Elitism is the "belief that certain members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources", the "sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group", or the "control [or] domination by such a group". An elitist, therefore, is one who believes that he is a member of such a group, one who possesses or deserves to possess those characteristics mentioned above. There is a difference between elitists and elites, who actually enjoy superior intellectual, social, or economic status. Elites can be elitists but are not necessarily. They can be separated because elitists believe that they are or should be entitled to special treatment because of who they are - elites may receive special treatment because of who they are, but they do not necessarily believe that they deserve special treatment because of their position.
     I am defining elitism because it has come to my attention that our nation is full of elitists, which means I may also say that our nation is "full of it". Many Americans think that we are better than the rest of the world simply because we are Americans. That is simply untrue. If people in America really think like that, then we are a nation of self-indulgent, self-righteous, condescending, narcissistic, egomaniacle nincompoops.
     I am an American, and I am damn happy to be an American, but I do not think I am any better than anyone else simply because of that; that would be absurd. I know nothing about life outside of America other than what I am told, and I know nothing about the conditions that cause societies anywhere to behave how they do. I do believe that my country is best - for me. I do not believe that my country is best for the entire world. I understand that many nations around the world are heavily invested in our country and that we are therefore rather globally important. Does this mean that we are the best? No. America is a consumerist society - the average American believes that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life. How noble is that? And we think that we're the best?
     A particular argument with Tony motivated this little rant. He believes three things: (1) America is the best; (2) Americans are the best; (3) Those statements are absolute. He may or may not realize that that is elitist of him, but that is not the point. The argument was rather simple. He argued that America is essentially responsible for the entire world. Because so many countries and peoples around the planet are heavily invested in our country, our affairs, and other things American, America is responsible for the entire world. I did not accept or deny this because I had no evidence to support either case. However, he went further to clarify that it was wrong that so many countries "blame America" for, well, the things for which they blame America. My reasoning was this:
I mentioned this, and suddenly I was no longer being practical.

     I do not believe that America is responsible for the entire world; that is not the point. The point is that Tony believes that America is responsible, but America can not be blamed, can not be held accountable, when things go wrong as a result of American actions. I fail to see the logic in that. The accountable party is liable to be called to account; to be liable is to be legally obligated, or responsible. Therefore, if America is responsible for the entire world, then America is certainly responsible. Right?
     This is only one example of elitism. Two others are Neal Boortz and Rush Limbaugh, the top two radio talk show hosts in America. They do not, in so many words, preach that America is better than any other country, although I am sure that both have said so on more than one occasion. They do, however, preach that their respective ideologies are the best without so much knowledge of the rest. They do not understand the reasons for following other ideologies, so they attack them, or so it seems to me. One perfect example of elitism: Neal Boortz believes that voting should no longer be a right, but should be a privilege earned. He cites that there are too many incapable or "stupid" voters that mess things up for society, and they should therefore not be able to vote. I agree with him in principle, that all voters should be knowledgable of for what they are voting, but I do not believe that the right to vote should be denied to any one who is legally eligible. The right to vote is a stipulation of society, and no Libertarian (um, Neal) should believe otherwise.
     I have no readily available proof of Rush's elitism (or wrongness?) for two reasons: (1) I do not listen to him; he's too bigoted for me; (2) he does not keep written transcripts or documents readily available to the general public, so it is somewhat difficult to gain access to his "files".

     I would like to make one last point. This is particularly aimed at elitists, but generally to anyone who ever disagrees with enother. You can not win an argument or even gain any ground in an argument if you do not appeal, to some degree, to the reasoning of the other parties involved. If they can not understand your reasoning in their terms, how should you get your point across? When arguing, stop with the "I'm right, you're wrong, and you're not being practical" crap. Explain it to them in words they can understand.

     Creationism versus Darwinism, religion versus evolution - the Endless Debate™. People were questioning the meaning of life, why life exists, why anything exists, and so on and so forth, and I have pulled a few of my favorite responses/explanations/whathaveyou: I also tried to define life as best I could given the two dominant theories:
     As you can plainly see, there was much productive conversation to be made in the last three days, most of which I missed and on which had to catch up. This will happen again, as I do not plan to check my mail for another day or two. This is fine, though. Chaos is what life is about sometimes, so I can handle it.

     Tony has responded to my "lament of spelling changes", and it is a very good response, so you should read it too. I do not necessarily agree that we should change spelling for convenience, but I do agree that the words look better with an "i" instead of an "e".
     I have not altered his message at all, but I have to wonder: should "combating" have another "t"?

     Neal is great sometimes. Today he ranted on CNN's newest "politically correct" move - CNN no longer calls terrorists terrorists if they can not prove that they are terrorists. Particularly, they are not calling the terrorists that hijacked the September 11th flights terrorists, or even hijackers for that matter, but they are calling them alleged hijackers. Why alleged? Because they have not been proven to be hijackers in a court of law. Understand? Me neither.
     Neal links this to "Ted Turner edict" back in the day. Teddy decided that he was somewhat of an international figure, so he should stop saying foreign, and therefore anyone and everyone that works for him should also stop saying foreign. This led to a particular Atlanta Braves announcer to say that a Braves player appears to have "an international object in his eye" (laugh). I would venture to guess that the announcer was Skip Caray, because he attacks Turner's politics on the air often enough, he is witty and comical like that, and he is not afraid to speak his mind. And you people wonder why I watch Braves baseball...

     John Dickinson was one of the few Congressmen to vote against the Declaration of Independence, so it does not surprise me that my political science professor used a statement of Dickinson's to pass off as psychological fact. As one of Deleware's delegate at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Dickinson stated, "Experience must be our guide; reason will mislead us". In my notes, I followed that quotation with my own thoughts, "spoken like a true liberal". However, given my previous explanation of liberals and progressives, I suppose I should have written Democrat or progressive instead of liberal. That is not the point. My point is that I have a response to Mr. Dickinson's foregone conclusion:
     Reason is powerfully convincing, but can be powerfully misleading in many cases. Experience is not subject to reason because it has already happened, but can also be powerfully misleading if not reasoned properly. Reason is one's only hope of preparing for a situation if there is no similar experience to rely on. Experience can act as a valuable tool to be used with reason to make decisions, but can also be used without reason - unreasonably - to make potentially bad decisions. Reason and experience each have their own merits, and each are incredibly valuable tools, but one without the other can not make all the right decisions.

     If you read my essay, The Political Ideal: Equality or Inequality?, then you know that American politics has allowed the destruction of meaning of one of the greatest political theories ever by a group of beings that falsely label themselves as the followers of the theory in order to appeal to the masses. Liberalism once stood for something great, something for which all Americans would and do stand, but American Politics has wrongly labeled the political "left" in America liberals, and has thus created an anti-liberal movement across the country.
     Upon realizing this, it occurred to me that someone ought to clarify what the label of the political left, versus that of the right, really should be. You are probably familiar with the label of the political right: conservatism. What many do not realize about American conservative politics is that they are founded on liberalism. What many also do not realize about American "liberal" politics is that liberalism is not opposite of conservatism in any manner, and so the political left, which is assumed opposite in many ways, should not be labeled as such. What, then, should the label be to indicate the doctrines of the political left as opposed to the political right? May I suggest progressivism?
     If you clicked the links above to read the definitions of conservatism and progressivism, you found that they are essentially ideological opposites; conservatism emphasizes respect for tradition and distrust of sudden or radical change while progressivism "favors progress toward better conditions". Okay, so progressivism is a bit more loosely defined as a political ideology, but there is a reason for that: it is not known widespread as a political ideology, and therefore it has not been defined in terms of a political ideology. However, the so-called "liberals" of American politics practice progressive liberalism, just as the conservatives of American politics practice conservative liberalism.
     So, wouldn't it just make sense, then, to abandon the "liberal" label and to adopt a label that better fits the ideology? We are all liberals, so why attempt to reenforce a lie?

     Also, why do we screw up the spelling of reenforce and reenforceable? It should be spelled with the "e" as I have spelled it, as the root word enforce is spelled. Instead, modern English has replaced the second "e" with an "i", spelling the words reinforce and reinforceable. Why break the rules of the language? For the sake of convenience? Breaking little rules for the sake of convenience help to make it possible to break bigger rules for the sake of confusing the hell out of everyone. Could we have a little consistency here? And damnit, quotation marks come before punctuation unless the punctuation is part of the quotation!

