaged Navy vehicles, set fire to fields, tried to cut through fences, and committed other various violent acts. Few have been arrested, such as those trespassing on the bomb sites, but several have received pepper spray to the eyes for their idiocy. Look people, you can't have it both ways. You're either a part of the United States or you're not. If you are, then what makes you so special that you can tell the government to use our land instead of yours? Face it, when it comes down to it, military testing and practice is necessary, and the Navy doesn't really have many other options. (It's not like the Navy can test in Utah.) Just be happy that they didn't test nukes on you in the '50s.

Thursday, April 26, 2001, 8:34pm

     A couple weeks ago (last week?) a woman left her newborn baby (very new - it hadn't even been properly cleaned yet) in someone's front yard wrapped in a Braves jacket. The woman is known to have drug problems and is probably slightly left of sane. When the baby was found, it was covered in ants. The finders, whom I believe to have been the occupants of the home on whose lawn the baby was left, cleaned the baby and contacted the Department of Family and Children Services (DEFACS), who currently have custody of the child. Now the mother wants her baby back.
     The point in all this, believe it or not, is to talk about the ACLU. The ACLU nearly always finds a role in cases like this, and I'm always curious to see which role they choose. The ACLU claims to stand for people's rights, but just for what people do they stand? I have no measure or pattern to look upon to see any consistency in the sides that the ACLU chooses, but it seems to me that they are playing God in a sense. You see, in every case, there is a victim and an oppressor, according to the ACLU. So in the event that there are two victims and the ACLU is to be involved, guess who gets to decide which side the ACLU is going to be on? (Okay, in fairness, the ACLU probably goes with the side to which they are first introduced, or the side that offers money first. But, when they choose to get involved on their own...) The ACLU does. So in other words, the ACLU has the power to decide whose rights are being infringed upon more. Take this case for example. If the ACLU were to get involved, on whose side do you think it would be? The baby's? Or the mother's? I would rather keep my opinion out of this, for that is not the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is that sometimes the ACLU makes bad decisions simply because someone's rights are being taken away. Face it, if you're going to defend someone's rights, then in some cases that someone's rights will have to outweigh someone else's, such as in this case.
     Ugh. I don't mean to bash the ACLU. Maybe society is the problem. I think everyone needs better education, a greater understanding, and a greater reasoning ability of all that goes on in society. We need to be less emotional and reactive and more objective and cautious. Sometimes we need to be bold and assertive and fight for what we think is right! Other times we need to sit back and carefully consider all sides before taking our stand. You all know that there's room for moderation. So why not act like it?

Thursday, April 26, 2001, 4:27pm

     President Bush said Wednesday he felt "pretty darn good" about the job he is doing, citing progress on a tax cut and negotiations with Democrats on his education agenda. In a wide-ranging interview, Bush also said the United States would "help Taiwan defend herself" against China if necessary. An upbeat Bush also acknowledged a more low-key style than his predecessor, former President Clinton, and professed his honor in working in the Oval Office as the nation's 43rd president. Bush offered his own assessment of his first 100 days, which officially comes Sunday, saying he has made more progress than some pundits had predicted.
     Then comes the issue of liberals throwing everything out of whack, talking through their asses, and doing everything in their power to talk Bush down. There is only one Democrat left in Congress, and that is James Traficant. The rest of the assholes that call themselves "Democrats" may as well just rename their party the Liberal Party or something, because they certainly aren't Democrats. I think the most obvious example of the liberals mistreatment of Bush comes with the arsenic issue (you know, the one where Clinton waited eight years to, on his last day in office, push legislation to reduce the maximum level of arsenic in the water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion). I've commented enough on that, so let's see what other Americans have to say. I'll start with the credible half of the country.





     Okay, in the interest of fairness, I think I should give the liberals their fair share of the spotlight here. House minority leader Richard Gephardt claims that Bush has not pushed the idea of bipartisanship as he had claimed, and Gephardt is "sad to report...that in these 100 days, there's been no collaboration, there's been no negotiation, there's been no consensus building, there have been no bipartisan conclusions." He went on to state in a liberal (they called it Democratic) rally outside that he hopes that changes, "but the uniter has not yet appeared."
     Sigh. Mr. Gephardt, Bush has made every attempt to do what is best for this country, and your party - yes, your party; you are one of their significant leaders - has done nothing but shun him and his actions ... and for very poor reasons. You have made the claim that Bush wants us to drink arsenic. You all know that this is extremely bogus. You have made the claim that Bush's proposed tax cut plan would be horrible for our country, but you know that that is also untrue.
     Just because I can, I'll share a few more of our citizens' opinions of our president. Oh yeah, this is the dumb half of the country speaking now:




     The liberals are diseased with this inane compulsion to spread inaccurate and unfounded nontruths with absolutely no reasonable justification of any kind to back them up! I mean, really, if you would just offer facts and reason to defend your arguments, you would at least provide me with a bit more to hold back my arguments against you. As you are, though, you just make it really easy for me to really dislike you and your hypocritical ways.
     Oh, and I'll say it again: There is only one Democrat left in Congress, and that is James Traficant. The rest are pseudo-Democrats that only use the Democratic label because it sounds better than Progressive Socialism.

Thursday, April 26, 2001, 3:03pm

     With all the back and forth opinions supporting Microsoft and supporting piracy and supporting privacy and ... oh dear ... I feel compelled to toss in my opinion. You know, just because someone might actually like it, or maybe they won't, so they'll somehow discover the greatest flaw of humanity buried in my comments. Either way, maybe my comments will help someone ... somehow.

Napster, Mp3s, & Burning CDs
     I download mp3s. I burn mp3s to CDs. I do not burn complete albums to CDs; I buy those. I love to make singles compilation CDs. I also love the inserts and lyrics and stats on the band that come with purchasing a CD; nothing can replace that. Is that so dishonest?
     As for the piracy debate, I don't see what I do as so horribly wrong. I buy about three CDs per month, and I use about two BMG subscriptions per year, so I am legally purchasing between 30 and 50 CDs per year, which is a very significant portion of my income. (College income sucks, you know.) Before mp3s, I bought maybe ten CDs per year, but I made about the same amount of money.
     Hmm. What's going on here? Could it be that my interests have changed? ... I think not. I've always loved music, and I've always had the money to buy it. The difference is, now that mp3s make it possible to hear a much greater variety of music that horrible local radio stations would never allow me to hear, I am exposed to literally hundreds of different bands and scores of styles of music that I would never otherwise be able to hear. I find out about new stuff that isn't played locally, and I download a few singles from the album, and if it's worth buying, I somehow find the CD and buy it. If the album sucks, but one or two songs are good, I'll download them to my hard drive and possibly burn them to a CD of random songs that fit into that "like the song but not the album" category. Is that so wrong?
     The Napster issue has been blown way out of proportion, and the music industry (read: RIAA) is only in it for money. CDs are overpriced as they are, and the price is only rising, yet people are buying more and more!
     Conclusion: Napster has not only not hurt CD sales or the music industry, but I would also argue that Napster has even helped the music industry by allowing millions of users a much greater exposure to music in general, thus the increase in CD sales. Sure, CD singles sales are bound to drop, but with full albums and mp3 singles, what's so bad about that? We're not screwing them over; the music industry is screwing themselves over.

