On Thursday, October 4, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said that security must be in the hands of "professionals" because "you don't professionalize if you don't federalize." What are the implications of this? Daschle is basically telling America that, if you don't work for the government, you're not a professional. Case closed.
     In case you aren't familiar with communism, one of its two major precepts is that the government plans and controls the economy - the business world. Communism is directly opposed to capitalism; in fact, the Marxist-Leninist (ideal) version of communism advocates the overthrow of capitalism by revolution. Communism operates to destroy free enterprise and laissez-faire economics, which support that businesses should operate freely with a minimum of government control.
     So we agree that America is a capitalist nation that favors free enterprise and laissez-faire economics? But our top Senator wants to put business in the government's hands. Before the New Deal this type of thing was not only unheard of, but unconstitutional! Our federal government, or at least the left side of it, is trying to remove the freedom of business for the sake of "equality". They are trying to take away from the hard-workers and achievers and redistribute to those that live under "unfair" conditions, whatever that means.
     I can think of two lines from my 10th grade biology class that apply here. They logically contradict each other but mean essentially the same thing. First, "nobody ever said 'life was always fair'", one of Mr. Anderson's favorite lines when his students complained. Second, "life was always fair (there, I said it)", one of Brandon Woodworth's favorite responses to Anderson's wisdom. The meaning of the first line is obvious and widely accepted, but not many people take the time to consider the second, that life is always fair. But think about it. If you're a religious person, particularly Christian, you accept that everything happens for a reason, that your creator has a specific role that he wishes you to fill, and you fill it whether you want to or not - that's part of your chosen path. If you're not a religious person, you probably accept that all events are products of previous events - empiricism - and that all actions are simply effects of a cause. Your thoughts are effects of specific indoctrination. You can not help to what information you are exposed, nor can you really control how you will react to it (though it certainly seems like it). We are all natural, biological beings - though highly complex - that react to stimuli as atoms explode when bombarded by neutrons.
     That (long-windedly) said, who is to say that life is unfair if things happen for a reason? Of course, one could easily use this to argue that all actions are justifications in and of themselves, so I should probably find another way to argue my point against Daschle, but I think I've made this one reasonably well. My point is that there are considerable communist overtones in Daschle's words, whether he likes it or not.

     For those of you that no longer visit the front page and come directly to this page (if anyone comes here at all), it has been refurbished. Go and bask in its beauty. Then tell me what a wonderful job I've done. People love that sort of thing.

Happy Halloween.

     I have never really taken a firm stance on the drug issue because I have not been able to grasp the entire problem. I have spouted opinions here and there, somewhat irrationally, but none of it was based on hardcore reasoning. This chapter helped to put many of my isolated thoughts on the matter into perspective, and I believe I have organized my thoughts into a solid position. (If discussion warrants it, you'll figure it out!) So not only am I enjoying a good read, but I am forming ideological planks - simply because a man chose to write.

Here's a cheesy email forward floating around the internet:
Now aren't you glad you read that?

     I have had another snippet published in the Viewpoints section of the Macon Telegraph last Friday. It was a response to comments from the previous Friday, October 19, when Sharon Duke reasoned for science in favor of religion, Christianity. Being the "political, logical objectivist", I responded with the argument that both science and religion are valuable and that neither can prove the other wrong. It must have sat well with the editors. My Aunt Pat, or someone who shares her name, wrote about Cynthia McKinney (about whom I have chosen to avoid talking) on Wednesday, October 24...
     Any local, opinionated visitors of this website should think about submitting an opinion or two to the Telegraph once in a while. It can't hurt, and if it's printed, you're being heard - isn't that the point in democracy? Let the media serve you, not the other way around!

     Registration for the Spring 2002 semester started today. Being the on-task person that I generally am these days, I was ready at 12:02am to register for the six classes that I needed to take. I am taking four core classes in Information Technology next semester, classes which are known to be filled pretty quickly because they are required for all IT majors, so I wanted to register first thing.
     Denied! There was an inappropriate hold on my registration; I could not register for any IT classes because they all required a prerequisite course, ITEC 2210 - Foundations in IT, which is the primary core class that covers the essential Microsoft Windows and Office skills. *gag* (I had no problem registering for Physics and Domestic Issues, two classes that have nothing to do with my major.)
     So I arrived one hour early this morning to square away my registration and make sure that I get my classes. I arrived at 8:00am, made it through the front door of the building at approximately 8:03, and I finally called upon at about 8:15. (Has anyone else noticed that the registrar's office is setup so that those who are fully prepared and simply need numbers punched into a computer must wait an unfair amount of time, while those who had no idea it was registration day until they arrived on campus think it's a walk in the park because they get to the front of the line and confer with the registrar-secretaries about what they think should be taken and what looks better, red or blue?)
     After less than satisfactory conference with the one that looked most capable, I came back to an old conclusion that the registrars really have no idea what they're doing - no, the school's administration really has no idea what it's doing. I've worked on the registration system before; I could run it better than they do. If a student has a hold because he has not taken the first, basic prerequisite course, but he has taken several courses that require that course, then obviously he has been waived, right? I mean, I've taken four 3000-level IT courses in one year, so doesn't that make it obvious that I do not need your stupid 2210 class? And if the registrars can't quickly and efficiently do their jobs, which is to register students for the classes they need to take - and the students know better than the registrars! they're paying money so give them their damn classes! - then those registrars need to be doing something else, like filing things.
     So I was sent to the IT department, where Olivia worked her magic and got me registered...and altered my file so that I will never have to deal with stupid registrars again. I love that woman. She looks out for her students, as do most of the divisions. Why? Because it reflects poorly on a division when their students screw up. What are the registrars accountable for? Nothing... They just sit behind a desk and register people, not very well at that, and it's the student's or advisor's fault when something goes wrong, despite the fact that it's their ineptitude that often causes things to go wrong (such as a class filling before a student may come back with no changes and a forged overload signature).
     I respect Hillary Clinton more than I respect the registrars at Macon State College (all except Dr. Waugh, the head registrar - he's the man!).

If you have any horrid registration or other college stories, please share.

     "For twenty-five years, or more than half my life, I've made a living in television, radio, and print. I am about to give you inside stuff that you will get nowhere else." Chapter 4 was written absolutely brilliantly. Bill O'Reilly has been in the business since shortly after acquiring his masters degree in broadcast journalism, so I would imagine that he knows that situation better than the average American. He mixes personal incidents with our nation's past and present, and even a glimpse of the future, to explain how the media, like anything with an opinion, always has its bias. The first fifty-three pages have proven to me that this book was a worthy buy, and I hope that I may persuade some of you to give it a try.