     If you have been unable to reach my site for the last few days, I would recommend that you refer back to September 23 and slowly read your way back to the present for some rather important information. Particularly, I would like you to read the part where I told you that I had activated a mirror of my site at home.maconstate.edu/jmcco683. I do not know much about the downtime of crash.neotope.com, but this I can tell you: It was up and down (mostly down) for about a week, roughly September 13-19. The site has been online and reasonably stable since September 20, but I had not had access to make any changes until just now.
     Also, I just wrote an essay for my Humanities class, called The Political Ideal: Equality or Inequality?, in which I use the doctrines of Aristotle, Locke, and Twentieth Century political philosopher Isaiah Berlin to prove, essentially, that all Americans are liberals. Shocked? Appalled? Laughing in your panties, you filthy liberals? Why don't you read the paper to find out exactly how I mean that.

     A big deal has been made recently of the words "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, mostly in response to Tom Hanks leaving the two words out. Maybe it was an accident, maybe it's part of the "vast left-wing conspiracy", but I would rather simply say that I support leaving the words out.
     I'm a Christian, and I have been for as long as I can remember. I no longer attend church regularly, but that will certainly pick up again (hopefully) soon. But my point is this: We are not really "one nation under God", nor should we be necessarily. As a country that has preached tolerance and diversity since its inception, it boggles my mind that he who crafted the Pledge would have plugged a specific religious symbol/figure when everyone knows that Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, and citizens of several other religions pledge allegiance to our great country.
     My point: The citizens of the United States of America should form "one nation...indivisible". We do not form "one nation under God", and that should have nothing to do with our indivisibility. I am a believer in the separation of Church and State. Religion and government are two very separate institutions and should not work together. Each involves codes of ethics and morality, but neither should work with the other to monopolize the use of force for their various means.
     Anyone that cries out because someone left out two words from a short statement that only symbolizes what our country stands for (symbols are important, sure, but not near as important as what they symbolize) is lacking a bit of reasonability, I think. If I had written or could alter the Pledge of Allegiance, it would read:
     I could take or leave "and to the people for whom it stands", but the flag and God should be excluded. I think it's absurd that we pledge allegiance to a symbol, and that we claim to endorse toleration and diversity while also claiming to be "one nation under God".

     I have a new favorite band: Fuel. I'm quite sure that Creed will take their spot back on the top of my list when their new album Weathered is released in November, but for now, I'm all about Fuel. Unfortunately, having had four years, eight gigabytes, nearly 3000 mp3s deleted from my hard drive by my sister, a few Fuel mp3s are all that I have. That's okay, though. I like Fuel. She's just lucky that she knew the difference between my mp3s and my dad's mp3s.

     Before I begin with this, I would like to clarify that the details of my life are free to be shared at my discretion. No one can tell me to leave them out of it as long as I am accurate and as long as the experiences I discuss are my own. That said, I hope certain sisters understand that they can not call my side of the story a breach of privacy, because damnit, you wouldn't listen to it when I tried calmly to tell it to your face.
     It all began with a stupid email forward. She decided to send everyone in her guestbook to some annoying site that popped up hundreds of dialog boxes that told some annoying story and ended with the punchline. I replied to all and warned them that that was in front of them if they clicked the link, and my sister exploded. Apparently hitting the "Reply to All" button is a breach of her privacy. WTF? How the hell is sending an email to email addressed that were sent to me a breach of privacy? Obviously she is not familiar with the freedom of information laws in place today.
     So she responded to my nice little message with a long, detailed message about what a little shit I am, and how she's "sure any of you would mutilate the younger sibling". Um, for what, again? I warned them, and severakl of them actually thanked me for the warning, yet I should be mutilated? She later sent a personal message to me clarifying every detail of her anger. Even at 22, I think Mom would have knocked her through a wall if she read it. Either way, I eventually responded to her message to the group regarding me, clarifying my reasoning behind what I did, explaining that we simply think differently and I probably should not have butted in. She then jumped down my throat, pitched a fit, and when I tried - calmly - to give my side of the story, she yelled louder.
     Finally, I turned off "her" computer to get her attention, and she swung at me. I swung back, and quickly remembered that I don't like to fight. She tried swinging back, so I grabbed her arms. By this time, Dad was coming across the room, arm in sling, telling us both to stop. I was only holding her arms and guarding knees aimed at my crotch. Finally, he got close enough to touch me, so I push her back, duck behind my dad, and leave the room. I slowly walked upstairs to my room and locked the door. Apparently, she was so pissed that she couldn't get to me, so she took a baseball bat to my car. Two very new dents will be seen glistening in tomorrow's sunrise. She also took the bat to the doorknob of my room, considerably deforming it.
     Enough of this shit. I packed my CDs, my books, lots of clothes... I figured that I would be moving to a new home in mid-October, so I packed my stuff to move to Claire's temporarily, you know, if necessary. I imagine that the majority of my next few weeks will be spent at the Ragsdale residence, though I will have to be home for some of my IT homework (certain programs only exist on my computer here, ugh). And yes, it's really that bad. Oh, did I mention that, while I was upstairs packing, she deleted every single MP3 that I have ever downloaded? You see, I move mp3s off of the main hard drive once they're backed up, meaning the only ones that she could delete were not backed up, meaning every difficult-to-find song I have downloaded in the three years of my mp3-searching are now gone. Completely gone. I would not be upset if a few friends would like to donate mp3 CDs, because I honestly don't have the time to download them again.
     All the while my things are being damaged and destroyed, I'm minding my own business, laughing at her on the inside. It amazes me that she really thinks that she can bring me to her level by destroying things. She doesn't understand something about me: I'm not a materialist. Tonight has proven that to me. These things that she threatens mean very little to me. Do you want to know what I really care about? People. Information. Life. Things that she can not take away short of murder. And one of her idiotic friends says that my life needs to be put into perspective... Hey nutcase, you got the wrong one of us.
     All this, and I have a paper to type for Humanities. I believe I will not be sleeping tonight. I may as well finish boxing up the rest of my stuff. The new house is ours on October 12. Oh, and those of you wondering about the going away party for my mom's current home - that party is seriously in jeopardy right now. Sister was involved, and sorry to be unforgiving, but I really don't want to see her again until Thanksgiving, and I might even spend that with another family to avoid her. Yes, it's that bad.
     She thought she wasn't getting enough respect before. Well, she lost what little respect she had tonight, and it will take a helluva turnaround to earn it back. Do you want to know what the best part about all this? I'm actually not feeling bothered. Either I'm a very cold individual, or my philosophy of ignoring the negative emotions works wonderfully. I'll go with the latter.

     I have decided that I would like to finish my studies in Information Technology in the next three or four semesters (including summers) so that I may skip up to the University of Georgia and pick up a second major in Political Science or Philosophy or something. I will have completed about 75% of my course work in Information Technology by the end of my junior year here, maybe sooner if I work really hard over the summers, and I am already off to a quick start for Political Science, should I choose to take that route. Looking at the necessary credits, I see that I probably do not have time for that particular double major, but perhaps a minor (or several) is in order.

     I wish reporters would stop saying things like, "After September 11, isolationism is dead in America". It's not like isolationism was alive and well before September 11. If anyone is curious, isolationism is a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. When has the United States ever abstained from political and economic relations with other countries (especially in recent years)?! Like I said, I really wish reporters would stop trying to tell us of these great changes that haven't happened, because the results of such a change were already in place before the "change". Oh, but you can read the article where it makes the subtitle.

     United and American Airlines have announced new, nonstop service to Afghanistan! [Insert image of United/American airliners dropping bombs over the Taliban.] I think it is a neat coincidence that the two airlines fit together nicely to display the words "United American". Story of our nation's last two weeks, eh?

     No, no, and no! Not just no, but hell no! This sort of thing is what makes oppression possible, and despite the risks of not allowing such a system to evolve in the United States, the risks of such a system being implemented are far worse. Not to mention that any such system will always have loopholes of which only the average, law-abiding citizens will never take advantage, and only the criminals and those that we are trying to stop will. My point? No matter what we do, the bad guys will still find ways around it, and when the bad guys can no longer do little things, they will resort to big things. I'm sorry, but I'm all in favor of a few simple robberies and hold-ups if it means that I don't have to deal with grocery story bombings and such. Yes, this is a ridiculous example, but who says it isn't possible? We don't need any system that could potentially cause more harm to the good citizens of America than good. (Imagine someone stealing your identity through your ID card. If we can take CDs and CD players and figure out how to copy CDs, then what stops us from taking ID cards and card scanners to copy that? It's just information, and it can be altered, and the risks involved are too high.)
     So again: No.