Windows, Applications, Cracks & Hacks
     I never buy a brand new OS, ever. They are severely overpriced, and only businesses with their business budgets can really afford to buy them. What I do is buy Windows OS's that are a little over a year old, usually, and I get them pre-installed on a new system.      Note that each of the above systems were fast for their time, but not the fastest, and Windows wasn't brand new (except perhaps Me) when I bought the systems, so I got great performance for decent prices. So in that respect, I consider myself an honest user.
     However, when Windows 95 began to destroy my 166, I upgraded it to Windows 98 using my 300's Win98 disc. And when my dad took the 300 back in September (he let me have the fast one; yea!), he upgraded to WinMe using my system's disc. Yay! Is that so wrong? I think not. We have spent several hundreds of dollars for Windows on each computer, so upgrading and duplicating our newer OS's should not be considered wrong in any way. We have paid for the products that we have. We have three Windows OS's and three systems. Let us configure them how we like. I don't think Microsoft has a problem with that.
     (Someone has pointed this out in their comments below. Microsoft seems to be implementing WPA only with regard to businesses, particularly small businesses, that buy scores of computers and duplicate a single operating system, which is where Microsoft is "losing" most of its money. Home users are not a great threat, and are usually simply upgrading a machine for which they had already purchased a Microsoft OS. In that situation, I believe that Microsoft should allow the upgrades for free. Upgrading an OS should not cost $80, or even $40. If I buy Windows Me, and Microsoft brings out Windows Me2 [heh] a year later, a very minimal fee or no fee at all should be required to upgrade to Me2. This is already somewhat implemented through Windows Update online.)
     Oh yeah. Applications. Some applications can be priced at up to $600 for a single CD. As if someone my age has $600 to spend on a CD. *cough* So, yeah, I might indulge myself a little there. I don't pirate much software; I understand that it is not a good thing to do, and I understand the consequences. However, in some cases, such as with those $600 applications, I see little wrong with a *home user* downloading a cracked copy. (Note that I say little. Yes, it's wrong, but at $600 per CD, you'll just have to get over it. I suggest that some of these applications drop in price! Like down to $60. There we go!)

Closing Arguments
     WPA is not a bad thing. It is meant to protect Microsoft's investment in its own endeavors. Microsoft is a software developer (among other things) and has the right to implement such a feature on their own software. When we have cold, hard proof of abuse of such features, that is when we should lash out in defense. Until then, let's not get bent out of shape over hypothetics, okay?
     Also, I think that CDs (music and software) are grossly overpriced. It takes about $0.25 per CD to produce and write a CD by the thousands, which is how the music/software industries do it, and the other fees that come with those respective industries still do not warrant CDs being priced at $15 (music) or God-knows-how-much (software).
     So, yeah, I hope I helped someone, or I hope someone has something good to say in response. You know, other than, "you're stupid and I disagree," without giving me any good reasons why.

Thursday, April 26, 2001, 10:07am

     Our president is better than most people think, the word Irish is now a slur (in Vermont), and I am too busy. At least the rat knows its way through the maze, but sometimes I have to bop him lightly on the head when he tries to cheat; I think he gets bored, so he just tries to climb out. He would do so easily if I weren't there to tap him gently, but I think he interprets this as playing. His food is not as enticing as we would have liked, either, so I think that our experiment has a few flaws. The reward should be something he absolutely loves, and the punishment for making wrong turns or cheating should be something that he absolutely hates, like an electric shock. Sorry, Skinner, I'm not into torchuring animals, so I guess he'll just have to learn the maze the slow way.
     I guess it doesn't help that he needs to know it in less than an hour. Oh, and his name is Nicholas. I'll try to get a picture of the cute little furball up here ... and his tail.

Tuesday, April 24, 2001, 7:27pm

mp3otd: Train - Drops of Jupiter.mp3

     FOXNews reports that the Federal Trade Commission has released a follow-up report to its September 2000 report on "Marketing of Violent Entertainment to Children." The purpose of the original report was to answer two questions about the marketing of violent entertainment material: Do the industries promote products they themselves acknowledge warrant parental caution in venues where children make up a substantial percentage of the audience? And are these advertisements intended to attract children and teenagers? The report found that for all three segments of the entertainment industry (music, movies, video games), the answers are plainly "yes." The original report called for "additional efforts to enhance their self-regulatory efforts." No legislative recommendations were made to Congress. A follow-up testimony stated that "although all three industries studied have self-regulatory systems that purport to rate or label their products to help parents make choices about their children's entertainment, the Commission found that members of all three industries routinely target advertising and marketing for violent entertainment products directly to children."
     Back to today's (April 24) FTC report and the FOXNews article, we find that both the movie and video games industries have visually complied, but the music industry has done little more than ignore the FTC's requests. Specifically, the music industry has intentionally refused to properly advertise explicit-content with the proper label, and all of the major record companies routinely advertise explicit material in magazines and during television programs with substantial under-17 audiences.
     The music industry argues that it has been "voluntarily placing rating stickers on albums for fifteen years... The words in song lyrics should receive the same free speech and First Amendment protection from censorship as the words in books, which are not subjected to rating systems or labeling." Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman [gag] "is expected to propose legislation later this week that would prosecute entertainment companies who fail to comply with the guidelines set forth by the FTC reports, guidelines that now remain voluntary. Such legislation would likely raise serious First Amendment issues and spark years of litigation." Well, thanks for your concern, Joe, but we don't need any more contradictions to the First Amendment. FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky also noted the dangers of "government intrusion" into the regulating of content in movies and music, and urged the industry to police itself. I couldn't agree more.
     Perhaps the best solution to combat the music industry's bogus argument is to enlighten the music industry. Let them know that the music has a much greater effect on popculture than any book (although books probably influence individuals more greatly). Let them know that books are not the same thing as music. Let them know that music is far less expressive with far fewer words, thereby its tendency to resort to violence, sexuality, or other material that some kids simply should not have. Also let the music industry know that books are more reputable on the whole than music. Sure, it takes a lot of talent to make good music, but I believe that it takes much more talent to write books, not to mention an enormous knowledge about that which the author has chosen to write. The musician only needs to know music; others like him will provide his niche, if he's lucky.
     So the only thing missing is a good method of whipping the music industry into shape, or at least into making some form of visible effort to comply. The music industry just can't resist taking advantage of their freedoms at our expense!

Monday, April 23, 2001, 8:57pm

     One more thing: the tax cut. Neal Boortz is a smart guy, you know. He explains the Democratic Party's opposition to tax cuts for the rich fairly well: "The evil rich should pay high taxes because they can afford it, they shouldn't get a tax cut because they don't need it." Boortz also points out that the Democrats are quite the conniving bunch (he doesn't have to come out and say it; it's understood in his argument). I'll say it again: a significant tax cut for the rich loosens the strings on their wallets a little bit, and they will in turn expand their financial holdings, opening jobs and stimulating the economy. The term trickle down comes from the idea that, by benefiting the rich, and simultaneously their big businesses, the money would "trickle down" to the general population.
     Tax cuts demand fiscal austerity and spending cuts, something Reagan chose to ignore. It was rather foolish, I think, to cut taxes and throw gobs of money at the Pentagon. This may be part of the reason why supply-side economics holds such a negative connotation today. Politicians are careful to exploit the system's past failure, and are much more careful to avoid exploiting the real reasons behind its failure. Another problem is that, if the cuts are not significant enough, the purse strings will not be loosened enough, and the rich will be more likely to spend greedily and selfishly, rather than performing any deeds that would stimulate the economy. The fact is that a significant cut is required for the desirable effect of supply-side economics. The Democratic Party is careful to limit the cuts so that, in pushing for the larger cuts that they will likely not get, the Republican Party looks bad when the minimal cuts do not get the job done.
     Oh, gotta love those Democrats. Especially the dumb ones like Barbra Streisand. (Now I see why the South Park movie made fun of her!)