     I have discovered InstaPundit, a site by Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee. It is much like my site in that he updates at random times when he thinks something needs to be said; it is much not like my site in that his is more simple and more political. Anyway, I quote from a quote on InstaPundit:

     Bill O'Reilly and I would butt heads if we sat down to discuss the first half of "The Sex Factor", which mostly consisted of O'Reilly telling his readers that men do everything for sex, and any man that claims otherwise is lying. "If the woman looks good, guys will want to have sex with her...No matter what a man says, ladies, he is saying it to get you to have sex with him." Yes, Bill, that is often true, but not for all guys. You could make the distinction that there are a few (more than the average person thinks) that care less for sex and more for other, more reasonable things. But then you would ask "like what?" and think you have me stumped, when in reality you just don't believe that there are more important things than sex. I can't help your position, but it isn't mine.
     Finally, I leave you with a quote from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: "Nobody will ever win the Battle of the Sexes; there's just too much fraternizing with the enemy."

     Ah, yes, Wordsworth said it best in his poem "The World Is Too Much With Us". We are a material people that care not for the pursuit of happiness, but for the pursuit of money. When we realize that money doesn't make us happy (because we spend it thoughtlessly and carelessly), we shift blame elsewhere (most commonly to Uncle Sam). Is it just me, would we be better if we would make spending a conscious decision? At least then we would not be surprised when a mound of expenses hit us at the end of the month.

     I am going to do my best to quote from O'Reilly's first book after completing every chapter. Perhaps I can persuade someone to buy the book or, at the very least, to watch his show once in a while. He's really a very reasonable guy, and one of the most powerful journalists in America. He is easily my favorite media personality in the country.
     I only bring up O'Reilly because I bought his new book, The No Spin Zone, yesterday (45% off at Media Play!). I read the introduction about a week ago; I already knew I was going to buy the book, but that reminded me that I wanted it sooner than later. Naturally, I should complete his first book before moving to the second, so I have begun reading The O'Reilly Factor. I suggest that you do the same - even if you disagree with him, you'll have better knowledge of how to combat his opinions if you actually know them as he puts them.

     I know bad things have happened, and I know that they have brought much sympathy toward New York to the hearts of millions. But damnit, baseball has nothing to do with that! This nation is full of biased sympathizers with little care for people who actually like the game of baseball! If someone screams "Go Arizona!" for the World Series, suddenly you hear three screams in retaliation that the Arizona fan is anti-American. WHAT THE HELL?!
     Look, I feel as bad as the next guy about the terrible things that have happened to my country, specifically the cities of New York and Washington, but screw the Yankees. I've never liked them, and I'm not going to jump onto the Yankee bandwagon just because our nation has been attacked. Go Diamondbacks!

A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
by Mark Twain

     For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
     Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
     Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

     I don't know about you, but I'll all about getting rid of the "c" and replacing it with "s" and "k", as seen fit, in all instances except for the pronunciation of the "ch" sound. In that case, drop the "h" and let "c" take on the sound. Also, replace all instances of "sh" with "c", as the "sh" sound is not much different from the "ch" sound, and therefore could be represented just as easily by "c".
     I would certainly advocate replacing "g" with "j" in all instances that "g" makes a "j" sound. The "x" and "z" are fine, although the "z" could be replaced with "s" - they are only slightly different. The "w" should not be pronounced as "double-you", because it is certainly not a double "u". The "y" should stick around for it's consonant purposes, but should be replaced by "i", "e", or dropped entirely as is appropriate.
     And for goodness sake, bring back the dipthongs!

     Today marks the first day ever that I have posted two consecutive posts by the same person, not counting me, my sister, or that time that I posted five quotes by Nathan at once. Oh, and so you know, I have sought every dictionary on the planet and replaced the word "quotation" with "quote". You will never use "quotation" again... (zombie-like humming) ...WILL YOU?!?!? I thought not.
     Now don't think about it, just disabato.

     I don't know how the parties are structured in Britain, nor do I know the nature of independents in Britain. I do know, however, that in Britain's multi-party system, a wider range of political ideas are supported and represented due to the fact that there are more national political parties. In American, we essentially have two. All others are largely suppressed. They have their freedom of speech, but they (unfairly) do not have federal support.
     I believe most of all that the party structure should be done away with in Congress. Let everyone mingle and discuss. Let everyone sit where they please, or with the members of their own state. As things are, independents or third party politicians (should one be elected) must choose to sit with either the Democrats or Republicans, and most third parties in American are known to dislike either, which kind of defeats the purpose of running for Congress and destroys a third party's voice in Congress. It is the same sort of disenfranchisement that occurred to blacks and other minorities before the 13th-15th and 19th amendments were passed. Of course, the legality of it isn't questioned so much, since the operation of Congress is essentially statutorily declared anyway.
     I know many of you are against me on this issue, and try to reason that the party structure in America should remain. I do not, so I would love to hear your reasons so that I may better understand the positive side of our party structure.

P.S.- I think I should name the site something appropriate for all this political stuff all the time.

     I think I like the idea of subtitles within each update; it makes it easier to navigate your way through all the crap that I type on an hourly basis. A little organization never hurt anyone, right? And a little subtitle makes it much easier to single out the stuff you want to read versus that which you don't. Right? Well, whatever. I do it more for my convenience than yours. So there.

Three Worthy Reads (among many):
     "Can I get my engagement ring back?"
     Why September 11 should convince Congress to focus on truly national topics.
     Senate clears anti-terrorism bill for president's signature.

What If They Had Hit The Capitol?:
     We have clear plans of succession (see the 25th Amendment) for every branch of the federal government except Congress. It's time to prepare for the unthinkable. With the right timing and placement - a joint session of Congress, for instance - a weapon of mass destruction could kill dozens or hundreds of Senators and Representatives. What would happen then? How Congress would function in such a state of emergency was the subject of an October 22 panel discussion hosted by the American Enterprise Institute and bearing perhaps the most startling title in the history of Washington gabfests: "What Would Happen If Congress Were Obliterated?"
     The idea for the forum was based in part on some recent articles (for instance, this one) by Roll Call columnist and resident AEI scholar Norman Ornstein. In the editorial linked above, Ornstein describes a possible post-attack scenario: "Even if it could operate with 30 or 40 members, imagine the strain on the system if Congress passed sweeping anti-terrorism laws, huge new appropriations, even a declaration of war, with most of the country underrepresented, or with a radically different partisan or regional makeup."
     Unpleasant as this may sound, Ornstein suggested an even more dire scenario. Because the House of Representatives must assemble a majority of those "elected, sworn in, and living" to form the requisite quorum for passing laws, an attack in which a significant number of congressmen are incapacitated yet still alive could leave the House of Representatives without a quorum. While deceased members of the Supreme Court, executive branch, and Senate can be replaced quickly by appointment during a crisis, the process of replacing House members takes longer. Senators killed or incapacitated, for instance, can be replaced by gubernatorial appointment. Members of the House of Representatives can only be replaced through special election, a process which normally takes anywhere from three to six months. In an emergency, a special election could conceivably be held in three to four weeks, still a long time to wait during a national crisis.
     A solution has been proposed by Brian Baird, a Democratic congressman from Washington state. To expedite the process of congressional succession, Baird suggests a constitutional amendment: Governors would be given the power to appoint temporary replacements for dead or incapacitated representatives if more than a quarter of the members of the House were killed. The temporary replacements would serve for 90 days, during which time states would hold special elections for the seats.
     Although still in the early stages of development, Baird's amendment already has a "sizeable number of cosponsors", Ornstein said. And, although he "hate[s] constitutional amendments", Ornstein supports the Baird amendment as "the only prudent thing to do".
     Baird and Ornstein raised a number of other issues Congress needs to address to prepare for doomsday scenarios. Biological contamination of the Capitol building might require Congress to assemble elsewhere. While federal law gives the president the power to convene Congress outside of the Capitol, such contingency plans have not been fully developed. Current law also does not allow for members to vote from remote locations, yet they might need to if the Capitol were destroyed. Such provisions are not included in Baird's amendment, but he suggests they can be dealt with through statutory means.
     Baird says that his amendment would send a powerful message to our adversaries. "Even in the worst-case scenario, even if they destroy the Capitol, our government will persevere."
     Unanswered at the conference: What would happen to Norm Ornstein if Congress were obliterated?

