November 30, 2001 @ 15:30

Wow. Gas prices dropped to ten cents in Dayton, Ohio yesterday. Gas stations in the central Georgia area could learn from this. Hell, anti-capitalists could learn from this. Competition helps the consumers! And that's what it's all about in a consumerist society, right? But, yeah, I could really go for some Macon gas stations getting down and dirty with gas price wars. Drive 'em down!

November 30, 2001 @ 14:56

Please note that, although I wrote about my updated progress in Gran Turismo 3 last night, I did not upload it. I distinctly remember hitting the buttons to upload it, but apparently I am remembering some other occasion. Whatever. The point: I am kicking back into GT3 mode for a few weeks. Word to one more week of classes!

November 30, 2001 @ 09:51

It's official: Fox News is better than CNN - well, during prime time, anyway. "Fox beat CNN in prime time during the November ratings period. CNN, however, beat Fox for all-day numbers... The results underscore a lesson for CNN: When the biggest news happens, CNN wins. But as news tapers off, CNN's viewers drift away in big numbers, while more Fox viewers stick around." Atlanta being CNN's home town, I can understand how an Atlanta-Journal Constitution article might not mention this: I find these numbers pretty incredible considering that CNN is in millions more homes than Fox News. The Fox News Channel is very young, you know; CNN's been the standard for years.

Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has introduced legislation that would create an emergency information web site at www.911.gov on the internet. Flake said he hopes the Web site would become the government equivalent of the Drudge Report.

Flake adds that, right now, there is no single web site for tips related to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "People just need one web site [so] they know where it is." The www.911.gov address would be memorable because it represents both the date of the deadly strikes on the United States and the well-known emergency telephone number, he said. Under Flake's bill, the www.911.gov web site would be operated under the auspices of the Office of Homeland Security in coordination with the Justice Department and other government agencies.

Those are the facts so far, and it doesn't sound like a bad idea. There may be a couple of kinks in there somewhere that need working out, but the idea to establish a government web site for important news is a good idea.

Finally, America's trust in the president, Congress, and even in the United Nations (which is, in a sense, almost contradictory to the former two) is the highest its been in decades. President Bush's approval rating has hovered near 90% for nearly two months. Of course, I believe that, if 90% of the country were familiar with Constitutional law, or even just the Constitution and a little bit about how government should operate, Bush's approval rating would have been at 90% since last December.

Is this incredible approval rating going to last, or will it fade? Well, as the threat endures, I suggest that it will last. It will depreciate as the threat depreciates, but I believe that Bush has been given a chance to prove himself as the president, and I believe that he has done an excellent job. I also believe that this will provide greater support for Bush's domestic/fiscal policy, as people are simply subconsciously accepting Bush right now.

I would also suggest that Hillary Clinton has a lot to do with Bush's approval. Millions of Americans were shocked to see her level of excitement held slightly below the level of a dull roar - she applauded one of Bush's September speeches commemorating September 11 as though she had razor blades on her palms (also see here). As Neal Boortz said on October 15, "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". I'll take it a step further to suggest that America's recent contempt of Hillary has provided the opposite for Bush. Thanks, Senator Clinton!

November 29, 2001 @ 23:47

For the first time in over three months (since August 19), I have made progress in Gran Turismo 3. Tonight, Zach and I raced through the "Passage to Collosseo" endurance race (Rome Circuit: 2 hours) and through a *very* fast Test Course race in the Suzuki Escudo (I hit 680mph at one point). I aim to finish the game by Christmas, as I expect to have another by that time - hopefully Red Faction, Grand Theft Auto 3, or 007 Agent Under Fire (listed in order of preference, and I really want all three). So now you know.

GT3 progress: 80.7%.

November 29, 2001 @ 14:00

Shoppers who surf the Web can count on continued tax-free Internet access now that President Bush has signed into law H.R. 1552, which calls for a two-year extension of the ban on Internet-related taxes. The ban was originally established as part of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which was signed into law in October 1998.

Also, you should check out Internet Killed the Video Star (1.95MB, requires Shockwave), a parody of MTV's first ever video, "Video Killed the Radio Star" by the Buggles in 1981.

November 29, 2001 @ 13:20

Despite understanding the novel incredibly well, I think, I feel like I botched my presentation this morning. I guess that's what happens when you don't stick to the outline. Then again, it could have something to do with only getting three hours of sleep last night. I just could not concentrate on what I wanted to talk about (on about what I wanted to talk?). I cleverly included in my copy of my outline several key citations to specific secondary sources to mention during the presentation (I get points for that), and straying from my outline, I did not cover those points for some reason.

Well, at least my other presentation went well. HTML class is just, well, easy. I think my grade in there should pull up the B I made in another IT class last semester. I mean, geez.

November 28, 2001 @ 21:24

I'm glad people that know me read the newspaper. Otherwise, I would never know that someone rebutted against my letter to the editor today. This is what I wrote last Sunday (not in its entirety, as the editors cut a couple of key sentences):

And this is today's rebuttal from Mader Chod:

First of all, I never claimed that the suspension of the Constitution was necessary, nor did I imply that we should suspend it. I merely made the statement he quoted. I had included sentences that clarified under what specific situations this would occur, such as in his case, being held back at an airport. This is not to mean that any cop can stop anyone any where and refuse them equal protection under the laws. It must be justified given the situation, which is subjective... But I did not counter-argue with that. No, this is my counter-argument, and I am sure that the editors will again cut parts of it:

I also included this as a second response because it did not pertain to the main point of our little "discussion":

Much of these two responses will certainly get cut, but you get the full arguments. I honestly can not understand how or why it could be assumed that I was falling into a leftist trap, though I have my full rationale at my disposal. Knowing my purpose, it is difficult to try to imagine what others see, especially with key words and thoughts missing from my original letter. Oh well. That's journalism.

November 28, 2001 @ 13:56

Below are about a dozen quotes from the novel that I feel are telling of the ideology being critiqued without spoiling the plot of the book. You will find that many of these are as powerful as words from 1984, largely because We was Orwell's biggest influence in writing his novel. Oh, and I misinformed you yesterday - Brave New World was written in 1931, which destroys my argument that We would likely have been unavailable to him. But nevermind that... Read the following bits of Zamyatin's We:

November 28, 2001 @ 08:32

More Bush defense: Examples of another great president, Franklin Roosevelt, and his "unconstitutional" acts during World War II. And, yet, how is Franklin Rooselvelt remembered? As one of the greatest presidents in our history, right? Yet, if our civil liberties are held so dear (even in the times of war when the rules, as I suggest, must temporarily be changed), then FDR should be rememebered nearly so well. However, if FDR is still to be considered one of our country's great leaders for doing much worse things than Bush (oppressing the Japanese in America? concentration camps?), then Bush not be be criticized nearly so negatively for his recent actions. That, and I was incredibly surprised to find out who wrote this article.

Glenn Reynolds writes:

It also inspired me to write a letter to the editor to my local newspaper, which was so long that a couple of key sentences were cut - which did not change the meaning, but removed some of my statements' power - in relation to Abraham Lincoln's "poor" treatment of civil liberties during the Civil War. Many Americans understand that, during war time, it is necessary to accept a temporary loss of some rights for the sake of continuing to exist. Hell, we could continue to follow all the rules, play by the book, and allow hundreds more bomb-laden, plane-stealing suicide killers to fulfill their desires, but why would we want to do that? For our civil liberties' sake? Puh-lease.

Kuomo's speech, along with idiotic statements from Senator James Jeffords, prompted this rant regarding the two of them, the presidency, and the unimportance of a Constitution should the United States be physically threatened. Go ahead, rail me. The argument that a Constitution would still hold meaning if the United States were destroyed would still hold no water.