Monday, April 23, 2001, 8:04pm

     Writing a 2500 word history paper is not the most pleasant task in the world. I think the paper was written well, but I feel as though it is lacking in some areas. Of course I had one of the most ridiculous topics in all of history to write on: the Macon-Bibb County Industrial Authority. I do not expect that you should know where Macon or Bibb County is, for anyone outside of the Macon-Bibb County area should not necessarily need to know, but let it suffice that both are virtually one and the same and are located near the center of the state of Georgia. That said, why would anyone ever have to write about the Industrial Authority for said area? There are two essential reasons: (1) there needed to be some form of assignment to satisfy the course's Georgia history requirement; (2) no one has ever done it before, so now I am the sole expert on the Macon-Bibb County Industrial Authority. Go ahead. Test my knowledge. I know more about it than you do. Haha.
     Aside from the history paper, I have also had a psychology project (due Thursday) and two English papers (due next Monday), as well as several final exams approaching (sporadic, April 24 through May 7). So you understand my reasons for neglecting you lately. As for the English papers, one is a revision of the paper I wrote on Janice Daugharty's novel Like A Sister. I do not expect that paper to be difficult, except that I have no idea how I will rewrite it. I thought I had written it fairly well the first time. The second paper will likely concern Henrik Ibsen's play A Doll's House, which carried themes of individualism very strongly throughout. In case you have not read the play, I will spare the details, but I will naturally add my paper to the site when it is completed. That said, look for my history paper (for whatever reason) soon.
     And now, sadly, I must abandon the computer/internet for the night. Daddy has important business to handle. Oh how I wish he would get his computer up and running again...

     I picked up a 1971 print of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead for $3.19 today. Okay, so the the corners were a bit scuffed and the first few pages of the introduction were creased a little at the bottom, but for $3.19, I'll take it. I would love to have the newest edition of the book with the new introduction by Rand's heir, but I believe there is something of greater value in her introduction, rather than his, explaining what she felt about the 25th anniversary of her book's original printing and the fact that it had been a best-seller nearly everywhere ever since. So, if someone would like to buy that newest edition for me, as well as a copy of Atlas Shrugged, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, or any of the other matching Ayn Rand works (they were all reprinted together, it seems), I would love you forever. Or, well, until I forgot about you, which may as well be considered forever.

Monday, April 23, 2001, 7:01pm

     The course of mankind's progress is not a straight, automatic line, but a torturous struggle, with long detours or relapses into the stagnant night of the irrational. Mankind moves forward by the grace of those human bridges who are able to grasp and transmit, across years or centuries, the achievements men had reached - and to carry them further.
Saturday, April 21, 2001, 4:11pm

     Look! Look! Even socialist Western Europe is better off than our left-of-center Democratic Party! At least they know that tax-cuts are a good thing, unlike our Idiocratic, er... Democratic Party. Man, that's sad. And that's an interesting label, too: "Supply-side Socialists." Heheh. That's really sad when our Democratic Party, which is more or less a Socialist Party, does everything in its power to oppose the Republican Party, even though, deep down, I think they all know that the tax-cut is a good thing.
     Supply-side economics refers to the trickle-down theory, the theory that increased availability of money for investment, achieved through reduction of taxes especially in the higher tax brackets, will increase productivity, economic activity, and income throughout the economic system. One of the best explanations of this theory can be found here.
     Click it and read it. Don't let me convince you what's best for our country. Do the research and decide for yourself. And stop letting those damned lying politicians influence your politicics! Do you really think they place you above themselves? No! Of course it is their job to keep the country running as best they can, but I am all but convinced that most politicians' priorities set themselves higher than the general population. And even if that is inaccurate, it never hurts to know what you're talking about, rather than simply going on what they tell you.
     Get involved. Know what you vote for.

Saturday, April 21, 2001, 1:51am

     The first 100 days of the Bush administration will be marked a week from Monday. After thirteen weeks (and barely two weeks since my last spiel on Dubya), I still haven't changed my mind.
     I said then that it seems President Bush is doing well - very well. He still is. There are all sorts of ways to defend this assertion - he's enjoyed legislative victories, has avoided missteps that are embarrassing or disastrous, has established himself as president, is speaking forcefully if not fluidly, has good ratings, and his opponents continue in a kind of slow-motion disarray.
     I do not think the China episode was the triumph it has been painted as by other Bush supporters and distinguished columnists such as Charles Krauthammer. But I agree with Michael Kelly that the truly heartening moment was Bush's decision not to attend the welcome-back ceremonies for the crew, not to go for a lot of cheap, teary camera time.
     He has dignity. This was once a baseline expectation for American presidents. Now, after the past eight years, it comes as a shock. It's as if the neighborhood egomaniac has left the barbecue and normal conversation and relationships can once again proceed.
     But the biggest reason I think Bush is doing well is that everything I've mentioned is part of the day-to-day of history. It is history but not big history, the little news clumps on which we chew each evening. Big history is the thing you remember, it's what history bothers to notice. It's the headline over the paragraphs that contain the data. What history will remember about Bush is that his presidency began successfully because he moved forward with sureness and confidence on the two big things he most consistently campaigned on and stood for, an across-the-board tax-cut and the inclusion of faith-based initiatives in government efforts to help those who need it. Bush showed history that he will do what he said he'd do. And in doing what he said he'd do, and boldly, he turned 50% of the vote into 100% of a real presidency. He became the president. He became a leader.
     It is my sense that people are starting to recognize him as a person they might want to march behind. It would be very interesting if, in a few months, if a broadly cast poll asked: What percentage of the vote did George W. Bush get in November? Or: Did you vote for George W. Bush? I suspect a surprising number of people will say he won with more than 50%, and I suspect about 58% will claim they voted for him. That's what people do when they start thinking of a president as someone they want to be associated with, which is to say as a winner.
     What a happy relief all this is. One of Bush's challenges, it seemed to me, was filling up the big empty space left by Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton filled up the room. You might name a variety of things with which he filled the room, but he filled up a lot of space, and, when he departed, I wondered if a normal man, one who lacked a drama queen's hungers and howls, could fully fill it up. But George Bush has done it. In his compact, tidy, unsick way he filled the space, and not with his own brand of darkness but so far with an unshowy competence and command.
     His staff seems to have learned how to get along, how to thrash things through and hash things out and leave it in the room. Bush wants their insights, ideas, advice and guidance; he wants them to be candid and he wants the right to be candid in return. They've learned how to trust each other. It's interesting to see and to wonder if it will continue, just as it's interesting to wonder if some day we'll find out that Alan Greenspan has good reasons for his secrecy. It's really great not to know those things right now.
     But the biggest reason for the staff cohesion is this: The new Bush administration is the first in many years to not be ideologically divided. There was a constant tug of war for the soul of the old Bush and Reagan White Houses, and of the LBJ White House, torn to pieces by Vietnam. There were ideological and political tongs too in the Carter White House, and even in the Clinton White House, which didn't really have a soul to speak of.
     But Dubya's White House is not riven or deeply divided. It is not a White House at war with itself. The staffers don't have to fight for Bush's soul because he takes care of his soul. He's the captain, they're the crew; he points and they row. He pointed in a certain direction in the campaign, and continues in that direction in his presidency. It's impressive. One hopes this seriousness - and literal soulfulness - will continue. If it does it could yield greatness. So far it has yielded a good beginning.

