December 31, 2001 @ 19:06

From today's Best of the Web:

I hope that lays to rest at least some of the (excrutiatingly unfounded) rumors that Clinton was doing everything in his power to combat the threat of terrorism, or that Clinton did a better job than Bush has. (Let's see: Clinton's administration had control for eight years; Bush had control for nearly eight months at the time of the attack. Since the hijackers were in the country long before Bush was inaugurated, and since any changes Bush could have made to combat al Qaeda would not have had time to take full affect in such a short amount of time, I would rather suggest that the attacks were certainly not a result of neglegence on Bush's part. It certainly isn't Clinton's fault either, though I somehow would not be surprised if it were - just to make Bush look bad. It's not like Clinton's morality is in question - we already know how he operates.)

Also, after reading this report on the Department of Transportation's decision not to impose so many new regulations on airport security screeners, the Best of the Web crew felt compelled to ask, "wasn't the whole idea of federalizing airport security to leave the old, inadequate screeners behind?" I would certainly think so, but then again, the smarter of us already knew that federalizing airport security would not make it better.

The "Best of the Web" crew also refutes Helen Thomas's column in a much better way than I did:

Wouldn't it be a good idea at least to wait and see if Walker repents and acknowledges he did wrong?...Why is Walker entitled to more compassion than the Afghans, Arabs, Pakistanis, Chechens, and other natives of Muslim lands who've fought for the Taliban and al Qaeda? If anything, a far better argument can be made that they are victims of circumstance, having had an upbringing in an environment that encourages Islamic fanaticism. Walker, on the other hand, plainly chose to abandon his country and join its enemies.

Finally, let's congratulate new New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and wish him and his city well. Hopefully, he can do as good a job (a better job would be nice) as Rudy Giuliani has done. Hopefully, he can deal with the publicity (he should be no stranger to that). May 2002 bring a new level of happiness and success to New York City, the United States, and - for that matter - the rest of the planet!

If I am not back before midnight, have a happy and safe new year. Watch for the idiots on the roads. Don't drink yourself into oblivion. Be safe. Have fun! Good night.

December 31, 2001 @ 18:07

I had planned a long explanation of why I chose the following three people as my top three personalities of 2001, but I have run out of time. Certainly there are dozens of names that I would have liked to have added (I had originally anticipated a top ten, as all of my recent lists have come in tens), but I have settled on the following three and three short explanations:

Honorable mentions should go to New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Prime Minister Tony Blair, InstaPundit writer Glenn Reynolds, and Internet journalist Matt Drudge. There are certainly other influential and likable personalities from 2001 that I have failed to mention, but I know I hit the top three close to perfectly. Let me also round up the bottom three with Osama bin Laden and associates, Saddam Hussein, and Helen Thomas.

December 31, 2001 @ 17:48

More on Helen Thomas ... and on the Best Notable Quotables of 2001. Not only have I found further evidence that Helen Thomas is an idiot, but... wait, no, that's all I found:

Throughout the eight years he was in office, President Clinton warned us that the next great menace was international terrorism....He also brought unprecedented prosperity to our nation, and because of that, President [Bush] can use the surplus Mr. Clinton left behind to pay for many of the nation's needs in this time of crisis....This lecture series is about the human spirit. To me and millions of others, President Clinton has always personified that. He is the man from Hope, and that is what he has given us, hope. We miss him. Thank you, Mr. President.

First, Clinton never filled me with hope - except for that false and selfish kind - but he was "full of it", and he also removed any sense of dignity and silverware from the White House. Second, Clinton did not bring us any such "unprecedented prosperity"; Microsoft and the tech-stock explosion did. (And is it also coincidence that the markets began to dwindle when the Department of Justice attacked Microsoft, or that the markets rebounded in recent weeks to coincide with the date of Windows XP's release?) Third, any of the alleged "millions of others" who agree with Helen Thomas that Clinton "has always personified" the "human spirit", I will kindly request that you crawl under a rock and die. I mean, what the hell kind of a human spirit is there if he is the personification of it?!