November 28, 2001 @ 01:24

» Novel

I did not expect to finish the novel tonight, but I did. I read the last of its 232 pages about fifteen minutes ago. This means that I may devote all of tomorrow (after classes) to organizing my project and, perhaps, putting together some form of visual aid. I suppose I should read over the project guidelines to ensure that I cover all necessary aspects. It should not be a problem. My outline will feature three main topics: customs and traditions, celebrations, and community. The course theme is "Customs, Traditions, and Celebrations: The Human Drive for Community", so I do not see how I can go wrong with that outline. (Also, there are at least three typos in the copy of the novel that I have, and perhaps more that I may have overlooked early in the novel. Also, "good-by" is spelled oddly.) Oh, and the presentation must be prepared by 9:30am Thursday morning. Mine will be preceded by Tony's presentation on Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights - fun!

» News

Varying news associations are reporting that AirTran Airways has sued Michael Lasseter, the man who bypassed security at Hartsfield Internation Airport on November 10, for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $100,000. (Refresh yourself with the facts, then read on.)

Despite that Lasseter broke the rules and inadvertently inconvenienced thousands of people and costs airlines millions of dollars, I believe that this will only bring bad press to the airline(s). The man has a wife and kids, and an airline is suing for hundreds of thousands of dollars that the average American family simply does not have. I obviously am not familiar with Michael Lasseter or his family's financial situation, but I can already see the media jumping on the airline for running a man out of house and home for money that he likely can never pay. My prediction? He (his family?) will be forced to file for bankruptcy. The events of the last couple of weeks and forced bankruptcy will either lead to a legal separation of him and his family, or it will drag his entire family down. Now what incompassionate human being is going to sit well with that?

Oh, and do be careful not to assume that I have taken a side on this. I have merely made predictions.

There is little other news worthy of mention this evening; most of what I have read today has either disgusted me for its lack of utility or has otherwise turned me away. Two things, though: the good guys have apparently bombed Taliban and al-Qa'eda leaders. The article to which I just linked is rather vague, but we do know that we hit something important. And there is potentially another planet capable of life some 150 lightyears away. At the speed of our average space vehicle, it would take us many thousands of years to get there. Isn't it nice to know that we're searching for refuge so close to home?

November 27, 2001 @ 22:46

I am on page 160 of 232 in my re-read of Yevgeny Zamyatin's incredible novel, We (Mirra Ginsburg translation, though I read that the new Clarence Brown translation is based on the "corrected" edition released in 1988). We is the novel upon which George Orwell's 1984 is based and was the first major anti-utopian novel. Many will argue that Huxley's Brave New World was also based on We, but after a bit of thinking, I have decided that this is rather unlikely, as We was completed in 1922 but was suppressed for many years. Huxley published his novel in 1925. This is not to say that he could not have used Zamyatin's work as an influence, but if I had to decide the fact, I would decide that Huxley probably did not have a copy of We in his library until several years later.

The novel is better than 1984, in my opinion, but I am having difficulty deciding if it reaches the level of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Oh, I know, I must have a warped mind to place Bradbury above Orwell - well, suppose that I do. Fahrenheit 451 is still my favorite novel ... unless I decide that We is better, and I may.

The point of this is that I am trying to persuade you to read the novel, so find a copy and start reading. It's a surprisingly quick read due to its short chapters, or "entries" (or "records", depending on the translation), and I think anyone has the ability to enjoy it. Especially if you frequent this web site, of all the others...

November 27, 2001 @ 09:03

I don't know if you're keeping up with the "attack of the clones", but if you're not, you're missing some really horrible statements with little to no reason behind them. About a week ago, Glenn Reynolds posted comments on InstaPundit with the catch line, Missing In Action: Arguments Against Cloning. You see, there is an overwhelming anti-cloning bias throughout the world - even I am mostly against it - but I can think of no good reasons why other than the Pope and President say so. I understand the Christian argument, but I also believe that no God would have given us the power to "play God" had he not wanted us to have that power. Of course, that is unless you support the theory that God was not absolutely perfect - that he created a man which had the potential to err, and so God erred. (That is an idea suggested in the novel We, by the way.)

Glenn's thoughts were focused on the idea that, throughout history, it has seemed increasingly to be man's desire to live a longer, healthier life. Haven't doctors been working with cells in dishes to promote that for decades? How is this different, in the sense that it is, by way of natural progression, the next step in the evolutionary cycle of medicine? And if we should skip that step or turn to another direction, what should happen then?

It is very intriguing that an entire globe of supposedly rational beings can be led by very few for such a controversial issue when there is really no argument against cloning other than the blanket statement - that it is bad. Open-heart surgery was also bad at one time. (I am no advocate of cloning humans; that would be bad. But to grow spare body parts in a dish for an emergency transplant simply for the sake of extending one's life would not be bad. We have chemical medicines that already do that.)

November 26, 2001 @ 14:00

My good friend Tony has written an essay for his British Literature class which, ironically, has nothing to do with British Literature, but I like it so much that I asked him to let me display it here. He "was kinda hoping" that I would, and so here I proudly boast Tony DiLascio's satirical essay:

I have asked Tony in the past either to donate some of his thoughts to my weblog or to push them on his own weblog, but he has not complied yet. So do me a favor: email me and tell me what you think of Tony's writing. I know some of you are just dying to make some points or counterpoints. So go ahead; let me have them. He'll be sure to read them.

November 26, 2001 @ 09:53

Glenn has another persuading argument for cloning, and despite the fact that I still find myself at a moral crossroads any time the issue is discussed, I am really not in favor of dying until I am good and tired and ready to go. By that token, I certainly support his argument for growing a necessary implant in a jar. Really, though, his words are much better than any paraphrasing I could do. Read his argument over at InstaPundit.

Also, Peggy Noonan wrote this excellent column comparing George W. Bush to Harry Truman and this column revealing her realistic, optimistic view of what we have learned since September 11. While I'm on columns, Bill O'Reilly also wrote about what's waiting in the weeds for the president. Those are not even half of the columns I have read in the last week, but they are three of the better ones.

November 25, 2001 @ 22:29

As anyone close to me should know, I have a healthy musical obsession for the band Creed. Their new album Weathered was released last Tuesday, and I am going to buy it as soon as I find myself in the right place at the right time with the right change (read: when I have money). To go with the new album, Creed's web site has been revamped, and it looks incredible! Nevermind that many of its features are not available to me due to JavaScript errors - it looks good!

I am going to predict that, as soon as the song is released, "Hide" will go straight to number one in three weeks or less. Also, I believe that the song "Who's Got My Back?" makes an excellent commemoration for recent international events, or any similar events for that matter. I will also say that "Signs" is to Weathered as "Never Die" was to Human Clay. Each song is intially my least favorite of its album, though "Never Die" sounds very good after a couple of years of growing on me. I expect the same of "Signs", probably due to my inexplicable love for Creed's music.

Also, I am going to have to recant this irrational post that I made back on March 9. You see, I made the claim that Dave Matthews Band's newest studio album, Everyday, had eclipsed Creed's Human Clay as my favorite album/CD because I could "draw several parallels between the music and my life". Well, that was certainly true, but I realized only a week or two later that I still listened to Creed much more than Dave Matthews, and I have also realized that Creed's Human Clay is still my favorite CD after 98 weeks. (Yes, I just counted the weeks again.) Maybe Weathered will dethrone Human Clay. I'll let you know!