Saturday, April 21, 2001, 1:18am

     Barbra's politics do not line up with mine. I mean, really, she's not very funny at all, but she'd make a much better comedian than politician! Her "call for stepped-up Democratic opposition to Bush Agenda" is perhaps the funniest (and most ridiculous) political writing of the past decade. (Read that here.) I could only agree with one line of that entire memo, that the Democratic Party is (or more accurately, was, by its original definition) "the party of, by, and for the people." That is it. About ten words. And even that agreement is extremely conditional. Upon skimming the rest of her news section, not only did I discover that Babs is incredibly short-sighted and close-minded when it comes to politics, but she perfectly exhibits the uneducated, influential baffoon that the Democratic Party relies on to spread its hideous message. (I'm not against the Democratic Party; I am against most of today's Democrats. They have ventured far from the origins of the party. In fact, the only true Democrat left in Congress is James Traficant of Ohio, and he has been booted from the Party because "he isn't left enough." The idiots are willfully destroying the premise on which the Democratic Party once stood.)
     If you are a true Democrat, a Democrat like Traficant, I have no qualms with you. In fact, I would probably be more inclined to support a man like Traficant than any conversative. (You see, no matter which side any politician is on, most rightists and leftists typically stick to the party agenda and rarely vote their consciences, which severely violates their ability to be individuals.) At least Traficant votes what he truly feels, and perhaps somewhat more easily now that he has no party to tie him down.
     Here is an excerpt from an August 1998 interview with the Ohio Representative, just to prove a point:
     I'm not sure what point I just proved, but be certain that it's a good one! Long live true politicians. Long live James Traficant. I'll vote for him if he ever runs for President, assuming he doesn't change. Then again, if he'd rather support communism than capitalism, that's a whole new ballgame.

Friday, April 20, 2001, 11:34pm

     Some people have this idea: Let's let the parents and the gunmakers to pay for mental delusions! FOXNews reports, "The anniversary comes one day after nearly three dozen families of Columbine victims agreed to a $2.5 million settlement of their lawsuits against the gunmen's parents and the providers of a gun used in the massacre." (According to this CNN article, the families' money will be paid through homeowner's insurance policies.) I mean no insensitivity. I am deeply saddened by the thought of such violence in our society. However, this mode of thought that someone has to pay is asinine. The perpetrators have met their proper penalty - death - by their own choice, I might add. What more could we rightfully want? Perhaps the victims' families are deserving of such reparations, but the parents are not responsible for their actions, and neither are the gunmakers.

Friday, April 20, 2001, 9:50pm

     Whee! Here we go again! Here's the most recent unfounded, blatantly insulting, and incredible (in the true sense of the word) comments regarding yours truly:
     Pardon me while I laugh to myself. I have no idea who wrote this, nor do I have any evidence that he has any other presence on the web (not that I would link to it), so I guess that supports the theory that no one will dare attempt to prove any of the things of which they so frequently accuse me. They would much rather scream their idioticities (I made that word up; you can figure it out.) and run for cover!
     As a matter of coincidence, Jane-Marie today sent me an email in response to the one that I sent her a couple of weeks ago; both of her messages were harsh responses to (1) her name being mentioned on my web page, largely due to the fact that she committed the same unfounded, insulting acts as the anonymous creature above, and (2) the response to my response, which completely justified my means (I guess that's just my opinion). You see, she chose to blatantly attack me in a very public online forum, and I merely copied her words (crediting her as the speaker, I might add; I have spoken no untruths in regard to her) to this site. She claimed to hate me, so I felt that she deserved a spot on the people that hate me page. It makes sense, right?
     Anyway, due to her inability to unset the caps lock, and her repeated use of the nonce word frappin (I think we all know what that means), her second email is fairly difficult to read, but I think I got the jist of it. I think it had something to do with never emailing her, talking to her, or writing about her ... ever. Those former two are inexplicably easy. The last is rather difficult, especially considering that I absolutely must write about my own experiences; it's just something that I do. The other recurring theme in this latest email is also fairly simple: I'm obviously the immature one here. Because I simply copied some words and moved on, never saying anything more about it, and only in response have I even attempted to communicate with her, and not in a negative manner by any means, there can be no other explanation: I am obviously the immature one. Because I have chosen to move on, and she has not once, not twice, but three times come back with some form of [what I would call] immature response, I am obviously the immature one.
     Oh yes. The third response. What makes the third response particularly harsh and immature is that Jane-Marie allegedly sent her sister to do the dirty work. I find some of the things she had to say rather humorous, and I am sure that that was not her intention. And now, just because they told me not to do it, and just because I know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, because they are the ones that came to me with this "new information," here is the AIM conversation through which I endured with Jane-Marie's younger sister:

her: why you gotta be putting people's names on the internet like that
her: its pretty messed up
jpmccord: no it isn't.
her: yes it is
jpmccord: where i come from, free speech is very real.
her: well its pretty mean
jpmccord: i did not intend to be mean.
jpmccord: i meant to defend myself from unfounded destructive criticism.
her: why cant you be mature about it and just take her name off?
her: well you dont have to post it on the internet
jpmccord: i am being mature about it. she should be mature and accept that she should not have said what she said.
jpmccord: i didn't post it on the internet, she did.
jpmccord: i simply copied and pasted it.
her: r u so insecure that you have to defend yourself on the internet
jpmccord: if she is so insecure that she has to attack me on the internet, then i guess that makes me insecure enough to respond on the internet
jpmccord: she said those things in a very public forum where anyone could read them
jpmccord: i put them in a very private place, where anyone can see them, but a lot fewer do
her: cuz u were being rude and she had every right too
jpmccord: i was not being rude.
her: very
her: I dont call the world wide web private
her: dont steal peoples words like that
jpmccord: i didn't steal her words.
her: yeah ok
her: she did not attack you
jpmccord: uhh, yes she did.
jpmccord: i did not attack her or insult her in any way prior to her hateful words toward me
her: poor pitiful paul
jpmccord: no
her: PITIFUL is right
jpmccord: there is nothing pitiful about me
jpmccord: i see nothing worth pitying.
her: how about u cry me a river
jpmccord: hah
jpmccord: go away please :-)
her: I see nothing worth
her: I hate you
she signed off at 8:58:41 pm.

     Of course I acknowledge a bit of immaturity on my part, especially in posting this entire conversation. This is certainly not your business, unless I make it so by sharing it. One particularly funny argument I hear is that of libel and/or that of slander. You can click the links to read their legal definitions, or you can settle for my brief explanations. The only difference between the two is that libel is written (usually published) and slander is conversation (usually spoken). In this case, it can be difficult to declare my actions as either, for it is written, but it is conversation, as the words I have quoted were said in an online forum. Either way, to constitute libel or slander, one must produce an untruth about another with malicious or otherwise derogatory results, such as damaging one's reputation or affecting one's income. The keyword here is untruth, and as all I have done is shared with the world another human being's directly quoted opinion of me, I do not see how this could be an untruth (unless she lied to me). Enough about this. :-)

Friday, April 20, 2001, 7:05pm

     Just so you know, Reb, nearly all booksellers are currently selling the Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide for only $14.99. (See? Even Amazon has it marked down!) I picked mine up last week for around $12 (it's nice to have discount cards). It's well worth that price, especially considering that, if you bought each of the novels contained in it separately, it should cost around $40. Lycos, go get it!
     And, yes, it is mindbogglingly hilarious. (Mindbogglingly is one of Douglas Adams' favorite words.) Go read it. And love my quote above!