Non-Muslims Killing Muslims:
     As you read remarks about the Muslim world's reaction to the war, the anti-American protesters repeatedly say that they're upset about non-Muslims killing Muslims. Apparently, Muslims killing Muslims (as when the Taliban shelled Kabul and killed untold numbers of civilians) is okay. And Muslims killing non-Muslims is okay, too - and maybe better than okay. It's just non-Muslims killing Muslims that's bad. (Even if the Taliban are using civilians as human shields).
     I understand that we may have to take this attitude into account for propaganda reasons. But we certainly shouldn't take it seriously ourselves. And we should be asking, loudly, where were all these mullahs who are condemning the (meager) number of civilian casualties now when the Taliban were murdering their way through Afghanistan just a few weeks ago. The hardcore haters won't care what we say about this. But they're not the ones we're trying to win over.

     I am going to guess that most of the "Gore won the electon" mongers have not read CNN's confirmation of Bush's victory in Florida:
Oh, but this is the best part:
     In other words, they reasoned that, because those votes are completely trashed and thus can not be counted, they must have been for Gore. It is impossible that any votes for Bush were thrown out. Yeah, right. Also, I would suggest that a big reason why our election system is so FUBAR right now is the monopoly that the two major political parties in America hold on American politics.
     George Washington warned us: political parties are a bad idea. The idea of grouping together to promote common ideas is nopt bad, but the idea that such groups should financially support candidates is bad. Politicians should be supported by their popularity with the people based on public opinion of politicians' beliefs, and that should not be directly proportional to the amount of money that their party or that they have.
     That, and the two-party structure in Congress is highly destructive. It allows no third party candidates to seriously be considered, not that they'd want to be, because they would have little to know voice in Congress. They would be forced to caucus with one side or the other, and third parties are charactized by generally disagreeing with both sides. In other words, our current two-party system does not allow a full range of political ideas to surface or to be represented, but only those represented by the two major parties.
     Hell, our system works, but it could work better. BUt like I said and tried to explain, political parties are a bad idea.

     I was hanging out in the talk.politics.theory newsgroup like the good little geek that I am, and I came across the following message, to which I responded:
Agreed, though as a system has already been established, it must also be understood that sectionalism is real and should not necessarily be treated as a bad thing.
Agreed, but the definition of freedom and justice varies.
There is never a good reason for hatred. And, from my perspective, it seems that Americans are not racist, sexist, or discriminatory until something happens. I think all nations are judged from their recent histories, no matter who is the judge. Things change, and people do not treat Germany as Germany was treated following either of the World Wars. When something like the Sept 11 tragedy happens, a mountanous reaction, perhaps unreasonable, is certain to occur. The American people had no hatred for Easterners or Muslims or any of those groups that our government may have mistreated. The American people is not responsible for foreign policy. I hate to say that most Americans don't understand politics and government very well at all, and many have no idea or care about what goes on outside American borders. Therefore, by attacking American civilians (and other nationalities as well), as opposed to military or government officials, the Sept 11 terrorists have attacked an entire nation that held no grudge against anyone (except maybe Iraq because of its recent history).

Also, I'd like to hear some of those reasons why "much of the world" hates the Western world. What have these people, millions of people living the way their government tells them to, done?
Their attitudes toward us, which predated our global domination, were divisive and deeply resented. They would not cooperate when we tried, and so they were somewhat left out. That can not reasonably be wholly blamed on the West.
It's not automatic; our government just happens to support the notions that Israel supports, and so our government thinks that they are more in the right. I do not know the situation with Israel much more than to say that. Perhaps if the Arab world would leave Israel alone for just a bit and try to settle things peacefully...
Which is the most brutal, dirty, and cowardly way to attack any problem. Period.
     The East should understand that the killing of thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with foreign policy decisions - people of many races and nationalities, including Easterners - can not and will not be tolerated. The Eastern nations who harbor those who commit such acts must be seen as in contempt of the law. The East was not violated - the West was. And, as much as I am against capital punishment, there is no justice for the killing of 7000 innocent people except death for the perpetrators. Even that is too nice.
     The crime, if you have not been reading the news, will be duplicated regardless of any retaliation. It was a direct attack on the West, and similar attempts at attacks have been going on for years. It is only a matter of time before the next attack, and the retaliation effort is the only thing slowing them down. Until the terrorists who commit these crimes are eradicated, these things will continue to happen. Our "globalization" will not end until we end, in their eyes, and regardless of reliation, they will continue to try to bring us down.
     We will not stand for that.

     There were other good responses, including agreement with the original post, so it's not like it's a one-sided argument. I think I made my point of view reasonably clear, as did everyone else in the debate. I'll be checking up on it later.

     I laughed. I laughed hard. (And that's not her actual screen name, so don't go around IM'ing "carrie" expecting to learn some of my dirty little secrets!)

     I accidentally wrote over an entry I made Tuesday about Jesse Ventura. As soon as I get to the computer on which it rests, I will re-add it to the site. I hope it isn't too outdated by that time. In the meantime, I'll sit here and jam to my Super Mario Bros mp3s.