He is a man from Hope, and that's all he gave us. He did very little for America, but he did a lot for himself. He did come through on his promises, and he failed the hope he instilled in us. We simply waited around for eight years while he distracted us and somehow convinced a majority to approve. Oh, I will not deny that he is a very smart man, but I will deny that his conscience governs his actons, or even exists.

Here's my Dan Rather quote of the year, taken from an exchange on "The O'Reilly Factor" May 15: "I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things." Note to Katie Couric: You have the money; take your ass to France if it's so much better over there. And don't let me get started on Geraldo Rivera's pro-Clinton quips.

December 31, 2001 @ 17:48

More on Helen Thomas ... and on the Best Notable Quotables of 2001. Not only have I found further evidence that Helen Thomas is an idiot, but... wait, no, that's all I found:

Throughout the eight years he was in office, President Clinton warned us that the next great menace was international terrorism....He also brought unprecedented prosperity to our nation, and because of that, President [Bush] can use the surplus Mr. Clinton left behind to pay for many of the nation's needs in this time of crisis....This lecture series is about the human spirit. To me and millions of others, President Clinton has always personified that. He is the man from Hope, and that is what he has given us, hope. We miss him. Thank you, Mr. President.

First, Clinton never filled me with hope - except for that false and selfish kind - but he was "full of it", and he also removed any sense of dignity and silverware from the White House. Second, Clinton did not bring us any such "unprecedented prosperity"; Microsoft and the tech-stock explosion did. (And is it also coincidence that the markets began to dwindle when the Department of Justice attacked Microsoft, or that the markets rebounded in recent weeks to coincide with the date of Windows XP's release?) Third, any of the alleged "millions of others" who agree with Helen Thomas that Clinton "has always personified" the "human spirit", I will kindly request that you crawl under a rock and die. I mean, what the hell kind of a human spirit is there if he is the personification of it?!

He is a man from Hope, and that's all he gave us. He did very little for America, but he did a lot for himself. He did come through on his promises, and he failed the hope he instilled in us. We simply waited around for eight years while he distracted us and somehow convinced a majority to approve. Oh, I will not deny that he is a very smart man, but I will deny that his conscience governs his actons, or even exists.

Here's my Dan Rather quote of the year, taken from an exchange on "The O'Reilly Factor" May 15: "I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things." Note to Katie Couric: You have the money; take your ass to France if it's so much better over there. And don't let me get started on Geraldo Rivera's pro-Clinton quips.

December 31, 2001 @ 15:48

The Media Research Center has announced its fourteenth annual awards for the worst reporting: the Best Notable Quotables of 2001! Before diving into the awards, perhaps you would like to get to know the judges to be comfortable that the results are not as biased as the actions which earned the awards. Also, on January 17, another distinguished panel of judges (including Neal Boortz, Rush and David Limbaugh, and Ben Stein, among others) will announce the Dishonors Awards, "Roasting the Most Outrageously Biased Liberal Reporters of The Year!" It's too bad I can't afford tickets to be there in person; I can't wait to read the results!

But back to the Notable Quotables... The Selected Not Elected Award goes to Jonathan Atler:

If Bush is elected and it's proved on a hand count that Gore actually carried Florida (not to mention the popular vote), what will the country say? "Oops" isn't going to cut it... However agreeable and successful he turns out to be, the new President is doomed to be seen by many Americans as a bastard.

Well, I hate to break it to you Mr. Atler, but what you said is wrong, and "oops" isn't going to cut it. (And someone tell Roger Ebert that he really needs to stick to movies. And if you would like to know how Bush answered in a particular exchange with Matt Lauer, if you actually read through the awards, click here.)

Ignoring the obvious humorous and educational intentions of these awards, this is an excellent resource for anyone looking to stick it to bad reporting. Movies like Return To Paradise and books like Bernard Goldberg's BIAS and Bill O'Reilly's The O'Reilly Factor and No Spin Zone illustrate how bad reporting is damaging everything and everyone, and these awards provide recent evidence of the same bad reporting.