Thursday, April 19, 2001, 10:43pm

     And on the note of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy below, I would like to share my favorite altered quote of all time. I say altered, for as this is my quote, it was heavily inspired by a line in Adams' book: "Nothing happened. Then, suddenly, nothing happened again." There now. Wasn't that refreshing?

Thursday, April 19, 2001, 10:39pm

     I just thought that I should let you know how my Thursday is going. I woke up after a solid ten hour nap close to 9:30. I lazily moved about in a manner that one could plausibly associate with preparing for a day on the town, or something vaguely similar. I drove twenty seven point two miles to the college, as I normally do on Thursdays, arriving at around 10:30am. I studied for around thirty minutes - just before being handed five lovely scraps of paper, conveniently stapled together with the label "Test - Chapters 12, 14, & 15." Although I would like to say that I performed better on the multiple choice part of this particular psychology exam than on the multiple choice sections of previous psychology exams, I do not believe that it matters. In light of my inclined ability to score highly on the multiple choice, my ability to score highly on the essay has dwindled, if it hasn't disappeared altogether. So, after three tests that were far too long, given that we have seventy-five minute periods to take them, and another fifteen minutes before the next period begins, giving us ninety uncompromised minutes, once again our professor has succeeded in failing to concoct an exam that fits into that given period. To make matters worse, she took away those extra fifteen minutes today, removing my opportunity to answer the bonus question, erasing my ability to make up for any lost points. Either way, I expect another low B, which greatly endangers my chances of pulling a 4.0 GPA for this semester. Ah, the perils of life.
     So three hours into my day, I have performed miserably on a fairly difficult exam. (A B is miserable to me.) I bet you can't guess what I had coming next! Yep! Another test! (Kinda takes the fun out of guessing when I answer for you, doesn't it?) After a quick cram session in that short fifteen minute period between classes, I walked across the miniscule lawn that amounts to our campus, took the test, and, within ten minutes, I was gone. I feel as though I aced the test, although I have yet to make an A on any of them. No matter how well I think I have performed on any exam in this insanely easy "hardware/software concepts" class, some curveball or insanely obsolete question is thrown at us that had nothing to do with anything ten years ago, and much less now, that lowers my score by about ten points. So there. And this makes twice that these classes have managed to fling tests at me on the same day.
     1:00. Two tests. Probably both B's. My whole day is in front of me. Or so I thought. Just hours before I came to the haunting realization that my history research paper will be due next Monday. Gasp. So I spent two hours at a local library today before my friend and sharing-the-dread colleague Tony arrived. We decided that lunch would be a good idea; it was 3:00, and neither of us had had a bite to eat all day. After an hour's worth of Pizza Hut (mmm, stuffed crust pizza), we embarked on what many would consider a hideous journey to another library. Rather than visiting the Archives & Genealogy Department of the familiar Washington Memorial Library, we decided that the Mercer Law Library would best fit our remaining research needs. Boy were we right. Did I mention that we were there for four hours until their closing time at 8:00? I guess one good thing comes from this: my paper nearly doubled in size, and I'm all but done. Of course, being the psychotic that I am, I will be venturing on another research mission tomorrow, just to make sure, I guess.
     So I drove home, arriving around 9:00. (This includes a stop to spend $22.66 on 13.73 gallons of gas - did I mention that I only have a 14-gallon tank? Yeah. I like to cut it close.) I sat here for a solid half hour, then the doorbell rang, and five men of all ages gathered in my kitchen to confabulate about my sister's potential career (you see, she graduates from college in two weeks). This would be perfectly fine, you know, if she were here to hear all the wonderful advice those guys spat out. So, after fiften minutes of mindless drivel, I returned to the hotseat, which brings us to now. I performed several of my routenized online tasks in about half an hour, then I sat down to type this.
     Twenty-two minutes. Not bad. Would have been faster if I weren't running around packing a bag. Oh, and remind me to grab my English book. I hate it when I get the wrong books!

Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 7:32pm

     Reb liked my Douglas Adams quote. Reb, if you thought that was funny, I think you should read the whole book. Hell, read the series of six conflicting stories that tie together but don't. Douglas Adams is the funniest science fiction writer ever, and as a result, my favorite. My dad's favorite would be Robert Heinlein (arguably the best sci-fi writer ever); I still need to read his Stranger in a Strange Land. But back to Douglas Adams... I think everyone should read the HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy at some point in their lives. It's a very short novel in comparison to others, it's hilarious, it's filled with excellent quotes, and it lacks any and all forms of common sense! (Seriously, read it!) And on that note, I have updated my quote.

Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 7:14pm

     California Governor Gray Davis apparently lost his temper in a closed-door meeting with Senate Republicans "as he sought to sell them on his plan to purchase Southern California Edison's transmission lines." (Read the article, if you like.) Perhaps the funniest summary I have ever read of such a news story can be found in the Wall Street Journal under their Best of the Web Today:
     You don't have to ask why I found that funny. It's none of your business. Oh, and have you heard about our favorite Democrat, Al Gore? He has apparently gained forty pounds since losing the election. I would worry, perhaps, if Al Gore had shown any qualities of a good politician. And, in the interests of attempting to restore a lost art, the mp3 of the day:

mp3otd: Limp Bizkit - My Way.mp3

Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 6:52pm

     This site has provided me with some of the best reading - political and historical reading, that is - in a long time. Take, for instance, the site's stance on Herbert Hoover, our nation's 31st president. (They have him wrongly labeled as our 32nd president, which, if I am not going out of my mind, was Franklin Roosevelt.) Remember that Hoover was in the White House when the Great Depression struck, but historical evidence (that I have seen) points out that he was clearly not to blame for the depression; he had only been in office for a few months when it hit, and that was not near enough time for any of his legislation to have such an affect on the economy. The site states the following:
     After studying (or noting) Hoover very recently in my History class, I have come to the conclusion once again (as I always had before when studying Hoover) that his views are among the best, in my opinion, of all of our other presidents'. American individualism... You would think that he inspired my individualistic preaching of late.

     Another bit of information that I learned from the quiz on that site was the issue of "faithless electors," or electors of the Electoral College that do not vote for the candidate to whom he has pledged his vote.
     The reason I point to this bit of information relates to my notion of individualism. A voter, no matter what his position, should be allowed to vote however he chooses. If you hire someone to vote for someone, why don't you just eliminate the middle man and cast the vote yourself? If laws exist that require electors to vote for the candidate to whom he is pledged, then, once elected to the slate of electors, his purpose has been eliminated. Just tally his vote and move on, because it will not plausibly be in violation of the law, and if it is, it will be overturned. Such a law violates the freedom of speech, I would think. The elastic clause of our Constitution allows extensions of government for that which is "necessary and proper." To my knowledge, these laws are not necessary or proper. I say abolish them. Twenty-eighth amendment, please!