     Tony Natale is Nick DiSabato's roomie at Northwestern University. Tony is majoring in Electrical Engineering; Nick is majoring in Material Science (contrary to popular belief that he is majoring in Computer Science or the like). Tony is Roman Catholic; Nick is, as best as I may discern, atheist (perhaps he believes in something, but I would think that he is nondenominational). Both are objectivists; both lean conservative politically. In other words, the two of them think very similarly, and similarly to me, and so we enjoy extremely productive conversations:

Tonatale: ok.. well hows it going?
jpmccord: how... how... i'm not quite sure.
jpmccord: i could take the god route, but that doesn't really explain it...
jpmccord: suffice it to say that it is going, and that it is going well
Tonatale: ok well thats pretty much what I wanted to know
jpmccord: then there's the question of what it is, and why it is going
Tonatale: yes, I see
jpmccord: and then there's me, who can never answer "how's it going" or "how are you" without some smartass semi-philosophical response because ... that's just the way i am
Tonatale: yes, yes I see
jpmccord: do you now? :-)
Tonatale: no, no I dont
jpmccord: eh. err. i guess i make things difficult sometimes.
Tonatale: yes, yes you do
jpmccord: i suppose it would be easier if people just said "hi i'm feeling great, and you?"
jpmccord: then i would have some vague idea of how one expects me to answer
jpmccord: or i could just avoid being a smartass
jpmccord: but is that so likely? :-)

     In case you haven't noticed, crash.neotope.com has been unable to be reached for the last several days. This is not my fault, but in an attempt to keep my site up and running, despite the fact that ninety-nine percent of you had no idea that I had done so, I activated a backup copy of my site at home.maconstate.edu/jmcco683. If, for whatever reason, you have my site bookmarked or linked in any organized manner, feel free to add another link to the second address as a mirror, number two, or however else you would like it to be linked. That is, of course, unless you don't want you or your readers to be able to access my site when the main server is down. But why on earth would you want to keep yourself or others out?
     Anyway, I just finished mowing the lawn and running around the block, and I feel a bit tired and a bit cold (air conditioning and sweat-soaked bodies do not mix well) ... and I have a lot of homework that needs to be done between now and 9:00am tomorrow morning. I have two tests in my Monday/Wednesday classes this week, one in Systems Analysis (questionable) and one in Political Science (piece of cake). My hands are very dry and uncomfortable from the lawn mower, and looking forward to homework does not make them feel any better.
     Oh, and I bowled for the first time in several months at a bowling alley in which I had never bowled before. High game was under 120. Phear me. Claire and I also saw Rat Race and Summer Catch yesterday (we snuck in the second for free again - gotta love it!). Rat Race was funny, but in a dumb way. I won't buy it or anything. Summer Catch was great - a romantic comedy about college kids that play baseball. Is that down my alley or what? Go watch it. I will buy it.
     Anyway, sorry for a lack of updates in the last three days. One server was dead; I had lots of homework; and I don't do much web work when I stay in Macon because my computer is not there. Girlfriend is top priority in Macon. You understand, yes?

     Man, two of my almost-daily weblog reads have been hurt or betrayed by close friends, and seem to have turned against the idea that friends will stick with you in the end. One has decided that things are so bad that he is pondering closing his site down for good. I say no! Nothing is so bad that you should terminate projects that do not relate to it. The words will always flow to your mind, and a weblog provides an outlet for those that choose to listen, to read. And so I say to you both, as an optimist, that happenings that seem bad are really not as bad as they seem, for they help to put the good things in perspective. If every detail of our lives were perfect, how would we enjoy ourselves? We would have nothing negative to which to compare, to avoid.
     I have been betrayed by friends (many friends, all at once) in the past, and it is not easy to deal with. Perhaps I am more apathetic than you, but I know that every one just has different ways of dealing with things. My way of dealing with it was simple: I was to leave these people for college in a few short months anyway, so what is the difference if you leave them now or later? Then again, there are always those that will only leave physically, but will always remain by your side as a friend. I simply choose to look at such occurences as natural events. Life happens, and friendships happen. Life eventually ends, so too must friendships eventually end. This does not mean that it must always be on a bitter note, but put it to the context that nothing lasts forever, and try to move on to the next good thing in your life.
     Well, that's my way of coping. Leave the past in the past, and live the present to prepare for the future.

     I found a site today called dram, and I almost shed a few tears. This person thought so highly of me and my site that, well, you read it: 05.30.01 2:40PM. In short, he modeled his site after my code (it's "SO nice"!). I don't know what other "authors" might think about such a thing, but I am thrilled to have received such compliments, the highest of which is that my site's code is so "neat" that one would even consider using it! You see, people learn by example, and when one of those examples is something that I have done... Man. Ego swelling. Ah. It's good to know that things I do have positive effects sometimes.
     Oh, and I think you will recognize the look of the page if you visit it. Looks nice, doesn't it? :)

The focus is on eleven, as in the Eleventh of September.

9/11 ... 9 + 1 + 1 = 11
9/11 is the 254th day of the year ... 2 + 5 + 4 = 11
There are 111 days left in the year.
The twin towers resembled the number 11.
Flight 11 was the first plane to strike a tower.
92 people were aboard Flight 11 ... 9 + 2 = 11
Flight 65 was the second to strike ... 6 + 5 = 11
"New York City" has 11 letters.
"Afghanistan" has 11 letters.
"The Pentagon" has 11 letters.

...and finally...

"PAYBACK TIME" has 11 letters.

(This was posted 11 minutes past 6:00pm.)
(6:00pm is 18:00 ... 1 + 8 + 1 + 1 = 11)

     Fox News has by far done the best job covering the terrorist attack and its potential implications. Figures like Brit Hume and Bill O'Reilly and several key correspondents have reported exceptionally well. Bill O'Reilly has interviewed several extremely significant characters on his political "no spin zone" talk show, the O'Reilly Factor. Tonight Bill's guest will be Neal Boortz - I will certainly not miss this interview. Catch it on the Fox News Channel at 8:00pm Eastern, channel 63 for Cox Cable subscribers in my area.
     Speaking of Fox News, Attorney General John Ashcroft says foreign nations probably assisted terrorists. "Authorities are becoming more and more certain that a second wave of violence was planned by collaborators, with September 22 [Saturday] an important date in the evidence." This is just one frightening idea supported by this article. Read the whole thing to be convinced that we are necessarily a nation at war.

Tasteless? Perhaps. Pointless? You bet. Funny? Definitely. The Top Ten Moments in History When the F-word was Appropriate:

     10. "What the @#$% was that?" -Mayor of Hiroshima, 1945
     9. "Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?" -Custer, 1877
     8. "Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that." -Einstein, 1938
     7. "It does so @#$%ing look like her!" -Picasso, 1926
     6. "How the @#$% did you work that out?" -Pythagoras, 126BC
     5. "You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling? -Michelangelo, 1566
     4. "Where the @#$% are we?" - Amelia Earhart, 1937
     3. "Scattered @#$%ing showers ...my ass!" -Noah, 4314 BC
     2. "I need a parade like I need a @#$%ing hole in the head!" -JFK, 1963

(drumroll please!)

And the top moment in history when the f-word was appropriate...

     1. "Aw c"mon. Who the @#$% is going to find out?" - Bill Clinton, 1997

For the record, I think numbers six, five, and three are the best.

     I'm proud to be an American, where at least I have the freedom of expression, but I am not so proud to be an American when others use that same right unfairly to insult others. Generally, I mean discrimination. Specifically, I mean part of the nation's reaction against Islam, Far Easterners, and an unfair verbal attack on countries that "should" back up the United States, well, in your opinion.
     I'm sure that there are several countries that could back up the United States efforts and do not, and there are a few that did initially and backed out. Thousands of Americans are heavily and loudly critical of this. But why? Do we really have any idea why these countries made their decisions? ..... No. We may only speculate. We are not sitting in the war room. We are not on the phone with the Prime Minister or President or whatever the leader's title may be. We only know what our biased news reporters tell us.
     I'm going to use Germany as an example. Germany's government backed out of supporting America in our war on terrorism efforts. I have heard from a few friends on campus and read from a few isolated persons online that this was a bad decision. "Those stupid Germans" is the most common attitude I get. Well, tell me something. What the hell do you know about living in Germany? What the hell do you know about German politics, not counting how it relates to American politics? How in the hell are you qualified to judge major political decisions of foreign governments when you can not even comprehend the implications of their decision?
     Perhaps some Americans are better informed than others in this regard, and if such Americans can reasonably defend their views to a German so at least that German could understand, then I would have no complaints about that American. It's the other thousands that have no clue that really piss me off. Even more, it pisses me off that there are so many of those clueless Americans that their image is the one promulgated around the world.

     Want a good scare? The attacks could increase in number and/or magnitude. According to that very long, very detailed article to which I just linked, there is substantial reason to suspect further attacks at the very least, and much more deadly attacks at worst. I recommend reading this article - unless you are a pessimist.