Song of the Day: Creed - Don't Stop Dancing

November 25, 2001 @ 13:17

So the anthrax scare is destroying cocaine? Who knew? Britney Spears new album really sucks? No, I mean, compared to the others. It's horrible. I could tolerate some of her... uhh, music ...before, but her new album isn't music; it's noise. I haven't heard a single track that I like. And Claire thinks it's better. No matter. I'll just tell you a story about former presidents.

I hope it is obvious that all characterizations could not be "drawn to scale", as should be painfully obvious with Reagan's request for a brain, but I wouldn't expect anyone to make much of a fuss about it anyway.

November 23, 2001 @ 18:39

I was forced to cut my list of things for which I am thankful short last night. Zach and Megan arrived at about 8:30 as I was roughly half-finished with it, and I thought I would add the few other things for which I am thankful:

There are hundreds of other things for which I am thankful, but to name them all would require more time, effort, and other things which neither you nor I have or care for. (Look! I ended a sentence in a preposition; that's wrong! But I did it anyway. Hypocrite!)

And I am thankful for the ability to recognize my own faults when I see them, and I am thankful for my philosophies and outlook on life. I do not know how I would survive if I felt or thought in any different way (but I'm sure I would). I hope everyone enjoyed their over-stuffing meals, and I hope everyone enjoys the rest of their holiday weekend!

Now I am off to see something for which I am not thankful: Harry Potter. I really don't see how something could be so big without me ever having any knowledge of it (until about a week before the movie's release), so I am going to watch it to see what the fuss is all about.

November 23, 2001 @ 00:00

This holiday season, I'm thankful for:

Good night, and Happy Thanksgiving!

November 22, 2001 @ 20:30

Where were you twenty-eight years ago? From InstaPundit.com: "Rand Simberg points out that today is the anniversary of JFK's assassination, and nobody seems to have noticed. He's right; I'd forgotten it myself. This seems to be of deep social significance." They're right; I had also forgotten it.

Oh, and Osama is targeting the pope, and the Taliban says its time to forget September 11. Yeah, tell that to New York. Someone needs to remind them that the Taliban itself will soon be forgotten.

November 22, 2001 @ 12:43

The New York Post offers another angle on the same O'Reilly Radio story. This one details more of what O'Reilly actually said in his call in to his own show (he was on vacation, you know), and generally puts both O'Reilly and Limbaugh in a good light, save the comments about the duel.

I spent last night cleaning up my HTML to ensure that my site, for the most part, was validating fully as HTML 4.01 Strict. Once in a while I rant a little about Web Standards, but I'm not going to this time. Just remember that my web site is not for you; it's for me! :-)

And I know you can think of something - whether it be food, family, football, or freedom - for which to be thankful this Thanksgiving. Go and enjoy your day, and tell me about it tomorrow.

November 21, 2001 @ 23:55

I'm honored. I'm shocked? I'm both! Tony Andragna of From Left Field (or its parent site, QuasiPundit) seems to like my blog, and he linked to my site from his "Favourites" list. From what I can see, there aren't many sites on that list, and mine seems to be the only one on that list on the "From Left Field" page. Well, thanks Tony!

While I'm speaking of From The Left, you should check it out; his latest entry is "What's to be 'thankful' for...", and it's a nice "mini-essay", as I seem to like to call them. On a sort-of-related note, yesterday I responded negatively to this slashdot poll for not including a "being thankful" option. (Like I said, it's sort of related...)

November 21, 2001 @ 16:41

» Message From Your Friendly Dictator

Christopher Love emailed Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi dictator responded. Not only is this worth laughing at, but it is also worth taking seriously. I mean, com'on: tongue amputations? killing political opponents? And Saddam Hussein is threatening us? Hah! I really like Stephen Hayes's teaser line: "Chalk this up as history's best example of 'it never hurts to ask'."

» Call it what it is: World War IV?

Okay, I have to give Eliot Cohen props for saying a few things that most are too afraid to say, but World War IV? I understand Cohen's reasoning behind the idea that the Cold War should be referred to as World War III, but that fact still stands that the Cold War was not a fighting war, which is what the word "war" usually means, especially in the case of "World Wars". Hence, I could tolerate our current war being labeled as "World War III", but not "World War IV".

Aside from that minor glitch (a conflict of clashing opinions), Cohen writes an excellent article about the war, what it's about, who's fighting it, when, where, how, and why. He certainly knows what he is talking about, even if I disagree with a few points.

» Hillary In Charge Of Her Own Investigation?

This Roll Call article suggests that Hillary Clinton has effectively been given the ability to reject any nominee to take over the office that is handling the investigation into her and her husband. In other words, anyone that would find the dirt between the cracks need not apply - only those that will cover up for the Clintons can take this job. We can point our fingers at Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee), who "has continued a 'blue-slip' policy that requires both home-state Senators to sign off on nominees to the federal bench, U.S. Attorneys offices, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

November 21, 2001 @ 16:06

This World Net Daily article puts a better rounded spin on the Drudge versus O'Reilly story. Joe Kovacs does a better job making Bill O'Reilly look justified in his actions and words than I did. Not that that matters; I just want them to settle it or to fight it out in person!

November 21, 2001 @ 15:38

The beginning of the end of life as we know it is approaching. "Israeli scientists have built a DNA computer so tiny that a trillion of them could fit in a test tube and perform a billion operations per second with 99.8% accuracy." 99.8% accuracy equates to 499 accurate out of 500 total, or 1 error per 500 chances. With one billion operations per second, that's two million errors per second. So not only are we thrilled for this great new science, but we are thrilled at something that can potentially - at best - make only two million (2,000,000!) errors per second! In a test tube!

Their presupposition is that DNA computers have the potential to be much faster and to store much more data: "DNA can hold more information in a cubic centimeter than a trillion CDs...giving it massive memory capability that scientists are only just beginning to tap into." Professor Ehud Shapiro adds,

What do I think? I think that such technology in the wrong hands will lead to the manipulation of human DNA and potentially all new forms of crime, terrorism, etc. Of course, in the right hands, this developing technology has enormous potential. My comment about "two million errors per second" was more in jest than anything; no technology is perfect upon its initial realization.

Remember the movie Johnny Mnemonic in which Keanu Reeves is a data courier using his brain as a storage device. The Terminator also comes to mind, having a computer chip for a heart and futuristic storage devices for a brain. I like the idea of upgradable memory that never fails me, but what computer device is absolutely perfect? My verdict: I don't like it. Despite the obvious advantages, there are too many wildcards and unknowns at this point.

November 21, 2001 @ 13:17

In response to Matt Drudge publishing his intentions, Bill O'Reilly has "pulled back" from directly taking on Rush Limbaugh. I find it laughable that Bill O'Reilly, two of my favorite media personalities, are now taking shots at each other. (Well, Bill is taking shots at Matt. Matt is far more subtle about it, which is worse than being direct in most cases, because it just frustrates the hell out of the other person. It's like the little brother that always gets his way because, despite being evil, he always plays an angel when mommy or daddy is around.) This is not to say that Matt Drudge is doing anything wrong, or to say that Bill O'Reilly is, but I do believe that O'Reilly could handle it better. Hey, Bill, we're allowed to know your plans, even if you don't want us to know.

One thing that confuses me in this new report, though, is that O'Reilly claims that his show wouldn't be about politics, and that he has withdrawn, though he doesn't directly say this, because of Matt Drudge's "O'Reilly versus Limbaugh" theme in the release three days ago. It seems that O'Reilly is incredibly defensive about that for someone who isn't trying to steal his audience. Besides, Rush is excited about it. I say ignore Matt Drudge (O'Reilly ignores opinions of him anyway, which is highly admirable) and do what you want to do, Bill. I still say that I would rather listen to Bill O'Reilly than Rush Limbaugh. Then again, neither should be any better at touting his own opinions, and I don't dislike Limbaugh... He is just too Republican for me.