     Today Neal discusses some of the problems with American students' math education, specifically the problem with those instructors that believe the emphasis should not be on getting the right answers (as the "Results Group" would believe), but on performing well in a problem-solving environment (the "Methods Group").
     No, not really. The political leanings of the Results Group would certainly be more right than those of the Methods Group, but I would not want to suggest that the two groups are simply right and left. I would be more inclined to say that the Results Group is anyone with half a brain, including most conservatives and a significant number (maybe or maybe not a majority) of liberals/leftists. The Methods Group, on the other hand, is a small but loud minority that is made up of almost entirely lefties - because conservatives just don't focus on methods like that - but because their faction is a bit smaller, there could easily be fewer lefties here than in the Results Group, which is why the two groups are not simply right and left.
     I don't think it's disputed much that leftists/liberals appeal more to the emotional side of human thought, while rightists/conservatives appeal more to the logical side of human thought. Mathematics is an individual pursuit of answers using fact and logic. You don't feel a right answer. You know it (or you don't). Anyone wonder why the leftists-dominated "Methods Group" can't stand it? Let's face it, conservatives (in my opinion) get things right more often than the liberals. That doesn't mean that all liberals are stupid. (I just can't think of many good examples to the contrary.)

From The Hill:
     The only valid argument against this is that perhaps increasing the number of Representatives in the House would create a small bit of chaos in our political system: a presidential candidate would need more than 270 electoral votes to be elected president, or there would simply be too many men in the chamber to get things done efficiently. If this argument is to succeed, then there is an argument to cap the number of representatives by a Constitutional amendment. I would not back that argument, but I would back the argument that no Representative should represent more than one million people ... period.
     I would not have blockquoted the article as I did, but it was such a wonderful argument, and I know you would not have read it otherwise.

This has been a lesson in Life 101.

     As an assignment for AP U.S. History, Tim is required to identify ten great people and explain what makes them great. I do not know the stipulations of the assignment, but being the geek that I am, I shall name some of my own and share my top ten list. First, I will limit my list to people important to American history. Second, I will attempt to draw from roughly every major time period in American history. That should do. The list:
     As you can see, it is a bit more difficult to discuss Rand, Berners-Lee, and O'Reilly with historical context, as they are a bit more recent. Rand not so much as the others, but information on Rand (short on buying a biographical work) is a bit more difficult to find. But those are my top ten, not counting anyone that should be there that I failed to remember... :-)

[to be continued]

     Democrat Gerald Posner was wrong about Bush, he admits in a column written on September 25. Howard Fineman writes that Gore loyalists are relieved that Bush is the man. Richard Berke notes that Bush is receiving high praises from noted Democrats.
     Regardless of what you think makes a president great, and regardless of your political orientation, I don't think that you can deny that Bush has done a great job with his presidency so far. Bush in 2004!

Get your bin Laden and Bush Halloween masks before they sell out!

     I think I just read the best, funniest news article ever at the Drudge Report:
     That's just too wonderful, isn't it? Well, I suppose if you actually like Hillary Clinton, it may not be a wonderful thing, but I think it's good that America recognizes Hillary's true colors in the wake of horrible events. I don't suppose she's still [secretly] planning a run for the White House...

     Kevin Mitnick also has things to say regarding recent events, especially the American government's passage of laws enabling certain institutions to snoop no communications technology. Hell, if they've now gotten permission to do it, imagine how long they've been doing it without permission, and imagine what new doors this permission opens... (Kevin Mitnick is probably the most famous hacker alive. If you don't know who he is, run a search on his name in any search engine.)

1958 February 7: DoD directive 5105.15 established the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA).
1966 October: First ARPAnet plan introduced by Lawrence Roberts at MIT.
1969 September 1: First ARPAnet node installed at UCLA Network Measurement Center.
1969 October 1: Second node installed at Stanford Research Insitute.
1969 October 29: First packets sent result in first crash.
1971: Ray Tomlinson invents email program to send messages across a distributed network.
1972 March: Tomlinson modifies email program; chooses @ symbol from Model 33 Teletype for its "at" meaning.
1972 July: Lawrence Roberts writes first email management program to list, selectively read, forward, and respond.
1973: File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or RFC 454, developed for ARPAnet.
1980: Tim Berners-Lee writes program called "Enquire Within", predecessor to the World Wide Web.
1982: Transfer Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP) established. DoD declares TCP/IP standard.
1983 November: Domain Name System (DNS) designed, creating .edu, .gov, .com, .mil, .org, .net, and .int.
1985 March 15: Symbolic.com becomes first registered domain.
1986: Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) designed to enhance Usenet news performance over TCP/IP.
1990: ARPAnet ends; Tim Berners-Lee creates the World Wide Web.
1993: Marc Andreesen creates Mosaic web browser; WWW grows by 341,634% in a year.
1995 September 14: Domain registration is no longer free.

My, my. We certainly have come a long way.

     After reading up on anthrax, I am a bit relieved. The skin form is nothing worse than a common bee sting; at worst the average person will need an antibiotic, or a person particularly weak against the bodily intrusion could suffer ill consequences. The inhaled form, no the other hand, is quite deadly and is near impossible to cure once symptoms begin. I hate diseases like that. Why can't they all be curable for X amount of time after the symptoms start? Geez...

(time passes)

Bill O'Reilly is a genius:

     I begin with some anti-Clinton sentiment, follow with some pro-Canadian, pro-American sentiment, and end with an argument against my term limits argument. Feel free to skip any or all of it; I only provide this paragraph as somewhat of a label so that you my bypass that which you care not to read.

1.      After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured about 1000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured about 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1998 bombing of embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured abuot 5000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
        Maybe if Clinton had kept his "promises", an estimated 7000 people in New York and D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.
   
        There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and donates billions of dollars annually. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why is it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin Laden?
        It is a strange turn of events that Hillary gets over eight million dollars for her forthcoming memoir and that Bill gets about twelve million dollars for his ... this from two people who have spent the past eight years unable to recall anything about past events (while under oath)! Incredible!
   
   
2.      Widespread but only partial news coverage was given about a month ago to a remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:
   
        This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.
        Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help.
        This spring, fifty-nine American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times and safely home again.
        You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.
        When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.
        I can name you five thousand times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake. Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.
   
   
3.      I conclude with some counterarguments concerning my "platform" from Dave: He agrees with my other proposals, but he has a different view on term limits, one which I respect:
   
        We already have term limits - elections. It has been seen in states with term limits on state officials that problems arise because just as the people figure out how to do their job, they are gone. Notice the controversy over Gulliani in New York. I personally believe that term limits are bad and that the reasoning is also poor. It promotes the "lame duck" problem - during their last term, they really don't need to reach out to the people they represent as they are not risking a loss in an upcoming election. I'm just curious what your reasoning behind supporting term limits is - perhaps I have not considered another benefit.
   
   P.S.- It's President Pro "Tempore" of the Senate, sorry to get picky.
   
        As for your comment about the President Pro "Tempore", I know. If you did not notice, I referred to the position correctly initially, but I abbreviated the term as I used it repeatedly.