     Hmm. The Taliban might hand over bin Laden under the right conditions. One condition is that the Taliban government be internationally recognized. Also, the United Nations must remove sanctions against Afghanistan that were placed when the Taliban refused to deliver bin Laden in 1998 after the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Then the rest of the article tells us our side of the story and our slant of his side of the story. News is news, though.

     Yay! Amazon shipped my order Friday, and it was spotted somewhere near Kentucky this morning. For a second-day air shipment (upgraded free due to inconveniences!), it is certainly taking a while. I guess I'll see it by Wednesday.

     I have read schools and businesses banning the American flag because it is offensive to some students or workers. Banning the symbol of our nation is no less than anti-American and is absolutely ridiculous. First, I am apalled that any administrator would consider banning our flag - especially considering our country's current situation - no matter who it offends. Second, if people in our country are offended by our flag, it's time to send them back home.

     Atomic Blue Rat. Period. Go, and feel the blue.

     I have learned something new about my favorite author from Nick, who introduced me to this author. Ayn Rand's real name is Alisa Rosenbaum. Neat. Click the link on Rand's name to read the best essay of all time, "Philosophy: Who Needs It", which explains precisely why every one can use some philosophical thought, if for no other purpose than closure.

     Oh yeah. I bought my first DVD today: Antitrust. I saw this movie once and I absolutely loved it. I bought the DVD used from Video Warehouse for $10. (Video Warehouse originated in Montana in 1985, I believe, as a single video store. I have never seen one outside of central Georgia, and I can not find a web site, so if you have no idea what I'm talking about, my end is covered.) Anyway, aside from the "Property of Video Warehouse" label I had to peel off and the tiniest of blemishes on the playing surface, it's a great buy. It plays perfectly, and I have already enjoyed the deleted scenes. You should enjoy them too. Party at my house, everyone! We're going to cram everyone onto my queen-size bed and watch the Antitrust's deleted scenes!

     A parallel to the terrorist attack that I just drew, interestingly while talking to Brandy, is that September 11 would have been Dalila's and my one-year anniversary, you know, if we hadn't broken up and all of that. But we did, so I didn't speak to her that day, although I suppose it was still the first anniversary of the night we "made it official", as the lingo goes these days. I've seen her all of three times since we broke up. One chance meeting, one double date (Claire, me, and both our most recent exes as a couple... heh!), and one trip to see a movie that ended with a terrible headache and a fever. And I almost never get sick.

     The quoted material in this post is from today's Best of the Web as reported by the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal. The headline from which I have quoted is at the very bottom, subtitled "Reality - What A Concept".
     (See this Washington Post article as well.) This means that those on the show have no knowledge of the attack on America or of friends or family potentially injured or even killed in the attack. And for what purpose? For ratings? I have a feeling that people aren't watching stupid television shows in the wake of such events (and if they are, they shouldn't be - reality television sucks anyway), and I can smell a bad reaction from those on the show when they finally do hear about it. This is absolutely ridiculous.

     I just watched The Family Man (Nicolas Cage, Tea Leoni), and my mom, Claire, and I breathed heavy sighs when the images of New York's skyline flashed across the screen as it appeared when the movie was filmed. The movie was very good, though, and I definitely recommend it. It's similar to the 1992 James Belushi film Mr. Destiny, except Cage's character's turning point wasn't a strikeout or a boring life as a result of that. Watch the movie and you'll see; it's quite enjoyable.

     Aside from my typical Sunday activities, I spent the early part of my day rummaging through the Commentary sections of the Wednesday and Sunday editions of the Macon Telegraph, reading the editorials and the submitted thoughts of fellow readers. I have been reading and watching the news on all channels and news sites since Tuesday morning, but I had not heard the opinions of those in my area, in middle Georgia.
     I was not surprised, looking back on fresh material, to find that middle Georgians' initial (knee-jerk) viewpoints were heavily critical of the United States government for "meddling" in others' affairs. I find that the average citizens (well, those that submit their thoughts and get them printed) are more anti-American (strong term, but unpatriotic isn't what I was looking for) than, say, the editors. In fact, my favorite lines, which carefully and generally identified how we must proceed, were the closing lines from editor Charles Richardson. After clarifying that our first response is and certainly should be the emotional shock and the rescue effort...
     Fast-forward to today's paper, where the writings of the editors and readers show the knowledge they have gained and a change in attitude since thousands of their brethren were torn from their lives. Mr. Richardson is no longer advising America to stay calm - I believe that message has been properly received - but he is now questioning our government: "As we ask questions, we should also wonder why the main suspect, Osama bin Laden, can be found by Palestinian and American journalists but not by our intelligence community. we should follow his money and cut of his access to it." A reader writes, "surely all that money isn't stashed under his bed in Afghanistan".
     Also, after five days of analyzing everything with any possible relation, I have noticed a much wider range of (intelligent) writing, especially in the Macon Telegraph. It seems that everyone wants to get their two cents in, and they are taking greater care to choose the words that will have the greatest impact with which to make their points. It is no secret that an occasional disaster, whether by force of man or of the elements, brings us together in ways that can not be imagined before such disaster strikes. Imagine that the earth is attacked by an alien race who will easily destroy all original life on this planet unless we bind together to fight them off. Do you really think that we would continue with our petty religious and economic wars?
     Nevermind that. I'm talking about Macon Telegraph writers. In today's paper I read the opinions of two readers that are almost opposite, but not quite, but both of which make a lot of sense. First, Victoria Campos of Warner Robins rights that "Islam doesn't equal evil":
     Another man writes that "America has been asleep for too long"; he is not surprised that a terrorist act was committed on American soil. He writes that "our country is being taken away from us by our own government" because it...
     I only copy and paste their thoughts because I know that you likely have not read that, and I think their viewpoints are valid and considerable, even if we decide that they are not "right" in the end. That brings me to another point: In the face of war, there is no such thing as justification. There is no right and all is wrong, but there are some wrongs that must take place to prevent greater wrongs. Looking at the past, all great wars were fought over misunderstandings and blind hatred. I have two questions:
     Why is it honorable for individuals to walk away to prevent a fight, but dishonorable to walk away in the face of war? Why is it honorable for individuals to walk away to prevent a fight, but dishonorable for a country to walk away to prevent a war? Send me your answers.

     I received this from an email from Nick, and only the good Lord, or whatever higher power in which you may believe, knows where he picked it up. Heres the extended weather forecast for Afghanistan:
     This doesn't necessarily reflect the attitude(s) of America(ns), and it isn't even exactly funny. However, the comic intentions behind it may be appreciated more in the future, so a home it has found here.

     David Limbaugh hit the nail on the head. Our nation is going to war, laying out "the age-old paradox of the necessity of violence to ensure peace". It isn't likely to be a quick one, either. David (I call him David to distinguish him from his brother, Rush) points out the reasons why our nation must not play into the hands of the pacifist movement, of our leftist leaders blaming America and capitalism for the events that took place on Tuesday.
     Whatever you believe, I hope you don't believe that the attacks on American soil are over. Terrorist-wannabes remain in our country, waiting for their chance to strike at us. Afghanistan is preparing to fight. Other countries are threatening us if we go after Bin Laden or Afghanistan. This is World War III, ladies and gentlemen. Perhaps it won't be as vicious as either of the first two World Wars, as there are no significant bad guys like Hitler to rally a massive wave of destruction. However, with the atomic bomb potentially resting in the hands of enemies, and with the "leaders" of Islam preparing for a holy war, one can only wonder if we should be so lucky as to prevent further tragedies on American soil.
     Oh! Oh! And look who wants to play! Our old friend Saddam Hussein is warning the West, particularly the United States, of a new crusade against an Islamic country. And do you want to know my biggest worry right now? Pakistan has closed its borders to Afghanistan, essentially joining the American side, allowing America to use Pakistan's airspace and such. My worry is that something could easily go wrong in Pakistan, far away from the security of our borders, and we could do very little to stop it.
     In short, I hope that we limit ourselves to calculated risks, and I hope that we do not calculate wrongly. I strongly support our cause, though I can not be sure just how satisfied I will be until things get started. I rally behind my President, and hope that the rest of us will do the same. Show unity, even in disagreement. Prove that American resolve is a force with which to be reckoned.

     Know your enemy. There are those of us that take those words quite seriously. There are also those of us that think a lot like Harry Browne. I have found many reasons to place doubt in the values of the Libertarian Party, but Browne, the Libertarian candidate on the Presidential ballot last November, wrote a brilliant piece Wednesday.