     Just because I would rather attach all this political trivia to the site at once, rather than in increments, I have more to offer that makes this update even longer! I learned more interesting details about our country's fathers, this time about their names: There have been six presidents named James: Madison, Monroe, Polk, Buchanan, Garfield, and Carter. The next most common names, with four presidents each, are John (the Adamses, Tyler, and Kennedy) and William (Harrison, McKinley, Taft, and Clinton). Carter and Clinton are known to respond to their less formal nicknames, Jimmy and Bill, respectively. (I hear Clinton responds to a lot more.) George is the next most common presidential name; the former Texas governor shares it with his father and the father of our country. There have been two presidents named Andrew (Jackson and Johnson) and two named Franklin (Pierce and Roosevelt). We've only had one president each named Millard, Ulysses, Rutherford, Grover, and Lyndon, and it seems a safe bet we won't have another soon.

     And has anyone else noticed that California Governor Gray Davis has an odd, even inexplicable inclination for saying things that don't square with either reality or sensibility? If not, then you haven't listened to him, and it's probably better that way.
     On a similar note, I admire the thoughts of Ben Affleck, that "everyday people - be they singers or poets or bankers or lawyers or teachers - should be in government." Ben, I won't hesitate to say that your acting is great, and I admire your talents and ambitions. I also won't hesitate to say that, if those are your primary reasons for this lawmaking goal of yours, your politics suck. (Not to mention the fact that you're a supporter of the Clintons. Not that Clinton is all that bad, but Hillary? You could do better...)

Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 5:03pm

     You see this? *points to all the content on this site for the last few days* This is what happens when you pick up a good book. This is also what happens when you realize that the semester is within two weeks of its end and you have several papers and projects to complete in a minimal amount of time. In other words, you may not hear from me much over the next couple of weeks. Then again, you might. I'm not one to guess on such a thing. You either will or you won't, but don't blame me for it.

Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 4:59pm

     How could keeping people from drinking until the age of 21 stop so many fatal accidents for people over 21? It probably didn't. After the nation's drinking age was raised to 21, the 21-24 age group quickly assumed the greatest share of alcohol-related fatal accidents. In the "Scapegoat Generation," the first year or two after a person can legally drink alcohol - regardless of what that age may be - is the period in which that person is most likely to be involved in an alcohol-related accident.

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 2:22am

funky strike: how tall are you?
jpmccord: 6'1 or so.
jpmccord: no measurements in about 18 months, so very rough estimate.
funky strike: day0m
funky strike: that's tall :p
jpmccord: heh. yeah, well, my lack of thickness makes up for it.
funky strike: heh, word
funky strike: i'm 115 pounds
funky strike: most girls weigh substantially more than i do.
jpmccord: hah.
jpmccord: I weigh around 140.
jpmccord: I could weigh around 160 if I had lifted weights.
funky strike: k-werdity
jpmccord: Ever.
funky strike: hahaha
jpmccord: I mean even for fifteen seconds.
jpmccord: When I was eight.
jpmccord: The change would have been that significant.
funky strike: hahahahahahaha
funky strike: word
jpmccord: But no.
jpmccord: Never.
jpmccord: And I am stuck as being reffered to as "stick boy" by my best friend's employer.
funky strike: LOL
jpmccord: (I was once a potential employee, so I know the woman.)
jpmccord: I find it rather humorous, though, how when she calls "stick boy," both of us turn our heads to see what she wants.
jpmccord: ...
funky strike: LOL
jpmccord: Apparently she isn't very creative.
jpmccord: Or at least not twice a day.

Sunday, April 15, 2001, 12:10pm

     Beware the ides of April. Another K5 article of mine has been posted: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Text Adventure Game! Yes, I told you about this two days ago. Well, I liked it so much that I wanted to make sure that the rest of the world knew about it, so I submitted the story to K5's MLP (Mindless Link Propagation) section, and voila!
     So that makes seven K5 stories, all of which can be found here, just because I do not trust K5 to keep them permanently. However, that is not the best thing to happen to me yesterday. Aside from several hours spent wandering around the galaxy in a state of confusion (as opposed to Kansas, as it had subsequently been destroyed), I had my first slashdot article accepted and posted (and it's heavily commented): Iomega Settles Zip Drive Suit (With Rebates). Oh, and if Matt still cares about the "karma war," I'm up to 21.
     One would think, one thinks, that with links from slashdot, kuro5hin, nickd.org (which happens to be down currently, which, in and of itself, is another story entirely. you see, I have suffered through depression turned mania turned schizophrenia due to the world reminding me that that which it has given, it can take away, and that that includes nickd.org. I have realized for the first time that nickd.org is not permanently available to me, and I have cried.), that my site would see amazing surges of web traffic - not so. I don't really keep up with it on a regular basis, but looking back over the past week, there has been no more traffic than normal. This only goes to show that people really don't pay any attention to any of the sites mentioned above except nickd.org, which is completely obvious because nickd.org is down, and we all know that the AlphaPython servers can't handle the nickd.org effect.

     Enough for now. Everyone enjoy your bunny day. Eat lots of candy, have lots of fun, and try to remember why we have this holiday (or, at worst, either just enjoy or remember to thank the Christians).

Saturday, April 14, 2001, 12:48pm

     Excite news reports that Iomega Corp. will give rebates to millions of customers as part of a settlement of a class-action lawsuit that claimed its Zip drives are defective. U.S. customers who bought a Zip drive from a store or authorized manufacturer between January 1, 1995, and March 19, 2001, will be entitled to rebates worth up to $40 for various Iomega products. The settlement comes out of a lawsuit filed in Deleware in 1998 that claimed that Zip drives had a manufacturing flaw that often caused the drives and disks to fail. (Read an April 1998 Computer Link Magazine article about the "Click of Death" deficiency.)
     Question: Where do I go to get my rebate?

Friday, April 13, 2001, 3:53pm

     Did someone say they were going to call you right back? Would you like to waste half of your afternoon? If so, then I have got a treat for you! For a limited time only, you can play the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy Text Adventure Game absolutely free! If you are unfamiliar with the story, good luck! I think I'll go sleep while I wait on my phone call now.

Friday, April 13, 2001, 2:27am

     It's 3:00am; I must be lonely. *guitar* *cough* *hack* *weez* Okay, that wasn't funny. Sue me. It's actually 2:22am, and I have finally finished my paper. This means that I get to go read and mark up another paper for a critique session in the morning, just before turning in this ghastly paper that I've just finished, just before a test in calculus that doesn't frighten me in the least. Bad news? I'm not getting much sleep tonight. Good news? It's Friday! Bad news? It's Friday the Thirteenth. Good news? I get to spend it with Claire! Bad news? Marla Parker still refuses (it seems) to talk to me. Good news? She has become increasingly nice and decreasingly rude about founding ways to avoid conversation. Bad news? I'm still getting no where. Good news? I'm wearing her down! Bad news? I want to keep this up for several more minutes just to annoy you. Good news? I can't think of anything else to say. Bad news? I guess that means I'm done here. Good news? Good night!
     And oh yeah, that I told you about. I hope you like negatively positive criticism of philosophical works by Alexander Pope. Here's An Essay On Pope.

Friday, April 13, 2001, 1:17am

     Do be do be do. Beware of the penguin. It's Friday the 13th. You know what that means! A lack of anything good on television tonight! You know what that means! Make it a Blockbuster night! Be kind, rewind, and remember to congratulate all of your favorite music and film personalities on winning their respective Blockbuster Awards last night! Also, everyone make sure to vote for the Best Dressed at the Blockbuster Awards! I don't care if you saw it or not; every vote sends a small donation to ... well I forget the charity. But I remember that it was a noble and good cause, and I remembered the site (hence the link), so go and vote!