I have an idea. Hey, Bill, invite Matt Drudge to "The O'Reilly Factor" - let him explain to your viewers his "vicious assault" on you - and try to be objective. Matt Drudge is an investigative reporter, and the nature of his work is very similar to yours. You two tell what people want to hear, even when the subjects of the stories don't want it to be heard. Both of you should keep up your great work.

Bill O'Reilly being my favorite television show host, you can safely bet that I'll say more about this as it develops.

November 20, 2001 @ 16:10

James Jeffords, the former Republican Senator whose party switch gave the Democrats control of the Senate in the Spring, says, according to this Washington Post article, that "he is more confident than ever that he made the right decision - especially since September 11...having the Democrats control the Senate has made a dramatic difference in how the Congress has responded to the terrorist attacks and the war against Afghanistan". Um, hello? Is it just me, or are we lacking this Republican-dominated Senate's reaction to which Jeffords contrasts the events of the last two months? I mean, to say that something is different from something that does not exist is to say, for instance, that I would be a better basketball player than Michael Jordan if I tried. You see, Michael Jordan is only better than me because I don't play basketball. See the parallel? Perhaps the analogy is bad. Oh, wait, so are Jeffords's words.

Aside from the grammatical technicality, I understand his point. He alleges (presumably rightfully) that some legislations would not have passed, at least not in the form in which they have, if Republicans controlled the Senate (or even with a fifty-fifty split with a Republican Vice President presiding in case of a tie?). I would suggest that that would have been better for everyone, but that's not how things went down. The past can not be changed, so why dwell on it, especially when your side is in control (Jeffords)?

My point? James Jeffords is allowed his opinion, but opening his mouth to share that particular opinion is only going to re-ignite the war of the parties - a traditional, perpetual war that had seen its first few weeks of slumber since World War II. Our country has been functioning like a unified whole for the last ten weeks, something that I appreciate even if some of the actions of the whole do not represent my interests or opinions. People like Jeffords with arguments like his, however, are going to turn America right back into the mudslinging, isolationist block that it was on September 10, and I tip my hat to Neal Boortz for calling that it would be the Democratic Party to pick the fight (even if it is in the form of a so-called "independent").

Jeffords goes on to say, "I am very concerned about my good friend [Attorney General] John Ashcroft. Having 1000 people locked up with no right to habeas corpus is a deep concern." Kerry Kennedy Cuomo, daughter of former Senator Robert F. Kennedy, also criticizes Republican leadership "for giving broad new powers to police and prosecutors to fight terrorism, saying her father would not have approved of such moves because they undermine civil liberties". Speaking to her daughter, she says, "Cara, if anyone tries to tell you this is the type of justice your grandpa would embrace, don't you believe it."

We had a discussion in Political Science last Friday that addresses this type of problem, and I believe it would help Jeffords and Cuomo to better understand their concerns and clarify why many legislative provisions of war - not just this war, but any war - are necessary. The "Prerogative Theory", as Dr. Tate called it, was first exhibited by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War; Lincoln is remembered as one of our country's greatest presidents. The theory essentially states that a president's power is unlimited in a time of crisis; that a president should have the power to do anything necessary to preserve the nation. Under ordinary circumstances, a president is limited by the Constitution (first and foremost) and Congress. Congress has passed laws that expand and contract the president's power in certain ways, but the Constitution is the ultimate source of power for either. Here is an excerpt from my notes:

...while Congress was meant to possess only those powers "herein granted" by Article I of the Constitution.

But I digress. My point is that, in our current situation, it is more important to do what is necessary to ensure the preservation of the nation and its population's safety. The Constitution is sacred within the confines of the United States, but would mean nothing if there were no United States. That is the premise behind the "Prerogative Theory": that it is more important to preserve the union than to follow all the rules at the risk of losing the union. This is the same reasoning behind breaking any rule for the sake of enduring, whether it be for the existence of a nation, corporation, or individual. I mean, last I checked, homeowners who shoot armed burglars are not criminalized for their actions.

Certainly, there are times when an executive or legislative official or body will overstep his or their bounds or by some other means make a mistake. It is part of the nature of man to make mistakes. It is also part of the nature of man to try to prevent mistakes from being made. It is also, therefore, part of the nature of man that some attempts to prevent mistakes from being made may be mistakes in themselves. No one is perfect, but if we are a nation trying to prevent things from being done, how will anything get done? Oh, wait, that's a paradox...

November 20, 2001 @ 13:36

My Humanities class watched another of PTK's satellite seminars today, and the topic of discussion was "The Livable Urban Community". Guest speaker Dr. John Short, a professor of Geography at Syracuse University, discussed such things as the global urbanization trend of the last century, the advantages and disadvantages of urban life, and the customs, traditions, and celebrations of city life. Naturally, the discussion had a leftist tilt, because most promoters of community are leftists; the central theme behind the topic was how individuals should preserve or better the community. Much of Short's discourse clashed with my personal philosophy, but that was expected. Several things he said turned on a few lights in my head; this was definitely the best of the four satellite seminars we have seen so far. (The first was okay, the second was not, and the third sucked.)

But nevermind all that. The point I really want to get across is how I think we could fix the so-called "problem" of low-income areas versus high-income areas (generally poor inner cities versus rich suburbs). Are you reading, city councilmen and urban developers? The idea is pretty simple, but it would provide the Democrats with a new weapon if it actually worked: there should be no more low-income or high-income housing development areas. Rather, a new subdivision should be developed with a small house between a large house and a medium-sized house. Not only does this remove the problem suggested in the seminar that higher-income districts have advantages over lower-income districts, but it also helps to remove the problem of the isolation of the rich from the poor. Neighbors of varying incomes will certainly still treat each other as neighbors, and will still develop the common neighborhood bond that any neighbors develop, if for no other reason than "homeland security" (hah).

This is as far as I shall develop this for now; I'm waiting on Tony's response to it.

Song of the day: Creed - Who's Got My Back?

November 18, 2001 @ 23:25

» The War And The Tally Ban (part A)

According to The Times, "The Taliban, who harbored [Osama bin Laden] for years and refused to hand him over after the September 11 attacks, declared that he no longer enjoyed their protection and was beyond their help." He has been apparently toting his wives and children "from bunker to bunker" since the Taliban "left him to his fate". With less Afghan territory under Taliban rule, bin Laden is running out of places to hide. His vehicle of choice is ironically a convoy of Jeeps, which are typically named after blatantly American symbols... (Hmm. Is that a slap to his face or a slap to ours?)

» Bill O'Reilly versus Rush Limbaugh, Round 1

In other (exciting) news, Matt Drudge reports that Bill O'Reilly is launching his own radio show - "to air directly opposite RadioKing Rush Limbaugh". I'm sure there will be critics, and the critics will have critics, but regardless of their criticisms, there is no rule against taking on the best, and at least Bill O'Reilly isn't treating Rush Limbaugh like the technology world treats Microsoft. There is little question that Rush Limbaugh holds a pseudo-monopoly on the talk-radio waves between the hours of noon and 2:00pm (Eastern), which is the time slot O'Reilly is aiming to fill, but I'm not hearing any complaints. Rush earned his way to the top, just like Microsoft did. Still, I would rather hill Bill than Rush any day, and I think my CDs are more important to me than hearing either of those two talking politics in the middle of the day. I'm barely awake at noon on weekdays!

» War And The Tally Ban (part B)

This Telegraph report analyzes and explains the sudden, surprising rout of Taliban forces by the Northern Alliance last week. It seems that most Americans and Europeans think that the Northern Alliance includes, well, Americans and Europeans. Many Americans and Europeans - myself included - thought...