     The new computer is up and running. The cable internet is installed. The digital cable is installed. My new email address is crashnbur@home.com (what else?), though I will continue to use jpmccord2@home.com for as long as it takes to move all necessary things to the new address ... or maybe just permanently.
     Two days ago there was an anthrax scare in my home. We received a package addressed to me from a post office box in Whitehouse, NJ, a location of which we had never heard and which we could not find online. The return party was simply labeled as "FNC Viewer Services", and for the life of us we could not put it together. My dad even called up to New Jersey to find out about this "Whitehouse" location and discovered that it indeed did not exist, but that a "Whitehouse Station" did exist. At that point, I had decided that that made since, as a post office box would likely be located in such a place. Mom was still skeptical and paranoid, but I was ready to open to box and get it over with. Finally, my dad calls back one last time and asks if "FNC" could stand for "Fox News Channel". At the suggestion, I recalled signing up with Fox News to become a Fox Fan, and upon viewing the web site we realized that the box was perfectly shaped to hold the mug that turned out to be inside the box.
     No anthrax, but an interesting afternoon. I guess this just goes to show that even those that claim to act no differently are still affected by all this mess. And I have a new, cool mug. Go me.

sotd: System of a Down - Chop Suey

     If I were ever to run for Congress, I would push two issues (similarly to Tony): Congressional term limits and a flat income tax. There is now a third idea that I would like to endorse: let's make the President Pro Tempore of the Senate the Senate Majority Leader. Yes? No? Well, here's my reasoning, straight from The Hill:
     So my independent Congressional platform now endorses term limits on Senators and Representatives, a flat income tax (meaning everyone pays the same proportion of their income), reforming the process of choosing the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and altering election day processes so that all polls are open for the same twenty-four hour period regardless of geographic location.

     Millions throughout Georgia and throughout the country may be excited to know that Saxby Chambliss, Republican Representative from the 8th District (roughly central Georgia), has decided to run against Max Cleland for his Senatorial seat in 2002. As a result of Chambliss's announcement, Republicans throughout Georgia that may have run against Cleland have regrouped and reorganized and are now focusing on running for various seats in the House of Representatives. Read more about it.
     John Zogby, a prominent political pollster and New York state native, told reporters to keep their eyes on New York Senator Hillary Clinton, whom he says remains a strong potential Democratic candidate for the White House in 2004. He said that he "would not count her out for 2004" at a breakfast meeting last week, noting that the former first lady is still in the nation's spotlight as a spokeswoman for the victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks. He also noted that unlike previous election years, oft-scorned New York is now bathed in the warm patriotic afterglow of the nation's new global war on terrorism, making it a great place to launch a presidential campaign. From appearing at soup kitchens in Batavia to gas stations in Utica, Clinton is "building her base of constituents" as part of a never-ending campaign, Zogby said. (The Hill, Campaign 2002, October 17)

The potential of another Clinton in the White House frightens the hell out of me.

     I have quickly realized that life without an up-arrow key really sucks, especially when typing notes in Word or coding HTML in NotePad++ (the best text editor for Windows that replaces the standard Notepad).
     That said, you may recall that I expressed agreement with Neal Boortz yesterday, so today I think it is only fair that I express disagreement with Neal Boortz. Over the last two days, Neal has made his point that the anthrax scare is overdone and that there are far more and far greater dangers to our lives that deserve more attention than anthrax. However, he is using his own examples against himself by taking things a bit too far. Case in point: Instead of simply making his point that sixteen-year-old drivers are statistically a greater threat to your life than anthrax, he includes that "there is no real logical reason to allow sixteen-year-olds to drive. They're menaces without judgment".
     Neal, if I may offer a word of advice, may I suggest that you simply make the point that you're trying to make and end it there? If you simply make your point without interjecting nonrelated opinions, you might get better feedback on certain issues.

     Washington Times article: "A black van carrying Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and driven by a U.S. Secret Service agent reportedly talking on his cell phone rolled through a checkpoint at Westchester County airport Sunday, injuring a policeman who tried to stop them - first by shouting and then by banging on the side of the moving vehicle."
     If it has not been made blatantly obvious in recent weeks that Hillary Clinton is not right for America, it should be now. During each of Bush's successful speeches which Sinator Clinton attended, she sat and barely applauded with nauseous boredom. Neal Boortz made an interesting comment yesterday: "If one good thing has come from the September 11 attacks, it's that more Americans have gotten a peek at the real Hillary Clinton".
     What? Is Hillary Clinton somehow more important than you or me simply because she is a Senator? because she is the wife of a former President? because she is probably running for President in three years? because she is the most power-hungry, selfish bitch woman in the world? She certainly thinks so, and I would not be surprised if half of New York once agreed with her, but I believe it has gotten to the point now where any disobedience of the law, especially ignoring security checkpoints which are there (as their labels suggest) for our security, should be treated as such, and one's position should never be justification for disobeying the law. Senator Clinton's driver (whether ordered by Clinton or not) bypassed a security checkpoint and injured an official of the law in the process. If you or I were to commit such an act, we would likely be in questioning for seventeen hours before spending at least thirty days in jail, contributing days worth of community service, and paying a fine larger than my annual income (which isn't much).
     But wait, there's more. As you may recall, Senator Ted Olson's wife, Barbara Olson, was killed when her flight crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. Barbara Olson had written two books in the last two years: Hell to Pay and The Final Days. The latter is scheduled for release before the month is out. The book details the last days of the Clinton presidency - including the flurry of pardons, the looting of the White House, and the lavish gifts their Hollywood friends showered on them. Regnery, the book's publisher, decided to honor Olson's memory by proceeding with its release.
     What was the Clintons' response to Barbara Olson's death? Did they send flowers or a card to Ted Olson? Did they make a telephone call to express their sympathies? Nope. They set out to stop the publication of The Final Days. Tom Winters, editor of the sister company of Regnery called Human Events, reports that "within a week of the dreadful attack on September 11, powerful friends of Hillary tried to stop the publication of this book". Hillary's friends even made thinly-veiled threats. They suggested that "Barbara's reputation would be sullied if the book were printed".
     ...Which makes some of us wonder what the Clintons are so afraid of that they would overstep the bounds of taste (and an author's right to write and be published) and seek to stop a dead person's final book from being published? Is there something in there that could jeopardize the Clintons reputation, or worse yet, Hillary's run for the White House?

We'll find out later this month when The Final Days reaches bookstores.

     I had this weird dream last night (or actually I think the night before) that I was in Chicago (did I live there? was I only staying there?) and I felt like calling up Nickd (who shares my belief that all real headphones have a cord wound like a phone cord) and chilling at Wrigley or something. I think the dream was the night before last night because I can not remember much of the details, but I do distinctly remember standing somewhere thinking that I was in Chicago and thinking that Nickd was little more than a phone call away, and because that moment has not occurred in my conscious life, I can only assume that (1) I dreamed it or (2) I preempted it. I shall mark this passage for the chance occurrence of deja vu in the near-to-distant future.

     The Braves and Diamondbacks are opening the NLCS this afternoon, and the Yankees and Mariners are opening the ALCS tomorrow night. May I make my bold predictions now, please? Braves in six, Mariners in five, and the World Series will go seven games (ideally) no matter who wins. (Realistically, the Mariners will probably sweep the Braves, but I would love a seven-game series!)