Not only that, but some of the notable quotables provide some of the best advice the world can take, even if it is only taken into consideration for a short time. The Swiss Press Corps Award really sticks out for that reason.

Finally, I want to ask you a question. Dan Rather claims not to be biased, yet he sides with the Democrats on the tax-cut issue. It seems as though millions of Democrats across the country are convinced that trickle-down economics do not work, while I would argue that Democrats intentionally have kept it from working in order to make tax-cuts - thus Republicans - look bad. You see, if Democrats would end their get-more-money-to-needlessly-expand-government, the tax cuts would save everyone a helluva lot of money. So, whether you take that into consideration or not, here is my question: In the following statement from February 27, is Dan Rather supporting the idea that Democrats are pandering to the selfish interests of the populace?

President Bush tonight outlines his cut-federal-programs-to-get-a-tax-cut plan to Congress and the nation. Democrats will then deliver their televised response, which basically says Mr. Bush's ideas are risky business, endangering - among other things - Social Security and Medicare.

December 30, 2001 @ 23:31

As if September 11 did not provide the world with enough of a security threat, India and Pakistan are on the verge of nuclear war. Both President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have intervened directly, pleading with both nations to show restraint. Blair plans to visit the region early in the new year.

A serious intervention from the outside world could not come too soon. India is determined to avenge the attack by Islamic militants on the Delhi parliament that killed 14 people, including five assailants, on December 13. Unless Pakistan arrests and hands over those responsible, India seems determined to act unilaterally.

India seems to be fighting its own war on terrorism against those who attacked its Parliament. We know about as much about proof of their national allegiance as the West knew about proof that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks on September 11 when our attack began. This is not justification for any sort of nuclear attack, and when nuclear war is considered potential, intervention is considered necessary. However, without a threat of nuclear war, the United States or Britain would have no reason or direct interest in Indian and Pakistani quarrels, other than perhaps the general peace of the world. But, as we now know, nuclear war is a potential, and intervention is all but necessary. Hopefully, World War III can be avoided.

Also, add Along Came A Spider to my list of honorably mentionable movies below. I saw it today, and I plan to see Shrek and The Score tomorrow... after bidding farewell to Claire's sister Cathy (who lives in California) and setting straight all of my school business for the new year. Perhaps I can achieve the goals of my new year's resolution before 2002 gets here!

May we all take one, last, day-by-day look at 2001 before moving on. If I don't come back between now and then, Happy New Year!

December 30, 2001 @ 03:23

I have given you my Top Ten Albums and Top Ten Songs of 2001. Now for my top ten movies! Unlike songs, movies are spoiled with the wrong comments, so I will spare you the comments and simply list the movies:

Honorable mentions go to American Pie 2, The Wedding Planner, Angel Eyes, America's Sweethearts, and Kate & Leopold, all of which are oddly (in some way) love stories. Weird. Also note that I may see the Lord of the Rings later today, and that this list obviously can not include the scores of movies that I did not see this year. (If you must know, I have seen thirty-two movies released in 2001.)

December 30, 2001 @ 02:10

Dave wrote an email regarding my critique of Helen Thomas's column (click his name to view his email). To his message, I responded. I think reasonable discourse is always worth sharing, especially when opposing points of view are represented and a search for an answer is being conducted. So here's my response:

December 30, 2001 @ 01:09

Hmm. A seemingly organized plot to topple Castro's rule in Cuba by doing him a favor. It seems a little too good:

The antiterrorist argument is a nonstarter. We do not trade with Cuba now, and they are already a bastion of terrorism. Terrorists could function anywhere, and they generally choose not to set up shop in open, free societies. They operate from repressive places like Afghanistan, Libya and Cuba, right? By keeping Cuba cordoned off from US markets, we are making the place more inviting to terrorists. Moreover, if we opened trade to them, we could at least threaten to shut them out of our markets again if they don't vigorously prosecute terrorists.