Never underestimate the friendliest nation on Earth, and don't piss us off! I think Osama bin Laden has learned a few things, or at least one: that you can not attack the nation that claims to stand in support of and to protect the general peace of the world. I think that the al-Qa'eda group has also learned a few things, one of which is that people like bin Laden should not be taken seriously. Haven't we learned from history? Religious wars are bad! Genocide is bad! Ethno-supremism is bad! (I think I coined that word; you should be able to decipher its meaning.)

November 18, 2001 @ 13:51

Speaking of that utter disregard for human life we keep hearing about, "Osama bin Laden's elite al-Qa'eda guard, mainly Arabs and Pakistanis, are slaughtering Taliban troops to prevent them surrendering to the Northern Alliance army." At first I was thinking, well, doesn't that defeat the purpose? But I suppose it does induce fear of surrender. Then again, I would suggest that these Taliban soldiers would probably live better lives as prisoners of war than as victors on the side of any al-Qa'eda plot. In other words, they should just fight back - kill the Taliban!

I have discovered a new entertaining web site: From Left Field. If I were to keep this relevant, I would link you to Tony Adragna's story from November 10: The End of The War to End All Wars...What happened to the end of "war"?. It's a carefully written mini-essay inspired by the approaching of the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month - for those that don't know, that was when, in 1918, the Great War, the "War To End All Wars", came to a close. Although I am diametrically opposite to anything in support of war, this essay almost justifies it. To understand how something may justify something to someone who is completely opposite to it, perhaps you should read it.

November 17, 2001 @ 21:43

Pink Floyd's new "Best Of" album absolutely rocks. Twenty-six of their best; nearly two hours and forty minutes of Floydian grandness. I especially like the newly blended "Shine On You Crazy Diamond", in which parts one through seven are now one massive, seventeen-minute audio orgasm, whereas parts one through five were previously melded together and parts six thruogh nine were as well. (And actually, I think the piece is much better off without parts eight and nine.) I am a bit disappointed that some of my favorites didn't make the list, like the "Brain Damage / Eclipsed" medley from Dark Side of the Moon, "Young Lust" from The Wall, or "Dogs" from Animals. I'm sure, though, that picking and choosing the twenty-six songs to maximize the amount of music on two CDs was difficult enough. Here's what made the cut:

If I were to choose the tracks for my own "Best of Pink Floyd" album, I would not include tracks 1, 2, 7, or 9 on Disc 1, and I would replace them with "Dogs", which is about as long as the four of them combined, and I would add "Another Brick In The Wall (Part 1)" just in front of "The Happiest Days Of Our Lives". On Disc 2, I would drop tracks 5, 6, 9, 11, and 13, and replace them with "Young Lust" and "Run Like Hell" somewhere in the middle and the "Any Colour You Like / Brain Damage / Eclipse" medley to end the CD.

But those are just my Pink Floyd favorites. This doesn't mean that I dislike anything I would remove - just that I like some other stuff more.

November 17, 2001 @ 11:11

I'm sure you're aware that Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport, the busiest airport in the world, was shut down for several hours yesterday after someone rushed past a security point and hopped on the electric rail toward the terminals before security could catch him. (That was a mouthful.) Well, Michael Lasseter's moment of irrationality prompted a four-hour shut down of the airport and hours more of delays while the airlines rearranged their flights. I say "irrationality" for largely the same reason that this Fox News article does; Lasseter seemed to have no criminal intent. He was just late for his flight and did not want to miss the college football game at the other end of that flight. (He missed his flight, and then some.) Apparently...

I can only imagine how Lasseter's wife, Carla, felt when, after hours of hearing news of the security breach at the airport, she found out that it was her husband. I'm just wondering how the rumors got to me that it was a man with a gun. None of the prelimenary reports I have come across say anything about a gun or a bomb, but only of an unidentified man intentionally skipping the security checkpoint.

I was slightly affected by this. Claire's dad was thirty minutes out of Atlanta, over Tennessee, on his flight from Minnesota when the captain calmly told his passengers that they had been rerouted to Memphis. He should have been home at about 3:00. He arrived at about 10:30pm.

November 17, 2001 @ 00:31

This is the most interesting thing I have read in a long time. It's called "Missing In Action: Arguments Against Cloning". Catchy title, eh? You know it interests you. Everyone seems to have an opinion on human cloning, and this guy actually has the balls to refute damn-near all of them. Word to Glenn; fight the power.

November 16, 2001 @ 18:33

Tim Hanes of The Times asserts that bin Laden has become the ally of U.S. power:

November 16, 2001 @ 18:24

Oh no, not another one. *ahem* Although it is my opinion that he is a great actor, I would never, never, never want Danny Glover to be in charge to make any real political decisions. The man is entitled to his opinion, but I don't have to agree with it. I mean, com'on Danny, that's complete BS!

November 16, 2001 @ 18:15

Over the past few weeks, I have noticed that I have gradually accepted more and more Republican principles and gradually fewer Democrat principles. You'll hear it here first: the individualist in me is actually *almost* a Republican. I still do not believe in the financial purpose of American political parties, but I otherwise find myself virtually in line with Republican doctrination. Now you may eat the cake, Tony. ;-)

The fundamental principle for why I have decided that I lean to the right or toward being a Republican, rather than toward the left or being a Democrat, is defined in the following statement for which the Republicans intend to protect and for which the Democrats intend to destroy:

The second sentence of the Republican Oath is, "I believe that good government is based on the individual and that each person's ability, dignity, freedom, and responsibility must be honored and recognized." The fifth, "I believe in equal rights, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, age, sex, or national origin." If you actually bother to read the Republican Party Platform, you will likely find that you like what you read. You will also find very few references to the Democratic Party or Democratic officials; the Republican Party derives its platforms from cold, hard facts and opinions.

Moving on to the Democratic Party Platform, which states, "we must continue to reinvent government so that it works better and costs less", while in practice the Democratic Party reinvents the government so that it costs more - whether it works better or not can not be left to my judgment alone, but my opinion would suggest otherwise. Almost immediately the Democratic Party Platform makes the connection to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Party of the 1800s, which was very different in practice than today's Democratic Party, but of course people don't know that. The platform quickly moves on to point out that the Clinton Administration did so many wonderful things to "turn America around", and of course they make many valid points for their cause, but they're bending the facts to tell their version of the truth, all the while trying to vilify the Republican Party. There is no mention of any particular thing which turned things around during the Clinton Administration - obviously, it had nothing to do with a Republican Congress making all the laws - but they do point out that all these good things happened under a Democratic president. But hey, don't take my word for it; read it yourself.

I could continue to speak on many issues, especially fiscal policy, but there is really no point. No one reading this web site (except Tony) cares for my opinion on fiscal policy (not like any of you understand the concept of supply-side economics, much less that it actually works) - and Tony already knows anyway.

But still, this is my statement. I am a conservative, but I am not a Republican. However, I certainly think like one on most issues, and I will certainly vote like one in the foreseeable future. I think I hold just the right blend of Libertarian and Constitutionalist views that I come out almost like the ideal Republican...

Let me also include this, the statement from the Repubilcan Party Platform by which I could resolve that I can be affiliated with the Republican Party, without which I would likely continue to preach that an individualist can not rightly claim affiliation with any political party:

I am a firm supporter of individualism, and so is the Republican Party. I have concluded, therefore, that the Republican Party may not be the ideal party representation of my political views, but that the Republican Party is certainly the best representation that will ever present itself to me in this country.