     Everyone's favorite forty-second President of the United States of America (favorite between he and his wife, that is) had the audacity, the idiocy, to claim that is the responsibility of our country - average Americans - to provide for those countries harboring terrorists: "[Terrorists] feel they can recruit among the dispossessed. We must do more to reduce the pool of potential terrorists."
     Do you think that it is your responsibility to give these countries more? Or do you think somewhat like me and believe that our current President is doing what is necessary and right to prevent further damage? I do not believe that we should simply donate to the Afghan cause ... they're harboring terrorists! (Well, certainly the Taliban is; the "rebel" organization, or the officially recognized Afghan government, seems to be on our side. Perhaps, though, that is because we are threatening to topple the tyrannical force that oppresses them.

     I haven't vocally/verbally agreed with Neal Boortz in a while, so now is a good time for it. The topic of conversation? Who is the most powerful black person in America? (You can say African-American, I will say black - because either term will offend someone, and I really don't care because I mean no offense by it.) Many people might argue that the most powerful black person in America is Al Sharpton, and many others would likely argue that it is Jesse Jackson. I have always felt that each have an amazing ability to influence masses of people, but I have never felt either to be powerful.
     Neal Boortz suggests, though, that the two most powerful black persons in the United States are Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. I am going to stick with Neal on this one; I also agree that Rice is probably the more powerful of the two, especially now. "It is said that Rice is the last person that Bush confides in and listens to before a decision is made in our new war against terrorism." Aside from being the President, I don't think any single person in the United States - whether black, white, red, yellow, purple, green, or clear - can gain or have any more power than that.
     Yet, as Neal points out, neither Rice nor Powell are considered to be black leaders. You don't hear Rice being held up as a role model for young black women. Neal goes on to suggest that
     Agree? Disagree? For the most part, I agree with Neal, but I am certain that many will disagree, and I would love to hear those arguments.

     Since the last time I addressed this slate of cyberspace, I have moved out of one home, into another, and participated in Mike's birthday party. (Mike has reached what I like to call the "nothing age" - 20. No longer a teenager, not quite an adult - just 20.) The new house is a four-bedroom house with a living room, den, huge great room, dining room, two-and-a-half bathrooms and a few other perks - but no garage (we'll live!). In choosing my two bedrooms (one as computer room, one as, um, bedroom), I decided to take the two smallest rooms instead of the second-largest room and one of the two smaller rooms. Actually, I chose a remote-controlled light/fan fixture (computer room - with dimmer!) and a pre-built closet shelf-and-hanger fixture (bedroom).
     Next on my agenda is to order my new computer, order an appointment to install cable internet service, and put together some sort of bibliography for my paper on Intruder in the Dust that's due next week. I really see no point in turning in a bibliography nine days before the paper itself is due. All college professors know that most college students work best under pressure - at the last minute - and that most good students leave themselves enough time to spare should unsuspecting problems arise. Simply put, this class in which the paper is due being an Honors class, she should not be requiring that we turn in a bibliography nine days early. It's out of my freakin' way! But, that's the assignment...
     Speaking of assignments, that group project for Systems Analysis that kept me up until about 2:00am Thursday night went well. The grading scheme was interesting - the best group gets the A, the second-best gets a B, and the worst gets a low C. All others are skewed between. Of course, if there were just two knockout, awesome projects, another project could have gotten an A as well, but that's just too bad, because our project was the best, and we got the A (97%)!

     Two more important things of note: (1) the Atlanta Braves swept the Houston Astros in three games in the National League Division Series and will face the Arizona Diamondbacks for the National League Championship beginning tomorrow; (2) Auburn beat Florida 23-20! Woohoo! While I'm on sports, I'm hoping for the Seattle Mariners to win tonight. While I prefer the Oakland Athletics over the New York Yankees, I am torn between them right now, because I would rather that the Mariners would have an easy time with the Yankees than that the Athletics would beat the Mariners. Still, Braves and Mariners in the World Series! The Indians and Yankees can suck it (Trebek)!

mp3otd: Creed - My Sacrifice.mp3

     I woke up yesterday morning in the dark, struggling (unsuccessfully) to squeeze in another ninety minutes of sleep before my alarm sounded. I finally gave in to my awakened state at about 7:00 and walked downstairs to read up a bit on Intruder In The Dust, on which I had a test at 9:30. (I expect that I made a D, give or take a letter grade.) I finished the test in roughly forty-five minutes and headed back home. From there I called Zach and Mom to plan my day of moving furniture and packing boxes; I'll leave the details of that out of this.
     Zach and I spent about six hours of the day working toward the move and generally goofing around, basically catching up on the last five months. Aside from all the work and the impending deadline for my group project (I turned that in about thirty minutes ago), I had a blast all day. We spent most of our time slaving away to a stereo blasting Creed's new song (and other songs), so the background noise was acceptable.
     After lunch, Zach and I took my dogs up to Macon to my Aunt Pat's house, which is about a stone's throw from our new house. The dogs were to stay in a strange place overnight before moving to the next strange place, which they will call home (in Dogspeak™) come tonight. I showed him the area surrounding my new home, and had the current occupants of the home not had a huge Ryder truck sprawled across its lawn, I might have tried to show him my exciting new home.
     Anyway, we went back to Warner Robins, picked up his car, went out to eat with my mom and sister, and then back to Mom's to pack the last and most important stuff: stereo equipment. We padded and boxed three stereo systems, two VCRs, and several speakers, cables, and remotes and loaded my car full of stereo equipment. I would guess that I drove thirty miles with $2000 of stereo equipment last night. I think it will be more fun unpacking it all and hooking it back up in the new house.
     Oh, and did I mentiong that before heading back to Macon with $2000 of stereo equipment, I had to write an executive summary for a phony business problem for a group project due in my Systems Analysis class first thing in the morning? Suffice it to say that yesterday was a very long day for me. Rise and shine at 7:00am and fall and fade at 2:00am - what a day!
     On a positive note, I learned that I can throw a football fairly well with either arm, and I am moving into a new house today. Hopefully, pictures are to come. Then again, spring and summer pictures should have come many moons ago, and I don't see those anywhere around here. Speaking of pictures, if you feel like you need them in your life for some reason, I suggest downloading those that are available, because I am going to began to delete them from the server as I scan and upload new ones. The reason is simple: webspace conservation. You can always request a picture if you know what to request, but their availability will decrease as they age.

     I apologize for my irregular internet habits of late. I do not think anyone depends on my regular presence on the internet, but I understand that I have been less social lately as a result of a truckload of work to do. Things should settle down soon. See you on the flip side.