     I try to make it clear that I am an objective person; I suppose that comes naturally for those who call themselves objectivists. One confusion about objectivism, though, is that Ayn Rand unreasonably denounces faith as a weakness of the mind. I say unreasonably because I can think of no good reason why faith should be a weakness of the mind. To have faith, also known as confidence, one may have the correct mindset to perform a deed. Perhaps her reasoning was deeper than what I know, and therefore prior to my ability to reason, but I can not see objectivity in one who simply accepts faith only as waste.
     The point about objectivism that I would like to make is actually about objectivity, which is very similar to but not the same as objectivism. Objectivity is open-mindedness, the ability to see all sides of any given argument and to choose a solution fairly. One confusion from making such a decision comes when one does not believe the choice was made objectively, when one does not believe all sides were considered fairly. The only way I know to combat such an argument is that the person in question, assuming he chose objectively, had considered the argument fairly at some previous time, or had considered a very similar problem, thus making the choice easy to make without reasoning through every detail of the decision.
     I know this sounds like a bunch of gobbledigook to some, but I have had an increasing frequency of problems with people accusing me of not considering the options, or of being ignorant to the whole problem, or of other problems in my analytical thinking, and so I felt the issue should be addressed internally. And what do you know? I got to writing, it just came out, and so you just read it. Don't you love how that works?

     Reparations, reparations, reparations. Everyone wants something from someone else for something someone else did. I want my sister to pay me back for the CDs she's ruined, or I want my parents, who were legally responsible for her at the time, to make the payment for her. Do I expect anything for the CDs? No. Do I think it is my parents' responsibility, or even my sister's after so much time, to pay me back for my losses? No. Did I - my, myself, John Paul McCord III - actually lose something that I spent my money on? Yes.
     What's the difference between my losses and the losses of those preaching for reparations of slavery? Well, I actually lost something tangible. I was directly violated by the damages incurred on my property. Was Jesse Jackson directly violated by slavery that occurred over 130 years ago? No. Does he think that our government - the great, great, great, grand-sons and -daughters of a government that recognized the foulness of slavery and ended it 136 years ago - should pay him reparations for slavery? Yes.
     "His" violation was incurred very indirectly, and over a century ago. My violation is incurred every few weeks or months, and it is still a problem now and again. Yet it would not be right for me to demand payback from my family, so how could it be right for him to demand payback from his country? And let me define those in terms of this problem, while I'm at it. The people of a family form the governing structure of a home, through which problems such as mine are considered and solved. The people of a country form the governing structure of a nation, through which problems such as his are considered and solved. Are our problems really that different? Are our brethren, within the family or within the nation, really that different?
     Let me end with this: A federal lawsuit filed in Chicago seeks one trillion dollars in reparations from Japan on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Americans killed or wounded in the Pacific during World War II. Hello? McFly? Is anybody home? Bad things happen to people during war time. I don't agree with it, but that's one of the things that war causes. People are jumping on the reparations bandwagon, and it's trying to pick up steam. If we don't end the ridiculousness now, everyone will be demanding reparations for some random injustice, and our justice system will have turned from a symbol of morality to a symbol of selfishness.
     I'm quite certain that I have not covered my logic fully, and that someone will question my reasoning. I welcome your thoughts, but please, let's refrain from name-calling and character assumptions. I try to make it clear that I mean no disrespect to anyone of any gender, color, or creed (or any other potential difference in the eyes of statistics).

     The U.S. media scrupulously respected the privacy of presidential daughter Chelsea Clinton during her dad's run as President. Chelsea can expect no such courtesy from the British press when she arrives at Oxford University, where she begins graduate work this fall. "Poor Chelsea will be in for a rude shock. It's going to be a feeding frenzy", says David Teather, media editor of the Guardian. "The American press may have exercised restraint in their reporting of Miss Clinton, but over here her every action will be put under microscope. Former boyfriends could ask for £100,000 ($145,000) to reveal the secrets of their relationship to a tabloid." (Article published in September 10 edition of Washington Times.)

Oh yeah. I'm validated for HTML 4.01 Strict and CSS 1 and 2.

     I've read the same types of things that you've wrote with every type of open-mindedness in the books. Do you realize that there are black leaders in this country that come from much worse backgrounds than you that made successes of themselves without the aid of affirmative action - because it didn't exist when they were growing up? They call themselves conservatives. And they are a large part of the reason why I am against affirmative action, for the most part. I completely understand that, if a black man can say that affirmative action is an insult to him, that it must be an insult to others like him.
     You assume that I do not understand. I understand perfectly, I just don't think like you. Why can't you accept that? I've heard both sides of the argument for years now. What is it that has you convinced that I am not open-minded? Because I'm not arguing the other side? I've been there and done that, and I've settled on this side. That's what open-minded people do. They don't simply take all sides. They consider all sides and then they choose one that makes the most sense to them. You assume that just because I don't agree with you that I am closing myself to your opinion. Well, this is perhaps the case, but only because I had considered and even believed your point in the past, and now that I am politically aware it just holds no water.
     I don't hold your view against you. I would never do that. I do hold calling me ignorant against you, though. I've been studying social, political, psychological, and philosophical issues for years now. I know I don't know it all, and I know that many people disagree with my opinions. That does not mean that I don't know what I'm talking about.

     I should rename my site "The Bullshit Report", because it seems that all I report lately is the bullshit that fills the headlines around the country. Today's most outstanding example of bullshit in the news is a Los Angeles Times article concerning former presidents who "[delivered their] strength through sheer force of personality", and more importantly, how President Bush is failing to do that. "Three days of George W. Bush on television this week affirm that."
     Bullshit. The article praises former presidents Reagan and Clinton for their natural ability to rise to national power with their "stagecraft and video quality", which kept eyes on them. Ronald Reagan was a Hollywood actor, so he certainly had the natural ability to speak to an audience through a camera lens, and I would imagine that the L.A. Times would not have mentioned him at all, considering his political ideology, had he not been an actor. William Clinton, on the other hand, held the spotlight on the cameras for a completely different reason, I would suggest. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe he actually had this natural ability of which the L.A. Times speaks, but I would rather suggest that the liberal media (and yes, the media is dominated by liberals/Democrats - don't even try to deny it) loved to make their Democrat president look good.
     I did not dislike Clinton while he was in office - at least not at first. He was elected to be our nation's President, and I accepted that. A majority/plurality elected him twice, so he served two terms. I do not agree with much of what he did during his tenure, especially the lying to America part, but he was not a bad President. He did not do bad things for America. I would not say that he did good things for America, either. Rather, he was an average President that had the ability to manipulate the people into loving him despite his moral, um, issues. Clinton was and is a very smart man; I'll give him that...
     Now that Clinton is out of office, and now that Bush, a Republican, is in office, the liberal-dominated media is having a field day. During Clinton's tenure, we heard very little, if anything, about Chelsea Clinton's troubles. Some may even say that I am making it up because they never even heard about it. "Leave the family alone", they said. "Respect the Clintons' privacy", they said. And as soon as Bush's family came around, every reporter in the nation, it seems, was interested in Jenna Bush's "drinking problem".
     Let me get back to the point. The L.A. Times, historically a very pro-Democrat news source, thinks that George Bush, by comparison to recent presidents, "[lacks] size in front of the camera when he should [be] commanding and filling the screen...". They say this mostly in reference to his lack of camera time since Tuesday, but they imply that he should address the nation more often as well, a notion with which I staunchly disagree.
     Considering this week, President Bush has unbelievable responsibility as the head of our nation to get things done; talking to the people does not get things done. He needs to confer with his aides, our allies, the entire world. He has spoken to the people, and he has done so firmly and brilliantly. Despite the overwhelming bias against the Republican Bush at the Macon State College campus, I have heard only good about him since the tragic events that struck the nation, the world, Tuesday.
     Despite being ideologically opposite to the liberal media and (supposedly) nearly half of the country, Bush is a brilliant man, a brilliant President. He does not spend his time pandering to the feelings of the people, simply giving them what they want. He spends his time doing his job, doing it right, and doing it effectively. He gets his work done, and while I do not agree with everything he does, I respect his attitude. He does not need to be any different than he has been since election day. To change now would simply show instability, which is not a trait any leader should possess.
     Which leads to my final point: Democrats are upset that George Bush is actually a good president; that the people actually like him; that he actually gets things done. They have no way to combat the right other than by mudslinging and character assassination, of which the latter is proving impossible.

     The missing update has been restored. Thanks for your patience. It's very short: my definition of what a government should be and should do. Read it and tell me what you think. Please.