November 15, 2001 @ 23:02

What's on every guy's mind? I mean, really, like there's any question? When I saw that, I let out a loud yelp of a laugh. I studied the details. I laughed. I laughed hard. Be sure to thank Neal Boortz for linking his forehead to it.

November 15, 2001 @ 18:02

"Defiant in the face of stunning setbacks, Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammed Omar said in a radio interview Thursday that he'd rather die than join "an evil government" with Afghanistan's former leaders", this Fox News article reports. I really don't see the big surprise there; we already know that these guys hold human life to be less than significant in the grand scheme of things, so of course he would rather die serving his cause than to submit to the other side. What is surprising, however, is how he has threatened, without details, that "the current situation in Afghanistan is related to a bigger cause - that is the destruction of America". (The translation is odd, I think, because he keeps referring to "God"; he doesn't call his god "God", does he?)

Meanwhile, the Opinion Journal's "Best of the Web" thinks very highly of the Black Knight, a character from the 1975 film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or at least enough to allow him to lead off today's "Best of the Web". If you recall, the Black Knight gets into a sword fight with Arthur and is gradually, literally dismembered. Persistent, the armless and legless Black Knight taunts his departing company: "Running away, eh? You yellow bastards, come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!"

Oh! Geez!... Wait... That wasn't a direct comparison, was it?

Also, in hoping to finaly lay the 2000 election to rest, I will again rely on the Opinion Journal. I do not want to hear any rebuttals, because what is said here is simply the truth, and it is simply right:

November-December 2000: Bush wins. September-November 2001: Bush really wins. Now may we please move on to things that matter, like things we may actually change? Wasting so much time on some election whose results will never change is purposeless. And you don't want to hear an objectivist start whining about purposelessness; believe me.

November 15, 2001 @ 17:34

Deroy Murdock pushes an interesting point: "Despite the War on Terror's vicious enemies and grave risks of further attacks at home and abroad, too many public officials lately have grown pettier and more myopic rather than nobler and more visionary."

It seems to me that "big government" is still pushing to get bigger, while still preaching so loudly against "big business", all the while anyone with half a brain knows that government is the biggest business of them all. The reaction to September 11 does not imply that Americans want a bigger government, and in fact is beginning to reflect quite the opposite. Elements of conservativism are gripping the nation. People are speaking out against the "spend it while it's hot" attitude of Congress following the terrorist attacks. People are demanding accountability and disclosure regarding the money that they hand over, and they are beginning to fear that the Democratic "spend, spend, spend!" agenda is harming more than helping. And, perhaps the largest factor in this slight ideological shift, people are making demands, and the Democrat-led Senate will not deliver.

November 14, 2001 @ 18:34

It's a revolution! (And a much-needed one.) CBS reports; I paraphrase and emphasize:

CNN's numbers surpassed Fox News' in their coverage of the Flight 587 crash Tuesday, but that's largely because nearly every school in the country tunes to CNN first (if the school even subscribes to the Fox News Channel), and so the channel is forced onto everyone. People were not at home to choose a network as they were for most of the four days of coverage after September 11. This is not to say that a plurality would have chosen Fox News over CNN, nor to say that I dislike CNN; CNN is one of the greatest news networks ever. But I prefer Fox News, as do most of my friends that ever watch the news. <bias>THEY'RE JUST BETTER.</bias>

November 14, 2001 @ 18:21

I am insane, and so I have ranked thirty-nine American presidents for you. I have not included George W. Bush because he is only one year into his term, but if he continues to do things right as he has so far, he'll easily make my top ten. I have also not included William Harrison and James Garfield because neither served for a full year.

1. Abraham Lincoln

2. George Washington

3. Thomas Jefferson

4. Theodore Roosevelt

5. Harry Truman

6. Ronald Reagan

7. Woodrow Wilson

8. Franklin Roosevelt

9. Andrew Jackson

10. James Polk

11. Dwight Eisenhower

12. James Monroe

13. George H.W. Bush

14. John Kennedy

15. William Howard Taft

16. James Madison

17. William McKinley

18. John Adams

19. Grover Cleveland

20. Calvin Coolidge

21. Martin Van Buren

22. John Quincy Adams

23. Jimmy Carter

24. Zachary Taylor

25. Bill Clinton

26. Rutherford Hayes

27. Chester Arthur

28. Benjamin Harrison

29. Gerald Ford

30. Herbert Hoover

31. Andrew Johnson

32. John Tyler

33. Millard Fillmore

34. Richard Nixon

35. Ulysses Grant

36. Franklin Pierce

37. James Buchanan

38. Lyndon Johnson

39. Warren Harding

This list makes Calvin Coolidge's ranking the mathematical mean on the list. This means that, by disregarding outlying greatness or non-greatness, a presidency is decided to be above average or below average if, by my ranking, his name is above or below Calvin Coolidge's on this list. Keep in mind that I am no scholar, but I have conducted a fair amount of research. And I am not going to explain my rankings. I have my reasons, but to explain my rankings for thirty-nine men would be ridiculously, um, ridiculous. (I'll explain them some day.)

November 14, 2001 @ 13:47

Fox News has the official executive summary of the British government's new presentation of evidence against Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, which I will subsequently refer to as its English translation, "the Base" (to be pronounced as Saturday Night Live comedian Robert Smigel pronounced "the Bears"). I've just grown tired of hearing "Al-kai-ee-da" and "Al-kai-ay-da", so "the Base" it is. And, really, what's the deal with spelling bin Laden's name with an "O" and a "U"? Pick one and stick with it! That aside, the summary is loaded with information. Just makes me wonder how long the non-summarized version is.

November 13, 2001 @ 23:48

I am tired and I will take a very difficult test in a little over nine hours, so I am going to cram as much sleep between now and then as will be humanly possible. Too quick (and interesting) reads:

1. Why bother voting for Congress? Redistricting has already determined the outcomes.
2. The era of big government may be over.

There seems to be no other breaking news. The plane crash still looks like an accident, and the two minutes and twenty-four seconds of the flight's voice recorder indicate nothing to the contrary. Bush won the 2000 election, as we all know by now. Mark McGwire retired from baseball. And the Andruw Jones extended his contract with the Atlanta Braves for a further six years for $75 million. Well, I suppose there is one newsworthy item: a man was arrested for trying to go to the bathroom, or so he claims.

Episode two of the action-drama 24 did not disappoint. Watch again next week to find out whose ass Jack Bauer's gonna have to kiss/kick to set up episode four!

November 13, 2001 @ 14:11

I'll be the first to admit that the media is generally biased, stupid, and often provides a perfect example for the blind following the blind, as the viewers follow their coverage, unable to separate facts from interpretations from opinions. That said, I would like to respond specifically to Lori's comments regarding the networks' focus on yesterday's plane crash and their disregard for our success in Afghanistan. I would like to point out to all of the world, though that is not my audience, that Fox News has covered the war in Afghanistan much more and much better than anyone else, especially yesterday.

Also, some have been naming names of networks in general and newscasters in particular who have not covered the news fairly at all - those who have avoided certain issues because it is not what they want to cover, as Lori suggests. I think it's time that we divert our eyes from the biases of any single network. It's time that we learned to take in our news from multiple sources - the Fox News Channel is certainly tops for me, but I make it a point to check CNN and MSNBC at least semi-regularly. I have also found that the Internet is by far the best source for news, especially sites like the Drudge Report and InstaPundit, the most recent addition to my daily-visit list.

I am only a college student, but I have had my own weblog up and running since June 1999, and in the last year or so it has taken a turn from boring, mindless drivel to boring, political, very mindful drivel. I had no models for what I had created in 1999, but looking back on the past month, InstaPundit has served as a model for what my site has become and for what I want it to be - something intelligent, something with meaning, and something that truly represents me (or Glenn Reynolds, in the case of InstaPundit).