     I am helping my mom move into her/our new house on Friday. Between Friday and the end of the semester, I will be gradually moving things from my dad's house to our new house, and when the semester is over, I should have most or all of my things at her house. I must leave a few things at my dad's, despite the fact that it's over twenty miles from school, because my computer is there, so much of my work for my IT classes is there. Oh but there's more! As a result of me being in the house, mom is buying a new computer! It may go down on paper as being her computer, but I am to treat it as my computer, and in trying to be conservative to buy a computer to last me for a few years, here is the system that I have put together that should be mine within the month:
     If any of you can recommend any similar but better parts to substitute for what I have listed, please advise me! As soon as we get the computer, we will have Cox@home install cable internet service, and I will be well on my way to moving files from my dad's computer to my new computer. I will also be that much closer to moving in with my mom on a permanent basis, as I will only need my dad's house for computer-related homework (and my remaining things) for the next couple of months.
     If you're wondering about the price of the computer system, it is pending at the moment, but it seems to be pending right around the $1000 mark. Considering that the last machine bought around here was the current machine for about $1300 not including a monitor, I think a brand new system with a monitor for $1000 is a great deal. Here are the specs (as close as I can remember them) of the system bought in September 1999:
     This computer has been a great computer, and I think it will continue to be a great computer if it is treated well. The monitor with which it is used is about seven years old though - an old Amptron 15". It flickers one out of every fifty uses or so (the average use lasts about ten hours), so I don't think it will make it too much longer. This computer has been an excellent tool for the last few years and will continue to be for my dad and bro for another few. I would guess that the other two systems (one old, one inherited from the office) will stick around as well. Maybe I can turn the old Pentium II system into a toy...

     In case you haven't noticed (are you blind?!), I am a bit more politically oriented than I was, say, a year ago. As a result of keeping up with news and politics for about the past six months and researching American political history for the last two or so, I have decided that it might be a good time to take Prenhall's political party / ideology matchup quiz again. So I did. I read and considered each answer thoroughly before choosing, and the results did not surprise me at all:

     I would suggest that this quiz is reasonably accurate; I think I am a libertarian Constitutionalist. The Libertarian Party has an uncompromising commitment to the classical liberal ideals of John Locke and Adam Smith (as do I), opposes interference by government in the private lives of citizens (as do I), and supports an unregulated free-market (while I do not) and the protection of private property rights (as do I). I support a free-market, but I also support that it must be regulated. The government often oversteps its bounds with its regulatory powers, and I do not support that, but it is hard to know what those bounds are before they are crossed much of the time, as they vary with opinion.
     I am a Constitutionalist in that I believe in the principles and provisions by which our government exists as written and explained in the Consitution. I do not believe that the United States is a "Republic under God, rather than a democracy". The United States is certainly a republic, and because a republic is a form of democracy, the United States is necessarily a democracy. (I do not understand why the Constitutional Party argues that.) Also, religion and government are separate institutions that should not work together. I believe in the separation of church and state, so I do not believe that a legitimate form of government must "reflect the values of the commandments of the Christian Bible", as members of the Constitutional Party supposedly do.
     As for the Republican and Democratic Parties, I agree with them in principle (for the most part). I agree with the Republicans that the individual is paramount. I agree with the Democrats that we must move forward, but that is simply stating the obvious, isn't it? Perhaps this is oversimplifying, but I would rather say that the Republicans are conservatives and the Democrats are progressives, and both conservativism and progressivism are forms of liberalism (using the classic definition of liberal, Locke's liberalism). I would thereby classify myself as a progressive-conservative - fundamentally conservative in that I oppose radical change, but I am not against sudden change if the change is clearly necessary and/or right.
     As for the Green Party... I agree with their principles, but I disagree with their methods. They focus on the environment and everything else is subordinate. I believe that we should organize ourselves for our own sake first before attempting such altruism. If we lack the ability to accomplish for ourselves, how should we go about accomplishing for others? for the environment? I agree that the environment needs to be protected, and I agree that humans need to provide more for that protection, but I do not agree with the methods of the Green Party to accomplish that.
     And that, as they say, is that.

     Last night I tried to think over my schedule for the week. Hmm. Attend seminar Tuesday night. Take two tests Wednesday. Take test Thursday. Work on group project Thursday to be turned in Friday. Have furniture and such prepared to move Friday. Move Friday. Get home to check email; order computer to be picked up next week. Work on newspaper articles and web site. And, as always, read and be prepared for every class every day. Oh, and did I mention that my home is thirty miles from my school, and most of my essential things are at Claire's house about ten miles from school and thirty miles from home, thus making for much back and forth driving throughout the week?
     In short, I am confident that, unless I ace all three of my tests and this group project, this week has the best potential to be the worst week of my entire life. Then again, if I ace all the tests and the project, it has potential to be one of the better weeks of my life. So let's see what happened so far:
     Tuesday night's seminar was aborted. The satellite feed for the program which we were to watch, to which we were to respond, and on which we may potentially be graded in some way was not good, and so we will have to wait on the video tape to arrive via snail mail or skip that part of the curriculum altogether. Anna and I (the only two students to show up) were planning to contribute to the program by asking questions and whatnot, but alas, no feed, no knowledge, no questions. No big deal, but I wasted much time yesterday when I could have been working on other important things because I had expected the seminar to be, well, useful.
     Wednesday has been good so far. Tuesday and Wednesday have always been my favorite days of the week. While everyone else is selfishly bored and/or frustrated, I am enjoying myself to the max; they go out and party on the weekend when everyone and their mother is likely to be there, and I go out when it's just me and the few people with whom I would like to be. All in all, Tuesdays and Wednesdays make for better fun days; Saturday makes for the best relax day; and Sunday is the prepare-for-the-week day.
     But about today - Systems Analysis was spent discussing stuff as usual. We discussed the project due Friday and dispersed. Most groups stuck together; the three members of my group went in three directions. I had a test for which to study and one hour to do it. The political science test was a breeze - I think I might want to type it up later for the site. After that test was a Matrix (student newspaper) meeting, which I used as study time for my next test. The Visual Basic test was reasonably easy, though a couple of the multiple choice questions were a bit confusing. (I hate it when they ask for book definitions of programming terms; the book's definitions don't make any sense!) I then shot pool for about an hour before driving home. I have much packing and furniture-moving to do, but that does not pose near the problem that tomorrow's test on Intruder In The Dust poses. I'll let you know.
     The week's potential is still in the balance: Thursday and Friday are pending.