Castro has plodded on in Cuba precisely because of the embargo. With no access to American products, Cubans do not see what they have been forcibly denied. Castro can blame America rather than his own kleptomania / thuggery for the nation's woes. End the sanctions on Cuba, and watch Castro topple.

I can think of nothing thoughtful to add. To be honest, I am not all that familiar with the situation with Cuba, probably because I have never felt threatened by Cuba in my lifetime.

December 29, 2001 @ 23:11

Glenn Reynolds got one of those big "I told you so" grins on his face when he read this. Jono Schaffer says it right: "The only important requirement is whether they can perform the duties of the job". Reynolds offers his comments, of course:

I, and just about every warblogger on the planet, said that the end result of federalizing airline screeners would be the same no-hopers we've got now, with better pay and benefits. We were right... So much for the "federal employee equals more professional" argument.

Right on, Glenn! Someone needs to explain to our Senate Plurality Leader that trying to pass bad legislation to make Bush look bad isn't working any more. The more he agrees with Bush, the better everyone looks. The more he disagrees with Bush, the better Bush looks. Excuse me, Mr. Daschle, but may I encourage you to wake up? (Well, I would suggest that Daschle will either wake up or continue with his snake-like games. Since the latter is more likely, I would not be at all surprised if he supports this argument next, which essentially calls President Bush a liar.)

December 29, 2001 @ 22:39

A shortage of cruise missiles, vital tactical weapons because of their ability to destroy targets from up to 800 miles without warning, has forced a strike on Iraq to be delayed for now.

America's supply of the air launched version, one of the US air force's most sophisticated and deadly weapons, has become so depleted that military chiefs are pressing Boeing, the manufacturers, to speed up their production. Even so, the first of the new batch of missiles ordered last year is not expected for months, and it may take longer to rebuild stocks to a level that would make such an attack viable.

So, in other words, Uncle Sam is probably about to kick Saddam's ass with one hand tied behind his back. With or without one of our "most sophisticated and deadly weapons", any war between America and Iraq will end in America's favor, though I am certain that it will be a bit more difficult than Afghanistan (but still nothing much to worry about in the grand scheme of things). A report filed last Sunday clarifies that America has every intention of destroying the terrorist threat in Iraq, and of finishing the job started in 1991. Saddam knows we're coming; he just doesn't know when or how. It won't matter though.

December 29, 2001 @ 21:08

Since the beginning, struggles between good and evil, right and wrong, and light and dark have provided a balance in this world which has served to unite any and all opposing forces into the endless, graceful, harmonious dance which we collectively refer to as life. With each moment that passes, we are blessed with the ability to interpret in it good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark - however, by the complexity of life which has resulted from its number of components, no individual, objective truth is available to any single component, but instead each component interprets its own truth, and therefore its own vision of the struggle between good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark.

Only by persistently offering each version of truth, then, may the components of life cumulatively recognize any portion of the grand truth - the truth represented by the collective. Only by each component of life, each individual man, woman, and child, doing that which serves his and her own self-interests may the true self-interests of the whole be served. And only by recognition that this drive for fulfilling self-interests of the individual may serve the whole can the whole truly be served, for by attempting to serve the whole directly the individual only serves the countless other minds in a manner which only one prefers. In other words, by attempting to serve countless others by pressing one's vision of right and wrong, one's answers for problems, one is essentially forcing upon society a truth which only exists in one mind. Instead, one should represent what is true to himself, and only by each individual representing what is true to himself may the truth which represents the whole of society be obtained.