So thanks, Mr. Reynolds, for providing us with InstaPundit!

November 13, 2001 @ 15:40

I'm sure Neal Boortz has read this, but I wonder if he's said anything about it to his readers. For a while now, dialogue of what appears to be a fabricated interview (I can find no confirmation of any such interview or of any Lieutenent General Reinwald) about guns and kids quickly went bad when one caller's opinion was quickly debunked. The interview was supposedly conducted on NPR (national public radio for the uninformed), but NPR denies knowledge of any such interview. Whether this exchange ever actually took place or not, this has got to be one of the greatest comeback lines of all time (I'm paraphrasing because there are many versions):

Q: What are you going to teach these boys?

A: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.

Q: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

A: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.

Q: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

A: I don't see how; we will be teaching them proper range discipline before they even touch a firearm.

Q: But you're equipping them to become violent killers!

A: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

Also, Christopher Buckley attacks the age-old philosophical question, What if today's media covered World War II? I laughed as I read a few of the maimed headlines. It just amazes me that so many people are critical of our military's "slowness" in ending this war. Wars seem to have a history of taking a while to settle. (World War I lasted over four years; World War II lasted over six years.) And this war is unlike any war ever fought before. We are carefully treading on new waters, setting precendents as we go along, making first mistakes to help to ensure that they are not repeated in the future. That is the nature of precedent-setting. So why all the negative press?

November 13, 2001 @ 09:10

Maybe you have seen my link to Warblog, but I'll guess that you have not. It may or may not be something which interests you, but as something that interests me, I think a link to it is perfectly at home here. So, at this point in my little speech, I am supposed to describe what Warblog is in some sort of way that would encourage you not only to click the link, but to understand what the site is all about - essentially to ensure that, for the most part, you intend to go there. I had nearly written something on my own, and then I found this, the author's own terms for his own webspace, which perfectly describe his intentions:

November 12, 2001 @ 19:43

» Bin Laden: Guilty As Charged

Some news organizations fatuously refuse to call Osama bin Laden a terrorist, and some Arab leaders still demand "proof" that bin Laden is behind the September 11 attacls. Well, would a videotaped confession satisfy them? Not only has Osama bin Laden admitted responsibility for September 11, but he has threatened other nations if they should continue to support America. He also "justified" his and his network's actions, reactions, etc. Go on. Inform yourself. You know you want to know more. Just click the link.

» Crash In New York

I am assuming that you have heard of this morning's plane crash in New York. It seems most likely that the culprit is mechanical error. This New York Times article outlines previous instances of what seems to have been the cause of today's crash - that an engine was completely separated from the fuselage. Andrew Stanley, a pilot with whom I have conferred via Nick's mailing list, points out that other planes, including another Airbus A300, have a minor history with such problems. Specifically, he spoke of nacelle pylon cracking, a condition by which the engine mount points onto the airframe structure (nacelle pylon) crack and can cause the engine to separate. Preliminary information of a similar incident can be found, though due to security issues, detailed information is not available, nor do I expect it to be. I do, however, expect that we will know the cause of today's crash rather quickly, and I seriously doubt that terrorists had anything to do with it.

"Of course, the panicked overreaction will do as much good to the terrorists' cause as real terrorism. Take it away, CNN." (InstaPundit) On an extremely related note, an InstaPundit reader provides the comic relief today, hitting the nail on the head with this review of the media's response:

I concur. To add my two cents, I would like to say that no one at Macon State - not one person on campus - seemed shaken or angry by today's news. Rather, we seemed to share a solemn yet isolated collective mind. We are bound by common thread, and the American resolve is too strong to be shaken again. (And besides that, we don't just jump to conclusions. We're all too familiar with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", and so we waited, and so we find that the most probable cause of the crash, as mentioned above, was mechanical failure.)

» Time For Ballot Reform? (Opinion Journal)

The New York Times uses the re-re-recount as an occasion to call for uniform nationwide ballot standards. "Florida demonstrated that in a close race for the nation's highest office, the margin of error built into America's neglected voting apparatus could exceed a candidate's margin of victory." Whatever the merits of the Times' proposal, its premise - that the fundamental problem in Florida was bad voting equipment - is utterly wrongheaded. The problem was simply the closeness of the vote. Indeed, the whole controversy might have been avoided if voting equipment had been worse. If, say, 5000 more Gore voters had spoiled their ballots, Bush would have won a close but uncontested victory.

There is a margin of error in any process that involves counting large numbers of data; the CNN report on the re-re-recount acknowledged that it involved "a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings." Ballot reforms or not, a statistical tie is always a possibility. The problem in Florida was the absence of previously agreed-upon tie-breaking procedures. Florida law gave discretion to the secretary of state, an elected official, which led to the accusation that she unfairly favored [Bush]. The Democrat-dominated Florida Supreme Court substituted its discretion for hers, to the apparent advantage of [Gore]. Then the U.S. Supreme Court intervened; it, too, was accused of partisanship, on Bush's behalf.

Such accusations of partisanship are inevitable if officials are forced to make up rules after the fact. In this respect, legislators and other officials might take a cue from the National Football League, which has a long list of tie-breaking procedures to use if teams with identical records are vying for the playoffs. If all else fails, a coin toss breaks the tie. (We're not sure how this is supposed to work when more than two teams are tied, but we digress.) So far as we know, the NFL has never actually had to use the coin toss - but if it did, we doubt the losing team would rush to court demanding a recount.

And I still contest that, despite the controversy surrounding the election, the fact is that Florida law deferred to the secretary of state, who with or without bias did her job, and Bush became president. That was the law, and so Bush is our president de jure (legally). Period.

November 12, 2001 @ 02:58

Is it just me, or is this left-wing publication taking Bush's side while this reasonably right-wing publication is taking Gore's side? I mean, if I'm not mistaken, the Drudge Report is focusing on the fact that Gore would have won had the entire state of Florida undergone a recount, while the New York Times is focusing on the fact that Bush simply won, regardless of any Supreme Court decisions.

Well, I couldn't sleep very well, and so here I am at nearly 3:00am, so maybe I should just accredit this to a vivid imagination, get some sleep, and check in the morning to make sure I'm not making this stuff up.

November 11, 2001 @ 23:40

Not to be a bitch, but I have found my proof now. The author of the aforementioned article in the Macon Messenger, Dr. Malachi Z. York 33°/720° (don't ask), tried to assert that John Hanson, the first president of America under the Articles of Confederation, was a black man, something seems highly unlikely given the conditions of the time. Take into account the many biographies of this John Hanson that state he is the great-grandson of a Swedish king - Swedes are not known for their dark skin, last I checked. Also take into account this picture, which the article of which I speak uses. Note that this picture is on the Library of Congress web site - an official U.S. government web site. Note that this is not "the Internet pushing" that John Hanson was a white man, but that this is the American government showing to you that the John Hanson pictured, the John Hanson claimed to be the first president under the Articles of Confederation according to one badly written newspaper article, was really a Liberian Senator in the 1850s.

Upon further research, I discovered that the author of this article has a history of being not-quite-right, or even honest, with his, um, journalism(?). If you're really interested in that, the information is not hard to find - search for the guy. I will give you one link that is relevant only or mostly to this case, though: Will the real John Hanson please stand up? If you care, the picture on the left at the top of that page is the President John Hanson that I have seen in history books for years and online for the last few minutes.

November 11, 2001 @ 22:30

According to this Drudge Report exclusive, "Gore followed a legal strategy [in his Florida recount efforts last November] that would have led to his defeat even if it had not been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court". However, it has been learned that, had Gore "pursued and gained a complete statewide recount" - which he did not, so too bad - he supposedly would have "erased Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes".