     I suppose you've noticed that the colors are not exactly dark and light blue anymore. I suppose you've also noticed that the site looks peculiarly similar to a certain waferbaby.com. Aside from blatantly using the exact same blue color, #5a84b5 a.k.a. waferblue, this is purely coincidental. I mean, sure, I've used Daniel's source in the past to correct my HTML and CSS problems, but any coincidence concerning the look of our sites, aside from the like colors, is simply a matter of similar tastes, and therefore is, as I said, a coincidence.

     And finally, a salute to those directly and indirectly affected by the tragic events that have taken place this week:

     I've written quite a bit in the past about (the idiocy of?) placing too much emphasis on some image of ourselves that we try to pass. The "social hierarchy" in schools is the best evidence I can use to support my claim, but it goes so much further. People group together because they dress, and therefore think (in many ways), somewhat similarly, and often ignore or even shun others. There is rarely any good reason for it, but we do it nonetheless. We seclude ourselves, we seclude others, and for what reason? ... I don't really have one either.
     This topic was echoing very loudly shortly after the incident and Columbine. While many were trying to place blame on public entertainment figures, particularly Marilyn Manson, I was trying to explain that, while his lyrics may provide an outlet, his lyrics do not commit the deeds, nor do they encourage them. In my opinion, it was the parents that did not properly guide their children, and it was the other children that improperly treated the two gunmen ... that led to the tragic events in Columbine. While on the topic of Manson's music, one may suggest that it could be a bad influence, and it very well may be. But if a person is so badly led (by our standards) that he may willingly commit such deeds as Klebold and Harris did that morning, no music to which he ever listened would have any effect.
     One point that can be made from Andy's and my thoughts? Equality. Think about that:
     Equality.
     What does it mean? How do we define it? Is it desirable, and if so, how so? It seems to me that the political talking points of today are that life is unfair for many, too fair for others, and that we must strive for a greater "equality" - but you never hear of anyone trying to define that equality for which they strive. Ponder this for a moment: If we were all equal - the absolute ideal, the extreme, of equality - we would be the same. That is what "equal" means, right? If this equality is by definition sameness, then doesn't that mean that the goal of striving for equality is a society in which no differences between the people exist?
     I will not carry this point further, for I am no prized writer, but I have read several authors' interpretations of what such a society would be like (Zamyatin's "We", Huxley's "Brave New World", Orwell's "1984").

     On Wednesday morning, I saw something that I had not seen in several years - something I had accepted that I would never see again - armies of FedEx trucks. FedEx is only one of hundreds, if not thousands, of companies performing as best as possible given the unusual and tragic circumstances. The entire nation - make that the world - is working doubletime to provide financial stability.
     A rogue nation/state/organization has declared war on us, and now it's our turn. The argument rests rather simply: To war or not to war? That is the question... Last night I caught a bit of this argument on the O'Reilly Factor, and it seems that anyone that makes any sense is in favor of Congress granting a declaration of war. (I'm not saying that because I agree with it. I'm saying that because the only guy that was against a declaration of war really made no sense.) Let me attempt to clarify why I am in favor of declaring war against those responsible.
     The most sound argument against going to war is that no nation has committed acts of war against the United States, and therefore the United States can declare war on no nation. The Constitution only discusses declaring war against nations, so a declaration of war would be unconstitutional.
     The problem with that argument (and my counterargument against it): the Constitution says absolutely nothing about organizations - non-nations - committing acts of war against the United States. This situation is unprecedented, meaning the precedent will be set by how we deal with it now. In 1941, Japanese fleets bombed Pearl Harbor, killing about 2400 Americans, most of whom were military personnel. On Tuesday, an organized terrorist attack - an organization of terrorists - killed around 15,000 Americans, most of whom were civilians. Aside from six times the death toll, this attack also disabled the financial center of the world, which will have heavy consequences around the world.
     Precedented or not, this organization committed acts of war against the United States, against all countries with any stake in the World Trade Centers or Pentagon, and retaliation is a necessity. The bloodiest battle of the Civil War saw around 20,000 soldiers' deaths. Tuesday saw just under 20,000 innocent civilians' deaths and no one to defend them. Not since the War of 1812 when the White House was burned have any significant political or economic structures been hit in such a way.
     This was a direct attack on the United States. This was a direct act of war. And if you think it's over, think again. There have been several arrests in airports around the world in the last two days - more imposters with small weapons and flight manuals trying to climb aboard our jets and others. If we do not take out the organizations (and perhaps the nations harboring them) that make these acts possible, then we have no defense. Our only defense is to get them at the source.
     I hope this does not seem unreasonable. Whether it does or does not, I would love for you to send your comments. If I am wrong, or if I am unclear, or if I my reasoning isn't solid, I would like to have your input to provide a better understanding on my part. I like to know what people are thinking about what I write, especially on such serious issues, so please don't hesitate to respond with your thoughts.

     I apologize for the difficulties plaguing my site this morning. A horrible internet connection last night caused my upload to be cut off, but only after the server wrote 'index.html' with a zero-bytes file size. The missing entry that I added last night will be up when I retrieve it. Until then, you will have to deal without it.

     I have come to the conclusion that Isaiah Berlin is an excellent modern politico-philosophical writer. I just read "Equality" as a reading assignment in my Humanities class, and it was brilliant. As a classmate state, it is essentially a challenge to those who promote "equality" to define exactly what equality is and how they are promoting it, explaining that absolute equality is absolutely absurd. The ideal of equality is absolute sameness, yes? Therefore, making attempts to reduce differences to create uniformity, or to reduce your state to something about which Zamyatin, Huxley, Orwell, and Bradbury wrote, would be the only acceptable way of truly supporting equality in society.
     He also clarified by reason, not example, that inequality is certainly desirable. But ... you already knew that.

     In conclusion, I would like to state that I am enjoying my Humanities class thoroughly. This semester's theme is the "human drive for community", which involves much social and philosophical discussion and debate, something I like! (Last year the theme was, um, water, which meant reading Twain and Conrad. I dropped the course.)

     Any government should be chosen by popular sovereignty, and in the event that such a government no longer satisfies the needs of its people effectively or efficiently, its people should have the power and authority to revise or replace that government. A government's single most important duty is to protect its people. A government must protect its people not only from invasion, tyranny, oppression, and the typical physical dangers, but a government must also protect civil and economic liberties in a manner that best suits the people.
     I am merely clarifying my definition of how a government should function in the broadest of terms.

     As I was saying yesterday, I really hope someone got a kick out of that, because it's the second-to-last kick they're gonna get. The next will be America kicking your ass... Am I alone, or is anyone else just hoping that we find out that Saddam Hussein was involved? I mean, we could kill two birds with one stone. It's a better plan than the current one, which is, "Whoops! Did I accidentally drop that bomb on Baghdad? Equipment malfunction, I tell you! (innocent whistling)"

     Did anyone else have trouble sleeping last night? I was incredibly tired, but for some reason I kept waking up. It's like my body didn't want me to sleep. I normally have a few oddball thoughts about that kind of thing, but never anything serious, but I always wonder... And I found out today that I was not the only one that had this odd feeling trying to sleep last night. I highly doubt that such a thing is anything other than coincidence, but if anyone else experienced something similar, I would definitely like to know about it.

     I was going to write about the fallacy of man this morning. I was going to write about constant disappointment as a result of constant, wasteful desires. I was going to write about equality and its imperfections, citing John Locke and Isaiah Berlin. Then it happened. So much for objective writing.
     In case you haven't heard, a coordinated terrorist attack on America has left the two World Trade Center towers in New York partially collapsed, a gaping hole in the Pentagon, and millions of Americans frightened and really pissed off.
     American Airlines identified the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers as their planes, apparently hijacked by terrorists. Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles had 92 people aboard, and Flight 77 from Washington to Los Angeles had 64 people aboard. The planes are rumored to be a Boeing 757 and 767. In Pennsylvania, United Airlines Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco crashed with 45 people aboard. United Airlines has also claimed that it has lost Flight 175, a Boeing 767 carrying 65 people; it crashed somewhere near Denver.
     This marks the first time ever that all planes in the United States have been grounded. All international flights were diverted to Canada or sent back. Hundreds of buildings and thousands of people have been evacuated from buildings across the country, and even across the oceans. As of 10:00, the British stock market had dropped four percent after news of the attacks. All major league baseball games have been cancelled.
     There is no word on the amount of death and destruction incurred other than "very high". I'm tired of writing about this. Most major news networks are lagged to hell or are completely offline due to the flood of traffic, but I have been able to get snips from several news sources, including these Fox News reports, and this constantly refreshing account from NewsMax. Fox News has also announced that President Bush has placed the Atlantic Fleet on "Threatcon Delta," the highest possible alert, full war footing.