I can see now that I will eventually write a collection of interpretations on the varying issues of yesterday, today, and tomorrow in an encyclopedic form. This collection will represent the philosophical doctrine by which my life is governed. I do not know when I will write such a thing, nor how long it will take, but I know that I seem to have opinions (or developing opinions) on nearly every issue of my time, and I know that I like to share them. I know that I am very much interested in philosophy, and I know that I write enough to author such a work. Perhaps it will resemble the likes of the Ayn Rand Lexicon, the "Objectivist's Bible" if you will, as very well it should, because my beliefs are nearly in line with objectivism. The few variations are quite significant, in that I believe that compromise should always be a consideration, and that faith should never be discarded simply as illogical.

I believe I have firmly set the core of my philosophies into metaphorical stone; now I must decipher those principles into words and write them as they come to me. I believe this is a good start.

December 29, 2001 @ 18:11

I don't feel like I have scrutinized Helen Thomas enough yet. She closes her arguments with, "We're a forgiving people. This young man obviously made a big mistake. The president should show that he understands this by setting a merciful course in the Walker case." In other words, she wants President Bush to set the precedent which would shatter the definition of treason, or which would shatter the process by which employ the use military tribunals.

So let's analyze a bit, shall we? Thomas says "Bush's proposed military tribunals don't apply to Americans". Okay, so assuming that he is an American, and assuming that the definition of treason in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution still stands (and it does), then John Walker has committed treason and should be tried for it. According to that same section of the Constitution, it takes two witnesses of the same act or a confession in open court to convict him.

Oh, but Helen Thomas says he is not eligible to be tried for treason, and the only way that is possible is if Walker is not American. Sure, he was born an American, but the day he left our country and joined a foreign military representing an enemy of his homeland, he no longer was an American. If that is the case, then Walker is in fact a prisoner of war and is subject to military tribunals. Now, I'm no expert, but I know that Helen Thomas is going to cry foul no matter how the ball drops, and quite inappropriately at that. It's amazing what she could learn by simply reading the Constitution.

And she calls herself an American.

December 29, 2001 @ 17:58

I said, "that John Walker needs President Bush's compassion is an insult to America". Tony said, "Helen Thomas is an insult to America". This reminds me of Tim Blair's mini-rant, The Left Is Always Right: Part II: "Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds have embraced the Ellis Principle; ie, that Leftists provide a perfect guide to correct behaviour once you completely reverse whatever they say:"

I don't see how such logic can be disputed. I can add, though, that we should all congratulate Helen Thomas! She has earned a first-class, one-way trip to Cuba or China, for all I care. Oh, and do you remember that time when Helen Thomas interrupted President Bush? Has she no shame? (Well, of course not. She thinks like a Clinton.)

December 29, 2001 @ 17:30

I know Thanksgiving has passed, but a thought struck me a few days ago that seemed as though it would fit well with the holiday (or the end of the year, for that matter). Instead of trying to remember all of the wonderful moments and things for which we are thankful every year, why do we not recall those few negative moments - the worst of it - and be thankful for that? The mentality for which I hope here is, "if if it doesn't kill me, it makes me stronger". Thinking back to tougher times and remembering that - hey, I'm a stronger person! - always reminds me that I am thankful to see any moment that passes, the good and the bad. Why must we always be thankful of that which is perceived only as good? Just a thought...

December 29, 2001 @ 17:21

Glenn Reynolds points out where Steven Den Beste points out where Ryan Boren points out that too many webloggers are too heavily dependent on Pyra's dual products Blogger and Blogspot. He's correct, Glenn suggests, but "on the other hand, much of the weblog community wouldn't exist without the ease, portability, and incredible cheapness" of such services. But on the other hand (a third hand?!), Glenn, my website, and several others like mine, are much better off without the use of such services, not to mention how much better off the webloggers are with the knowledge to build and to maintain websites on their own, as opposed to the lazy approach of allowing oneself to be dependent on a service which simply updates your site at will.

Do you want to know the best solution to this? Host your own site on your own server with your own domain (as many already do) and install PHP or some other similar service which allows you to write your own personal news script to update your web site in much the same way the Blogger would, except that you are in control of when you can and can not update. Of course, this would require a little studying to learn the intricasies of a new language (like PHP), something which I have not wholly done yet, but that's no matter for me - I have written my entire web site in Notepad for the last four years.