     I have updated the about me page, as my philosophy now having a label has considerable implications on several things in my life. Besides, some of those details just change once in a while. You understand.

neotope: your site educates me
jpmccord: i think that's the best compliment i've ever gotten about my site
jpmccord: *tear*
neotope: and really education is equally important as humor
jpmccord: am I funny too?
jpmccord: *sobs in a happy happy joy joy kinda way*
neotope: not satire funny like the onion
neotope: like news worthy humor
neotope: maybe ala fox news
neotope: i like fox news
neotope: but i can also watch cnn
jpmccord: I hate NBC, CBS, ABC news.
neotope: yeah
neotope: they suck

     That's one of the best compliments I have ever gotten about my website, and it is especially meaningful coming from the guy that has provided a location for my site for over six months! I say it is meaningful, and you wonder how... It means that my site's stay here is guaranteed for a while longer, silly! One can never know for sure how long that would be, but I make no silly requests. I am only grateful that Matt has allowed my site to rest on his domain as long as he has. crash.neotope.com is a wonderful thing, is it not? I hate to think what I would possibly call it with the "neotope.com" on the end.

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:30pm

     Long ago Tony and I argued about the difference between inevitability and necessity. He had argued that war is necessary; I had argued that war is not necessary, but inevitable. When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, there is a very fine line between the two, and that line is hardly visible. In fact, most dictionaries do not acknowledge much of a difference. However, through careful study of the words and a history of their usage, I have come to my own conclusions. An event being inevitable means that, as a direct result of prior events and conditions, such an event will necessarily occur. In Tony's and my argument, this means that war is inevitable because of the prior events and conditions that lead to war. An event being necessary, on the other hand, is invulnerable to prior conditioning. A necessity is something that simply must be. There can always be defining factors that can make something a necessity, but without such factors being defined then it is simply accepted that the event is necessary and will occur. When an event is deemed inevitable, it is understood that there are previous factors already defined that have caused its necessity, and in many cases the undoing of those factors (conditions, events, whatever) can undo the event's necessity. In other words, by the books, my argument is exactly the same as Tony's. Necessity and inevitability are the same by their definitions. Their histories prove, however, that there is a slight difference between them; that inevitability is dependent upon conditions, and that necessity is an absolute regardless of those or any other conditions.

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 9:17pm

You disagree with this sentence.

     Free speech is not always about what you like or do not like. Sometimes it is about what is right or wrong. Sometimes free speech restricts other rights, and when that is the case, it is up to the Supreme Court (or whatever supreme law-force) to decide which is the greater injustice. Sure, the freedom of speech is covered by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but that does not mean that it is always the greater injustice when infringed upon. If a Nazi organization published the names of thousands of Jews on its web site with the intent of providing means for other Nazis to seek out and harm these Jews (hypothetical situation, here), what would be the greater injustice? Restricting the Nazis' free speech? Or allowing these Jews to be harmed or worse by letting the Nazis' free speech stand?

     Wish me luck. I am off to attempt to complete a complete revision of an essay on Alexander Pope's An Essay On Man. This is an excellent work, although it is often incredibly difficult to decipher the metaphors and allusions of poetry. This can be especially hurtful to a poem in which its dominant purposes is its philosophy and criticism.

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 7:48pm

mp3otd: Powderfinger - Not My Kind Of Scene.mp3
mp3olw: Juliana Theory - Constellation.mp3

     Today's mp3 of the day, an almost forgotten part of my web page, is Powderfinger's "Not My Kind Of Scene." Powderfinger is a newly rising Australian band that surprisingly meets my taste in music very well. I do not remember who it was that made the suggestion to give Powderfinger a listen, but I am grateful that he did! I bought Powderfinger's new CD yesterday, Odessey Number Five, for a very cheap discount price. (I don't think Warner Robins, Georgia, has ever heard of the band.) I can nearly promise you that these guys will be pretty big in the not-too-distant future. Their sound can qualify as pop or rock, and is very pleasing to the ear. I cannot say much else. I'm just extremely glad that I found this album at such a good price!
     As for the Juliana Theory, I would still love it if anyone decided to buy me their Emotion Is Dead album. And yes, their song "Constellation" is the mp3 of the week for last week; that kind of thing happens when one forgets to include an mp3 of the day for several consecutive days. And might I add that The Ayn Rand Lexicon is the most amazing book I have ever purchased? Yes, I might.

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 6:53pm

     Two days ago I asked you a question. Below I have asked the question again, and I have again left you the option of answering the question for consideration on my web page. My position on the question asked lies beneath the three responses that I have received to this point. I offer apologies for my slowness in adding these responses; I was hoping for more by this time. Also, in the event that words or punctuation has changed in something you have submitted for my web page, be aware that, as the author and creative genius (hah) behind this weblog, I may occasionally alter your words minimally to properly suit my web page and without altering the original intended meaning of your submission. I do not expect to have any problems with this. (If so, too bad!) Also, if you're wondering why your reply comes before or after someone else's, it usually is resultant of the order in which I received them, although I occasionally just put the response into the first convenient spot I find for it as I code along; my copy-and-paste philosophy of adding quotations means that none can ever be guaranteed any particular position amont the rest, except that it shall be among the rest. But yeah, on with the question and responses:

What do you care of others' thoughts of you? (aside from friends) (answer)
     Ah, so insightful ... sort of. Now we get to my point of view. That's what it's all about, isn't it? You know, being my weblog, this should mostly be about my point of view, right? That's the way I think about it, anyway. So on with my thoughts: What do I care of others' thoughts of me, aside from my friends?
     I do not care for ignorant or unjustified thoughts about myself, aside from the fact that the ignorant speaker is allowed to continue his/her uneducated ways and to continue to be a fool. I also do not care for the thoughts, justified or not, of those outside my own realm of living. (In other words, I do not concern myself with positive or negative thoughts if those thoughts or the speaker will not or should not have any influence, direct or indirect, over my life or my environment.)
     I do care for the opinions of those closest to me, my family and the best of my friends, for I depend on those closest to me to point out the many flaws that could hinder my performance in any of a number of activities. I do not adhere to every bit of advice I receive, but I always consider heavily and objectively the words of friends before coming to any decision over any criticism. I do not compromise my morals or values for the sake of reputation. And foremost, I do not allow another's values or convictions precede my own; rather, in the event that it is rational and necessary to do so of my own accord, I may allow for change to accept another's values or convictions as my own, whether modified to suit my previous convictions, or wholy to represent the ideas of the other that I have deemed rational in accordance with my own beliefs.

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 5:16pm

     In reading a few reviews of Ayn Rand's works and her philosophy of objectivism, I have frequently come across the name Nathaniel Branden. Branden was apparently a long-time objectivist, and, from all that I can gather upon briefly reading a few of his essays, he still is, that broke from Rand in the 1960's and defined his own philosophy based on Rand's. One obvious consequence of such action is that Branden is no longer included in most objectivist anthologies, which, in my opinion, which is based on very brief little reading and background information, is a terrible tragedy. The few essays and interviews that I was able to view on Branden's web page (above) were very insightful and also lined up with my beliefs very closely. It is difficult at this point to tell which of these two objectivists, Rand or Branden, best fit as the mother or father of my philosophy of objectivism, so perhaps I shall simply regard them both highly and research them well until I find good reason to contest either's opinion(s) on any given subject(s).