     On Friday, I wrote a somewhat controversial bit about Jesse Jackson and people like [him] and the issue of reparations for slavery. In the past I have encouraged readers that may agree or disagree to voice their opinions and to send me their thoughts on anything about which I write. I love hard evidence that people actually view my site (whether they read it or not), and I love it when people respond to something in particular. That makes me feel as though what I am writing has some sort of meaning to someone other than myself. In the event that I disagree, I urge you to respond even moreso than those that agree, for it is only with clashing opinions or new information that people may learn. To tie this to my bit on Jesse Jackson, I received an email from Lashonda, a very good friend of mine, that night, to which she had several important things to say. I would recommend refreshing yourself of the piece to which she responds before jumping into her response, but it is not necessary, I don't suppose.

     The slavery versus Holocaust issue is very simple, in my mind. There are still people and families of people that survived the Holocaust (Nazis and Jews) living in Germany, because it happened less than sixty years ago. Slavery ended almost 140 years ago, and people in the northern states had absolutely nothing to do with it. The way I see it, people change and things change - that's constant. Completely new and different beings should not have to pay for the mistakes made in the past. And besides, all the people involved with slavery have already gone on and died, and the problem has been weakened, and in another generation or two, that problem will have ceased to be.
     Shouldn't we owe more to the Native Americans who are all but extinct because of the much more intense torment they were put through? We kicked them off of their land, killed them, tortured them, and had reduced them to living on the worst land in the country that we didn't want.
     Either way, I respect your opinion, and I don't mean to sound rude or anything, so if I say something the wrong way, don't be mad, please. :) I understand that people do not agree with me, and I challenge them to come forward with their arguments. But, as you might expect, I have found that most people in disagreement would rather ignore that with which they disagree. Most writers get that until they have an audience large and diverse enough - which I don't have. I know that most of the people that read my site are people that think like me, but I'm not writing to them. I write what I write so that I may know what I was doing, what I was thinking, who I was with, and how people responded to me from the future. I don't know how long this site will be around, but when I'm fifty years old, it will be interesting to look back and compare the happenings of today to what I will be doing...

     Yes, blacks and hispanics will continue to be discriminated against, but as they slowly grow in numbers, and as whites slowly recede in numbers, whites are subject to more and more discrimination every day. In Warner Robins, the problem is no longer black versus white, it's black versus hispanic. I've glanced at a few numbers on various sites, and around the country the fastest growing hate crimes (by number) are black versus hispanic. Granted, whites have a longer and rougher history of mistreating minorities than anyone else, but that's more or less due to their unfortunate position of being the "leader" for so many generations.
     It is a well-known fact that those on top are always the most heavily scrutinized. Look at Microsoft. Look at any high public official. If you're on top, and you do something even remotely controversial, it will be analyzed and looked at through a microscope. Things that would ordinarily be assumed to be nothing are considered racist, sexist, unethical, immoral, etc... and only because the masses are subconsciously sick of the idea that someone is above them. Everyone feels that way at some point.
     The truth is that we are all a part of this society, and we are all slaves to the rules that encompass us. Sure, some will have slight advantages over others, and others will have huge advantages. That is just the way things work. It is unfortunate that our past has led to some very distinct groups to be more advantaged or disadvantaged than others, and it is just as unfortunate that the voting majority in this country continues to let it happen. The problem, though, will never end. People are vindictive by nature, as is evident by the request for reparations, and when the whites are no longer the majority, and when a new majority is realized, then the whites will be oppressed somewhat. This happens every day. One group takes over, and they take steps to keep the previous group from coming back.
     We punished the Nazis so that they may not come back to power, despite the fact that they truly believed that they were right. We condemn communism and socialism in America and, to some extent, aim to destroy it around the globe, despite the fact that neither system is really any worse than capitalism - they're just ideological opposites. The same goes for Republicans and Democrats within the bounds of our social system. The goal is always to reduce the power of the most significant competitor to ensure your own security.
     My ideal is simply to reduce the power to the individual so that everyone is equally part of the same large group in control. This will never happen in my life time, and will probably never happen at all, but steps toward such an ideal would include forgiving and forgetting, which is something for which the masses are not ready.
     Also, I did not say that racism would end in my previous argument. I merely argued that the reparations-for-slavery movement will have died (for various reasons), and that racism would have all new talking points to keep it alive...
     Again, I respect your opinion, and I'm enjoying the friendly debate. :)
     So, as you can see, you can oppose me and I will still hear your arguments reasonably and let you state your case. The chances of any of you actually reading all of that is slim to none, but if any of you are truly interested in a reasonable debate concerning racism, affirmative action, and reparations for slavery, read it.

     I was just talking to Audrey, Bethany's aunt, and we were discussing religion, philosophy, and the concept of existence over time. She asked if I believed in luck, and I quickly replied that luck is simply the meeting of chance and opportunity. She asked if I believed in fate, and I explained that fate exists on a higher level of thinking than ours and can not be controlled, but that it does not exist on our level.
     To further explain, I reasoned that time does not exist. Rather, everything exists and changes over one instant. Time is only an idea which we use to measure change. Our consciousnesses merely glide over this perpetual instant giving the impression of experience and change. Regarding fate, I look at the empircal view that all events are result of some prior event(s), and that all future events are result of some current event(s), and so life is predetermined on a level of thought much higher than ours and therefore impossible to truly understand. However, fate does not exist on our own level of insignificant thought, for we can not grasp the concept of predetermination, and therefore we are able to make our own decisions and such, despite the fact that the outside influences of prior events influence every possible detail of our being.
     And you thought I believed in independent thought...

     Mommy sold her house yesterday, settled the deal on a new house today. We must be out by October 12, but will likely be out much sooner with the new house almost ready to be moved into. The house will be just over two hundred yards from my mother's sister's house, which is about one mile from my girlfriend's house. The house is also only ten-to-fifteen minutes from school, as opposed to my current arrangement twenty-to-forty minutes away (depending on traffic). If you care to look on a map, I currently live in Warner Robins, and due to all of the software for my classes and such, I will continue to live here until next semester begins in January. I will be moving to the northern part of Macon.

     I try not to pass others' thoughts as my own, but when someone states my exact thoughts in better words than I possible could have, then I change the rules I little. To read the rest of what is wrong with objectivism, see the original document.

     Senators Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and Ted Stevens (R-AK) are co-sponsoring a new bill (drafted August 6): the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act. Unless you can understand all the Congressional lingo, I suppose it would be best for you to believe my interpretation of this yet-to-be-introduced bill, which will basically give control of your hard drive to the government (warning: possible exaggeration). The idea is to restrict your rights to protect those of others, when there is really no reason to believe, in the first place, that you are the culprit whose rights need to be restricted. The government would rather punish the whole for a minority's mistakes than fish out the troublemakers, which has always seemed to be a popular method of taking care of problems. "Hey, let's piss off the people that are still on our side; that will do the trick!"
     Hollings previously sponsored a bill which would require violent content to be broadcast "after the hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience, unless it is specifically rated on the basis of its violent content so that it is blockable by electronic means specifically on the basis of that content". So, instead of relying on parents to govern their kids' actions, which is what a government that protects civil liberties would do, this bill suggests that it is the government's job to regulate what your kids can and can not see, and that you must find ways to educate your children that coincide with the government's restrictions. Luckily this bill was referred to a committee back in February, and has had no major action since.
     Stevens previously sponsored a bill, called the Uniform Poll Closing Act, which would call for a single poll closing time for Presidential elections across the entire United States. Every polling location would be open for exactly the same hours regardless of time zone, closing at 9:00pm Eastern, 6:00pm Pacific, and whatever time that would be in Alaska and Hawaii. The bill also provided that the polls in Alaska and Hawaii could open on Monday evening in order to meet the 9:00pm Tuesday night poll-closings. A little quirk that I do not like is the provision for extended daylight savings time...
     If I were for such a bill, I would rather let the polls be open for exactly twenty-four hours, opening and closing at exactly the same time across the United States regardless of time zones. Polls would open and close at 12:00am Eastern Tuesday and Wednesday mornings, respectively, and 9:00pm Pacific Monday and Tuesday nights, respectively. This would give every person in the country exactly one day to place a vote, providing every single hour of the day - morning, night, whatever - to make that vote. Also, my bill would prohibit releasing election results until after the polls' closing time, which would prevent media influence from affecting the election.)
     But that's not the point. The point is that I do not like the Security Systems Standards and Certifications Act in any way, part, or form.