Ryan has done just this. He has his own broadband connection at home and his own server on a Linux box, on which he has installed Greymatter "because it is free and open, suitable to [his] needs, fairly simple, and written in a language in which [he is] fluent, Perl". Greymatter runs directly on his server, so he has complete control and is not subject to being prevented from posting to his own weblog by the whims of such a service as Blogger.

Ryan also points out that, "whenever Blogger hiccups, half of the weblogs that [he] regularly visit[s] are affected. If Blogger ever goes away entirely, a hush will fall until everyone finds other means of publishing their blogs". Steven makes another scary point, one with which I am also familiar: it is a bit scary to get several emails when Blogger goes down because my site is one of a very small percentage of unaffected blogs.

But perhaps the scariest thought occurs when one thinks of recent cracker (a cracker is the negative term for a hacker - hackers are good, crackers are bad) attacks on Blogger and similar services. In a single hack, one hacker obtained the passwords of every user on the system. Apparently it was a friendly hack just to prove that it could be done, but this only means that lots of people were lucky - for now. It is no big secret that most people recycle a single password (a smart person recycles several passwords; the smartest never uses the same password twice); if that person is you, and your site was among those hacked, here is some friendly advice: change your password! I don't think I need to elaborate on this point. We live in a time of paranoia - we have seen movies like The Net in which a small computer hack can result in serious personal problems; people understand the need for security, I think.

Yet people still complain when Blogger goes down for a few hours. It is incredibly cheap (free?) and incredibly convenient; so few people put anything into it, but so many expect it to be perfect around the clock. How about this old cliché: "you get what you pay for". If you're receiving free service of any kind, do not expect it to be perfect. Perhaps it will be, but in a world unfortunately dominated by avarice, no service can survive without financial support, especially a free service. Just keep in mind that, when you do not have to pay a cent, you pay for what you get.

And so it goes. It is human nature, last I checked, to find the quickest solution to any problem and then to complain quite loudly when said "easy" solution brings about problems. So if you are going to continue to walk the easier path, do yoursef a favor: if you have invested yourself heavily in your blog, back up any information (such as archives) if you feel that you would be partially empty without them. If Pyra ever goes under, there is no guarantee that there will be any warning, that you would be able to save months or years of archives before the server is shut down for good.

December 29, 2001 @ 16:36

As McLuhan pointed out 30 years ago, medium transforms content. It took one epochal news event, the Monica Lewinsky circus (as told on Matt Drudge's underground gossip website), for the internet to change the ground rules of contemporary journalism. It may be that one catastrophic historical event - the destruction of the twin towers in what is, culturally, the centre of the English-speaking world - will do the same for book publishing.

We have seen a gradual transition from the "weeklies", to daily supplements, to television news programs, to twenty-four-hour news channels with fifteen minute updates, to the internet and its near-instant access to the up-and-coming. But, as John Sutherland of The Guardian suggests, in an era moving at lightning speed - the "red zone of history" - books are slowing down.

Sutherland uses the events of and subsequent books about September 11 to make his point. A plethora of commemorative books are expected to hit the shelves some time near Easter, all reporting "last year's news" and no longer representing the here and now or what really happened. Instead of reporting the news completely and sincerely, these books will each include their own interpretations, opinions, and facts to make different points about the past. The books will be too soon to have any historical effect, and too late to have any powerful or emotional effect, and will cover a variety of angles of the tragedy of 2001.

But one book, Sutherland writes, was finished within three weeks of the disaster and was printed and on the shelves less than a month later.

This book [09/11 8.48am] has been subjected to stringent editing; it's not a web jamboree. It's a "made" thing, not a happening. The result is not something merely "fast"... It is something complete - more complete (because truer to the event) than if it arrived next Easter. 09/11 8.48am accommodates the "shock of the new" at journalistic speed, and with journalistic fluidity, yet still has the monumental authority of "the book"... The "creators" (as they label themselves) were Ethan Casey, editor of the electronic journal Blue Ear, and Jay Rosen, chair of the NYU journalism department (a few hundred yards from Ground Zero). They have functioned like conductors of an orchestra, blending others' talents into unity.