I have one thing to say: can't you people accept the past and move on?! No matter how controversial it is, you can't change it. Al Gore is not going to sue for the presidency as a result of this, and if he does, well, let's just say that it probably would not sit will with the American public. George W. Bush is president now because that's who was elected by the methods outlined by our government's most sacred document, the Constitution. I hate to sound like a parent lecturing a pouty four-year-old, but he won fair and square. Drop it, and save your anti-Bush effort for 2004.

November 11, 2001 @ 14:54

A few weeks ago, a newspaper that I ran across had run an article about John Hanson, this country's "first black president". Well, forgive me for being skeptical, but I had heard the name John Hanson affiliated with our country's beginnings before, but never as a black man. I had all but forgotten to put forth a minimal research effort until Nick commented on Alexander Hamilton, our "zeroth president". Remembering that this black John Hanson was supposed to have been the first presiding officer (a title later shortened to "president") under the Articles of Confederation, before George Washington was our "first" president under the Constitution, I looked him up.

This article shows the picture of the black John Hanson that had been labeled as America's first black president in whatever newspaper I was reading. Next to that picture is a picture of the John Hanson that was actually the first presiding officer under the Articles of Confederation, an old white guy with the familiar frayed hairstyle of the day.

Hey, it wouldn't bother me one way or the other, but as a journalist writing for a newspaper, it is your first priority to ensure that you have your facts straight. I found the article to which I linked above in about two minutes, and I found several more official documents and accounts within ten. How much research does it take to get your facts right? I mean, come on, the history is in the past and I have no problem leaving it there or discussing it, but when you get it wrong, you're shaking the factual foundation on which some people base their decisions. And that's not good.

November 10, 2001 @ 13:21

Northside beat Warner Robins this year, and I can't say that I am at all surprised. Northside has had a killer season. Warner Robins has been getting killed all season. (Well, not really, but they have by their standards). You see, Warner Robins and Northside are 9-0 or 8-1, or perhaps 7-2 at the very worst, every year when it comes to their meeting at the end of the regular season. This year, however, Warner Robins dropped to 5-4 after its loss to Northside, its worst regular season in its history. I could blame it on the GHSA, though, because they did schedule the Robins/Northside game to be the second-to-last instead of last game this year, which is nearly blasphemous in Warner Robins, Georgia. (I kid you not. Christmas takes a distant second in this town behind this football event.)

Still, both teams played well (except Warner Robins dropped the ball six times), and the Demons held the Eagles to their lowest score all year. Northside had scored at least 35 points in every game until last night - Warner Robins held them to 21, and one of the touchdowns followed a bad call by the refs that forced a turnover (but I'm not going to discuss what would/could have happened if we had gotten the call; we probably would have lost 14-7).

Besides that, knowing that the Demons had already had a sub-par season, I did not go to the football expecting or even hoping for a Demons win. I went to see people. I hung out with the boys again. We waved our plunger with pride (or insanity?) as the Demons seemed to be turning things around ... just before the next fumble, or low snap, or interception, or knee sprain to our best running back (who ain't no Willie Reid). We enjoyed a snack after the game, and we chilled at Nathan's shag-pad till roughly 2:00am (well, they stayed) playing football on Nathan's PlayStation 2.

Ah, life. I think I can guarantee that Keith (he's in my political science class, went to Northside) will say something to me about "my team beating your team" next time he sees me. I'll tell him something along the lines of, "It's just football. I don't care for Warner Robins; I just went there." Of course, I received hell in class Friday when he told me to put money on Warner Robins winning, and I told him I don't put money on football games, mostly because what I say has nothing to do with how they play. Half of the class erupted when I said that, because "it's just wrong not to have faith in your team!" My response? "Dude! This is football, not God! And they're not my freaking team!"

Since when is it "wrong" to think there is a significantly good chance that another team will beat the team that you want to win?

November 8, 2001 @ 20:13

Wouldn't you know it? "The U.S. Army has formations (called infantry) that are trained to kill the enemy, but we're obviously behind in having no units trained to kill themselves" (InstaPundit). If you read the Frontier Post, an English Pakistan news publication, you may have read yesterday this article about the Taliban's brilliant military achievement: suicide squads. I suppose we'll just have to rely on our lightyears-behind "homicide squads", as Glenn Reynolds puts it, or should we just call them "soldiers"?

November 7, 2001 @ 09:47

People like Tony and me should skim InstaPundit at least once per day, because when/if we do, we find links to articles like this: The Left's Great Divide; and we find slightly humorouse (to people like us) quips like these: "None of the Islamic countries supporting terrorism is a member of the World Trade Organization, and it's not a coincidence". Aside from that, it's fun reading the political commentary of a law professor who graduated from Yale, especially when his sarcasm and wit are like a hybrid between your average teenager and old fart. The guy is brilliant, genuinely intelligent, and his writings make for healthy reading.

Songs of the day:

American Hi Fi - Another Perfect Day

Adema - The Way You Like It

November 6, 2001 @ 22:49

I have said on many occasions that I do not watch much television (for a diversity of reasons), but I have found myself watching more and more lately, and I have decided to come to terms with it. It seems that I am swamped with so much school and internet work that I am too tired to get out and do anything, so the only thing left to do is to pick up the remote control. I have always felt that watching television is a mind-numbing experience, but did I forget to mention that that is not always a bad thing?

For starters, I have been addicted to the X-Files since its fifth season. I accidentally caught the first aired episode on FX some isolated afternoon, and I was intrigued enough to watch it again the next day, and before I knew it, two months had passed and I had caught up on four seasons of the X-Files. It was about this time that the X-Files movie was released, and from there I was hooked - I haven't missed an episode since.

Aside from the X-Files, I only watched Tuesday and Thursday night NBC sitcoms; I was of the persuasion that only NBC had good programming, and only on Tuesday and Thursday nights. As they began to shake up their lineups, I began to lose interest in television because I was unfamiliar with the programs that were aired in my available television-watching time, so I slowly gave up on television. However, Fox has remained constant on Sunday nights for several years, always airing the Simpsons and the X-Files, two programs that I rarely miss, if ever.

This season I have picked up on That 70s Show and Undeclared, the latter of which is an hysterically funny, inaccurate portrayal of college dorm life. I wouldn't watch the shows if it weren't for Claire, because I would not have known to catch them when their respective seasons began - but I can't imagine my Tuesday nights without them, now.

Add to my Tuesday night lineup Kiefer Sutherland's new drama, 24. (Did you know that he's only thirty-four?) The idea behind this "concept drama" is simple: each of the 24 episodes will take place in real time over a one-hour period, encapsulating the events of an entire day. The plot, as revealed by tonight's series premier, is as follows: Jack Bauer (Sutherland), head of a CIA counterterrorism unit, is in for a rough day. His strained marriage is being pushed to the brink, his daughter is missing, a plot to assassinate a presidential candidate has been uncovered, and there is a traitor among the ranks of his unit.

I shamelessly admit it: I've been sucked in. I'm trapped. I've made tentative plans to watch as Jack's day unfolds. Hey, it's a good action-drama that doesn't bore me, and it takes my mind off of the rest of the mindless drivel of the world. What's wrong with that? Has anyone else noticed how the events in my life are generating an unfair bias toward all things related to the Fox network? (Except the local affiliate. They suck.)

November 6, 2001 @ 16:35

If you are still of the persuasion that the United States should not be at war right now (I received a few emails yesterday, so I know you're out there), read this piece by Victor Davis Hanson of National Review: The Dogs of War: Lessons