     Two Americans and a German-born scientist shared the 2001 Nobel Prize in physics on Tuesday for creating a new state of matter: an ultra-cold gas that could aid in developing smaller and faster electronics. Read.
     I am a bit puzzled by this. For my entire life I have been led to believe that matter expands or becomes less dense as it is heated, thus the existence of gases (not dense, hot), liquids (medium), and solids (most dense, cold). As a solid is heated, one of two things should happen: it will melt or burn. Melting is the process of becoming a liquid, which is less dense and therefore is more fluid (for as we all know solids are not fluid). Burning is the process of a solid becoming a gas without becoming a liquid. On the other hand, as a gas is cooled, one of two things should happen: it will condense or sublime. Condensation is the process of a gas becoming a liquid, and sublimation is the process of a gas becoming a solid (the opposite of burning).
     And three "brilliant" men had to come along to destroy all that, to develop a fifth state of matter referred to as simply an "ultra-cold gas". The fact that it is a new state of matter suggests that it is colder than its relative substance in the solid state, suggesting that perhaps the range of the temperatures for a substance in each state of matter are not linear, as previously suspected, but cyclic. If this were the case, then the supposed "new" state of matter is not actually new, but a variation of the other gaseous state.
     The average reader of this space will then reason that the author has no doctoral degrees in astrophysics, will then disregard the reaction and reasoning of the author as a waste, and will then go about The Daily Routine™ as per usual.

     I apologize in advance. I am normally completely against in every way the patenting or copyrighting of things that one did not create or that was not a significant factor of something's creation, but I have to hand it to John Keogh of Australia. John Keogh, with the aid of the Australian Patent Office, successfully patented the wheel last year. *Cough* Well, where there's a wheel, there's a way, I suppose.

     My political science professor keeps making annoying comments in class, such as, "Ronald Reagan was enormously popular, but he knew nothing about the economy". Watching the debate over economic stimulus unfold on Capitol Hill, I keep remembering that the Republican Party has often been called the stupid party. So stupid, it seems, that it doesn't understand its own success? Is that how it works?
     Republicans emerged from a half-century as a minority party when Ronald Reagan discovered how to revive a troubled economy in the 1980s. He inherited inflation and stagnation, yet within two years sparked an amazing economic boom that still echoes today. The surging prosperity paved the way for Reagan's Cold War victory and the rejuvenation of the American spirit. It also led to a Republican Party resurgence that culminated in control of Congress.
     The economic formula that accomplished this was clear enough. Reagan supported Paul Volcker's tight money to check inflation. But at the same time he won a large tax cut that concentrated on dropping high marginal rates of taxation, that is, the rate a taxpayer pays on his next dollar of income. The same formula had worked with the Kennedy stimulus of the 1960s and Coolidge-Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s. The point was that lower marginal rates improve incentives in the economy, promoting private risk-taking independent of the formulas that had failed for Jimmy Carter and Jerry Ford.
     These old formulas were epitomized by tax "rebates", along with government spending, that would somehow "stimulate". The government would simply write checks to everyone or, as Lord Keynes had it, pay workers to dig holes and fill them up again. When this didn't stimulate anything in the 1970s, the Miller Federal Reserve tried to compensate by flooding the economy with money. The result (exacerbated by international monetary problems almost no one understood) was inflation but no stimulus.
     Alas, the Republicans seem to have forgotten their victory formula. Even in the Reagan years they never quite shook their accounting fixation on a balanced budget. They bought into an arbitrary concept of "the deficit" - ignoring the difference between capital and operating expense - that they would never apply to their own households. The Reagan program would have been even better without deficits, of course. But the plan was a success and the deficits (especially since much of it was defense spending) a price well worth paying.
     Yet twenty years later we have Washington Republicans insisting not on the Reagan model, but preparing to give in to the model Democrats failed with in the 1970s. At least Jimmy Carter proposed rebates for people who paid income taxes, though his plan was laughed out of town as trying to stimulate the economy by scattering dollar bills out of airplanes. Today the Democrats want rebates for people who don't pay any income taxes, and Republicans seem inclined to go along. While they're at it, Republicans also cower when Democrats argue that any tax cut or increase must make "the rich" pay more, which means increasing marginal rates.
     The pliant, dumb Republicans have forgotten that real stimulus means improving incentives for the most productive citizens. The Capitol Hill Republicans are busy peddling tax cuts for business, only marginally better than Democratic handouts, because K Street lobbyists need something to justify their retainers to their corporate chiefs back in Stamford and Grosse Pointe.
     The Bush Administration knows better, or at least it used to. Every now and then Larry Lindsey, a certified expert on marginal rates, will mutter something. And Treasury Secretary O'Neill pays lip service to what really needs to be done - advancing the already enacted but phased-in marginal rate cuts - but then meekly adding that rebates are fine too. Just days ago Bush finally called for accelerating the tax-rate cuts.
     The Bush Administration, in short, shows every sign of negotiating with itself before even telling Democrats what it really wants - all in the name of achieving "bipartisan" compromise. Democrats pocket these concessions and start bargaining for more. Before you know it, anything that really promotes growth is off the table, replaced by new spending, a higher minimum wage and temporary tax credits that couldn't stimulate Hugh Hefner's libido. Before yesterday, we were told the White House wouldn't even commit to making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
     This is precisely how George Bush the elder lost the economic issue during the Gulf War. Because economic recovery was delayed, not so incidentally, he also lost the 1992 election. The current President Bush doesn't have to make the same mistake. In the current crisis he enjoys a political standing his father achieved only after winning in the Gulf. George W. can afford to spend some of that political capital to get economic policies that will work. The economy, the country, and the Administration all need stimulus proposals that actually stimulate.
     And most importantly, leftist political science professors need to understand that Reagan knew a helluva lot more about economic policy than they ever have or will. Whether he got lucky or not in doing the right thing is another argument...

     I had fun tonight. I arrived at my mom's house at about 4:00 and indulged myself with a couple of Smirnoffs. People began to show up a few minutes before 6:00, and with just enough alcohol in me to make things wiggle that ordinarily shouldn't, I joined a few of the boys in the street throwing a football. "I can't exactly see straight, so just throw it to me and see what happens." It was perfect weather much of the day for being outside, and so many of us spent much of our time outside. Also, I haven't seen my best friend Zach much at all since he graduated from high school in May, so we spent a lot of time catching up on things tonight.
     So my mom's house's going away party was a success. (Not that the house is going away, but we are. She's moving about thirty miles to the north-northwest to be closer to work, and I am moving in sometime shortly after she does to be closer to school. The fact that I will be closer to Claire is not why I am moving, but it may help to convince me to move sooner than I had initially planned. The move will take place Friday the 12th, Mike's birthday - the big two-oh. Everyone, please send Mikey a birthday card. Yes, I mean you too.
     So dinner was served at around 7:30 or 8:00, I believe. Time was not important tonight, and I really lost track of it for most of the night. Once again my mom prepared a delicious back of her now-famous spaghetti (man, my friends that can't drive to Macon are going to miss that!), and I forced myself into two plate-fulls.
     My sister - toward whom I miraculously hold no grudge or harbor no anger - was a little tipsy (read: drunk) though she would swear just the opposite - which is further proof that she indeed was - and so she provided much of the comic relief while I, as host to many of my friends, made myself scarce to catch up on months of not being around my best friend since sixth grade.
     It