     Email forwards. Most of us hate them, and we deal with them in different ways. I generally tell my friends and family to avoid sending them to me, but occasionally one comes along that you're really glad to get. When that happens to me, I rarely pass it on. Instead, I post it here for the world to see. I think more people read my site than I have in my address book, and people generally delete them, so it only makes sense to keep a good message alive here. Enough explanation - read the first line below, and decide whether it is worth reading entirely or not.
The numbers:

Equifax: 1-800-525-6285
Experian (formerly TRW): 1-888-397-3742
Trans Union: 1-800-680-7289
Social Security Administration (fraud line): 1-800-269-0271

     I just received another great answer to the ages-old question, Is the glass half empty or half full? It matters not that the question was originally asked back in March; what matters is that the question is still very answerable, and I have been given good reason to plug it once again.
     Now, if I may ask, why is it that I have received two responses to this question in the last four days after receiving zero answers in about four months? Also, does anyone have some time I could use? I need some more time to devote to various projects, and my days are all but filled. One project in particular that I would really like to finish is the Macon State College Matrix web page (not to mention the two articles that I had planned on writing on which I have had no time to begin). No time? Okay... No harm in asking.

     Jesse Jackson has returned from the United Nations' racism conference, and he will make reparations for slavery his top priority this fall! Apparently he is announcing his plans as I write this at a press conference at his Rainbow/PUSH headquarters in Chicago. Tell me something, Mr. Jackson, just how is it that people like you, who have never served under the harsh conditions of slavery, and who have no remaining relatives that served under the harsh conditions of slavery, deserve any form of "reparations" from people like me, who had no control over the decisions of my ancestors over 140 years ago?
     Then again, we do live in a country where burglars can sue for slicing his leg on a carelessly placed knife in a victim's home.
     Aside from that bit of absurdity, I find it interesting that the article says Jackson is in Chicago now, but he isn't expected to return from the U.N. conference until tonight.

     Fox News reports on the various reactions to Bush "backing" Microsoft, and I'll not waste time and simply state my opinion: Microsoft should not be broken up. Period. In case you didn't know, it is not actually the technology that keeps the world of technology afloat. Oh no... It is the rigorous enforcement of standards to which the technologies must adhere that makes it all possible!
     Flashback: 1995. Windows 95 is brand new. Macintosh is still incredibly popular. Unix is the sleeper, as per usual. Walk into a software store, pick up a copy of "Software Title X", and have absolutely no idea on what platform it works. Progression is slow, because companies are working hard to reach all users by coding for all platforms (usually one at a time) instead of having a standard by which to work. So we have a chaotic world of thousands of softwares at a lesser quality than possible because time had to be spared for other versions.
     Then look what Microsoft was able to do. Microsoft was able to set an industry standard, and for several years the progression of the world of technology seemed impossible to stop, because everyone had rigid standards with which to work, and the work was always guaranteed to incur some next, higher step.
     Enter the Department of Justice. Scream "monopoly", slow Microsoft down, and essentially slow the country down. The Department of Justice, in trying to allow other companies to break the surface and "make it" in the real world, has essentially broken the solidity of the standards that had been in place, and chaos reigns once again. I am certainly not against the companies popping up all over the place, but I am against their meager attempts to beat Microsoft by simply doing what they've already done. A little competition is always good, but when punishing Microsoft for making it to the top is simply a knee-jerk reaction sponsored by the pockets of the jealous.

     Okay, let me be a little bit more coherent (and Libertarian). No, Microsoft should definitely not be broken up. By doing so, the government continues to set this dangerous precedent of attempting to regulate what is supposed to be a free market. The government is responsible for protecting basic individual rights, but when was "moral/social engineer" added to its job description?
     The government's actions seem to show that the politicians think the people cannot make rational decisions and change the world for the better. Did it take legislation to desegregate the Montgomery bus system in the 1960s? No. A year-long boycott was all it took. The people who boycotted walked or carpooled! So if Windows is hated so much, why won't 40% of the American people boycott it? Go and learn Linux, no matter how hard it is. People chose to walk several miles everyday instead of ride the bus. How hard could it be to learn Unix or Mac OS? Not any harder than walking 6 miles a day.
     In a free-market system, consumers determine who will succeed and who won't. We all know how lobbyists and campaign donations can corrupt our politicians. If the government got into the business of regulating the free market, don't we run the risk of companies giving millions in campaign donations to destroy their competitors? Such "bribery" would cause our democratic system to cease to exist and cause our government to be run by whichever company donates more.
     It is well-known that Microsoft made few, if any, political donations prior to the 1998 antitrust case, but Microsoft's competitors donated hundreds of thousands each year. I believe there is a stronger antitrust case against Microsoft's competitors than Microsoft. Sure, I can believe that Microsoft has had dealings that are very border-line fair, or even wrong. We all know the rule of thumb that no one is perfect. But we must also take into account the actions of Microsoft's competitors which may have caused this case in the first place.
     So, in conclusion, Microsoft should NOT be broken up, nor should there be any remedy from the government.

     So we were discussing what the framers of the Constitution had in common, and among other things, I claimed that they were "politically inclined". Dr. Tate tells me, "you don't know what you're talking about", and moments later says that they were "politically skilled".

*sigh*

     Is it just me, or is he living in some strange universe where those two terms have different meanings? Or is he just against me because I am not "on the left" of the political spectrum? Or does his senility just shine through once in a while of its own volition?
     No matter. I enjoy the class ... all except for his passing off opinion as fact. At least I recognize it, though.

What is your government's job? (answer)

     It has been two months since I first asked my viewers to offer decent responses to this question, and in that time I have received only three answers worth using, and one is only four words long. I can think of one very politically inclined person that never sent me an answer, and so I expect one from him soon. Either way, you may view the tiny selection of responses now.

     I was very surprised when I checked my email this morning (just now) to find an email from a Libertarian Congressman-to-be (hopefully) from Oklahoma. He had little to say (actually, he answered one of my opinion questions from my archived writings page), but he did find my site, which is enough for me considering his politics and philosophy. So my site has reached enough webspace (or has been sacked by enough search engines) that even potential Congressman are finding it and sending stuff in? I like it!
     The address to his personal web page was left in the email, and on that page I found a neat little passage about what it means to him to be a Libertarian:
     I would certainly never call myself a "radical" Libertarian - then again, I wouldn't call myself a Libertarian at all. For the most part, I agree with the Libertarians. There are very few issues with which I can not agree with the Libertarian Party's stance. Still, my dominating political thought is that people (I) should think for themselves (myself), act for themselves (myself), and vote for themselves (myself). When I say "for themselves", I do not mean direct selfishness, but I mean voting for themselves collectively. In national elections, one should vote for the greater good of the country and of the 280-plus million people. In state elections, one should vote for the greater good of the state and the state's people. In local elections, one should vote for the greater good of the community. The point is not to vote for handouts, tax-reduction, or any of a number of other minor legislations that would weaken the government, but it is to vote for the strengthening of government (note: I did not say anything about government expansion) so that it may better carry out its primary tasks, whether it be a national, state, or local government. (For more on how national, state, and local governments differ, show some interest and I'll talk about that too.)
     I am not in favor of expanding government for no good reason. I could go through the United States code and toss out probably thousands of laws, and I could liquidate hundreds of government programs and organizations for the sake of better governing and protecting the people. I could, but I can't. I am for a strong government that upholds the rights and liberties of its citizens. I am not for a huge government that thinks it protects its citizens by greater and greater control.

     If anyone knows where Liza Moller might be this time of day (somewhere near a classroom, I would imagine), try to get her this message: "Happy birthday! I miss you! Come back and visit sometime." In case you're wondering, Liza was one of the first friends I made when I came to Warner Robins, she was one of the few people that were always nice to me, and hers was the one of the two families from which my mother acquired our dogs. (Kirby! Or as my mom renamed him, Rascal. Rascal is a very appropriate name, though Kirby had a nicer ring to it.) So, if Liza gets the message, or if you're Liza, feel free to persuade her to email me. Otherwise, go about your day as normal and forget about my best attempt to keep in touch with one of the few good memories I have of middle school or high school. *shudders to think of the rest of those seven years*

Quoth Yevgeny Zamyatin, direct descendent of Nikolai Gogol and Fyodor Dostoyevsky:
     I have just begun my reading of Zamyatin's novel We, which was the predecessor to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's (Eric Blair's) 1984. That's right, We is the dystopian novel that started the trend of pessimistically predicting the future that frightened millions of readers throughout the Twentieth Century. And don't act like that's all over... We're closer than ever to realizing the totalitarian regimes of 1984! More on Zamyatin's book as I get through it.

     I'm not going to say anything about the present time, because I no longer know Scott, nor do I care to know him. Long ago I became tired of satisfying his insatiable desire of finding someone to ignore, and so in my mind he ceased to exist. I still get along with everyone else (exce