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 4:48pm

     For months I have preached and expressed and claimed and said and believed so much on, through, and around this web page of philosophical and/or opinionative nature. Never did I realize that a singular philosophy contained all (or about ninety-nine point nine, nine, nine infinity times percent) of my conceptions and opinions outlined in detail ... until just recently, thanks to the one and only Nick Disabato, when I discovered the philosophy of Ayn Rand - the philosophy of objectivism. After scanning through The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z for about an hour today, I found it particularly amazing that I could predict Ayn Rand's perception of any random issue because she felt and thought in the same way that I do now. I had never before realized that my philosophical opinions were already classified. I had understood that I was an anomaly, that no one thought in the same way that I did in all general respects, and that my beliefs, as no better than anyone else's, were just another set of beliefs that no one would care to know about. All I can say is that I am all too thrilled to have found this book and to have found my philosophical beliefs in so much detail. It is always fun to read and to disagree with what I read, but it is so much more fun to read the words on the page and scream, "Yes! Yes! Yes!" Reading Ayn Rand is like orgasm to my mind. Thank you Ayn Rand. Thank you Nick Disabato.

Wednesday, April 11, 2001, 8:25am

     Write me a good essay comparing and contrasting Dan and Nick, if for no other reason than because I said so. I don't care how you do it - you can simply compare and constrast their websites if you would like. I'm just curious as to what you would have to say about them in the same breath. (I also wanted to link them both and couldn't think of any other means of doing so.)

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 11:32pm

     I don't mean to overbear you with all this science stuff, but it's really interesting to me (at the moment), and I think you deserve to know. You can read the linked articles if you would like, but I'll just offer a descriptive quote from each one to allow you to decide for yourself whether the read would be worth it. Mmkay? Good.
     Universe Defies Gravity - "Astronomers have confirmed one of the most profound discoveries ever made about the nature of the Universe: it is expanding at a faster and faster rate."
     Age of Universe Revealed - "By measuring the age of one of the oldest stars in our galaxy, astronomers have determined that the Universe is 12.5 billion years old."
     After careful consideration, I have decided that a handful of other science stories are not really worth the time to place here. If you are interested, you will find ways to inform yourself. If not, then I'm sorry to have wasted your precious time! Good night, gentle beings.

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 11:06pm

Perhaps a "Big Splat" preceded the Big Bang.

     Physics researchers at Princeton University have proposed a model of the origin of the universe prior to the Big Bang, which suggests that the sum total of all observable matter and energy are the result of a good, hard smack from another universe. (Read the BBC Sci/Tech news article here.) Paul Steinhardt, head of the science team, has an introduction to the so-called ekpyrotic model (PDF format) on his personal website. "It explains important details about the nature of our Universe such as why the cosmos is expanding the way it is." The model is based on M-Theory, which suggests that, rather than the four dimensions we accept (three physical and one temporal), there are eleven. Six of these loop themselves into microscopic filaments that don't seem to interact with the others in any measurable way. That's probably a good thing, because I find the Rubic's Cube™ challenging as is.
     It goes on to suggest that our universe and another co-exist without interacting in five-dimensional space like stacked sheets of paper. The Big Bang was triggered when fluctuations in their fifth-dimensional position caused them to move together. When they met the energy of the two colliding universes was transformed into matter and energy. (Current weather conditions in the other universe are not known.)
     I do have one question about all of this. If the two universes met the conditions before and generated a huge, expanding mass of matter and energy, what's to say that it can't happen again?

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 9:03pm

     Ah, Neal Boortz, my favorite opinionist to disagree with. Okay, I agree with him on most of a very large marjority of what he has to say, but perhaps that is why he's my favorite of those that I disagree with. Once in a while he'll come out with an interpretation of a situation, and I can just find very clear reason to oppose. This is not one of those cases.
     Let me fill you in on the details first. In Banks County, Georgia, a man with a history of beating his ex-wife on occasion visited her residence and demanded entry. He was told that she was not there. "Go away." He stays. Apparently he feels as though it's a good time for another wife-beating. The man's sixteen-year-old son is on the other side of the door, and there were two other younger children in the house. The thirty-six-year-old man continues to bang on the door and eventually breaks through. Upon entry, the man's sixteen-year-old shoots his stepfather. One more wife-beater "now taking the eternal celestial dirt nap."
     Neal's argument is simple: "Omigod! Two small children in the house! And a gun! ... Don't they know these children could have been hurt?" Note Neal's sarcasm. Without the sixteen-year-old's knowledge of the presence of a gun and his quick thinking, these children were potentially in a much greater danger. However, this is about as far as my agreement with Neal goes. On one hand, the gun has potentially saved their lives and has rid the world of one more person that probably makes the world better off as a result. On the other hand, you have a sixteen-year-old child that is now a murderer, and two small children are witnesses to their older brother killing their stepfather. This could generate severe pschological problems for these kids later on in their lives (probably not so much in the sixteen-year-old, for his mind has had time to develop and accept his environment, and, at his age, he is likely mature enough to sufficiently handle his situation). Police are not planning on filing charges against the stepson, by the way. (Good, I say.)
     This is the kind of story that you won't hear from the anti-gun crowd - you know, those that are trying to revoke the second amendment to our constitution. As Neal says, "this kind of story drives them nuts because it puts gun ownership in a positive light." As for my opinion on gun ownership, I think it's fairly simple. I do not care for it. It is not for me. I do not believe in violence, and I would not want the temptation to use it if I were faced with such a situation. That is simply my choice. I do not oppose anyone's right to own a gun; that's their choice. I would definitely advocate properly securing the gun out of the reach of children if a parent or guardian chooses to keep a gun in a household in which children are regularly present. I also advocate properly educating all children of guns, regardless of whether or not one is kept within their reach. One may never know when a gun could be placed within the reach of your child. This is just as serious a matter as drugs and sex. (I would actually argue that sex is not a serious matter; it's just an act that society has deemed bad for no apparent reason. I would also argue that guns are far more dangerous than drugs.)
     Back to the gun ownership issue... In the event that someone decides to break into my home, I would rather let the perpetrator get what he/she wants and leave. I will not kill for my stuff, and I do not wish to take someone else's life into my own hands unless I am saving it. This is not to say that I would not defend myself if I knew my own life were at stake, but believe me when I say that killing a person is on the very, very bottom of my to-do list, just below the other four hundred billion things to which I will never get around.

Tuesday, April 10, 2001, 8:16pm

     I have come to understand that the reason justices on our Supreme Court serve limitless terms because our founding fathers wanted to keep the highest law-force in the land free of the cunning, conniving politicians that work so hard to corrupt our government by making it a popularity contest rather than what it should be, which is a contest for the best suited governors of a nation. To govern a nation is no easy task, and, with the amount of so-called political corruption that our nation has endured and continues to endure, I am a bit surprised that we do not have larger problems with our government than we do. At least they're doing some things right.
     What am I getting at? Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has openly declared support for a proposed moratorium on the death penalty in the state of Maryland. (Read the article I read here.) A few hours after Ginsburg's speech, the Maryland Legislature adjourned without acting on the proposal. That's not the point. The point is the argument that ... well ... isn't