As someone who has rediscovered the joy of reading in the last year or so, I agree that "what books do best is to express a society's sage reflection - its best and most creative thinking in its best-written form", but I have yet to figure out why so many people read so many books like Stephen King, Anne Rice, or even J.R. Tolkien. I will not deny that such books contain some elements of value, but I will not accept that they are worth printing, either.

Well, I can not mean that entirely. Any book is greater than any movie (although many movies are much more entertaining than any book, but entertainment is not very valuable at all), if for no other reason than that reading stimulates the mind in ways that nothing else can. By reading, one may learn (or take note of) diction and style of a variety of authors who certainly are not all equal with respect to their writing. And because words are perhaps the most powerful means of communication, there should be no limit to anyone's reception of them or to the ways in which one receives them. In that sense, a movie may seem as valuable as a book, but the book allows your imagination to run free with the ideas presented, whereas a movie only allows you to extrapolate from what is already in front of you.

Whatever. Pick up a good book and read it. I have about twenty books that I hope to read in the next year or so. Think I can do it? I don't either, but that won't stop me from trying!

December 29, 2001 @ 16:10

President Bush stressed yesterday that capturing Osama bin Laden is only part of the objective, playing down the importance of his capture in order, perhaps, to shift the focus of the war on terrorism. Bush belittled bin Laden's latest propaganda video and bin Laden himself: "He's on the run, if he's running at all . . . I mean, this is a guy who three months ago was in control of a country. Now he's maybe in control of a cave." I love that man. Bush, I mean.

December 29, 2001 @ 16:00

Fox News says 2001 was an unprecedented year in politics. That's great, but can you name any year in politics that was precedented? Something new happens every year - that's the point in having a Congress in session, a president in the office, and all the other hundreds of officials. To my knowledge, each new administration reacts to different foreign and domestic threats than the previous administrations - and with different technologies. What is precedented about any year in politics aside from the fact that it is always, in our country, to be governed by the Constitution (or that it should be)? Despite the poor title, the article reads quite well:

If the most bitterly contested election in history had been any indication of things to come, then no one would have been surprised by the events that unfolded in 2001. But following that historic and disputed 35-day contest, no one suspected that bigger news was to occur - that 2001 would go down as a year scarred by terrorism that would force the president and an unexpectedly Democratic-led Senate to find common ground to fight a common enemy.

The article is a good recap of 2001 from a political standpoint, beginning with former President Clinton remaining in the headlines over pardon controversies and other questionable "final days" activities, the likes of which spawned a whole new breed of nonfiction books in the later years of the Clinton Administration. Who can forget the arsenic-in-the-water tale, the Kyoto Treaty, James Jeffords leaving the Republican Party, the ongoing Daschle versus Bush tax-cut dilemma, the Levy Investigation, and the ever-controversial decision to allow limited stem-cell research? 2001 was already a year for engaging the populace politically and nationally before September 11. And of course no one has forgotten a moment since that tragic day.

2001, the first year of the third millennium, is not one which will easily be forgotten. Not only was 2001 a year of memorable political happenings, but the entertainment industry was booming as well. Movies like Shrek and Harry Potter, among others, blasted past the $200 million mark, while incredible movies like Finding Forrester and Moulin Rouge - which I believe were much better films - did not even crack the $100 million mark. The music industry, despite unjustified complaints against Napster and similar services, saw a huge increase in CD sales, and with new releases like Train's Drops of Jupiter, Creed's Weathered, and one apiece from nearly all of the major teen/pop idols, it's no wonder that music just sounds better this year. I mean, com'on, Linkin Park is number one on the rock charts, Nickelback is number one overall, and Creed has the best-selling album for the fifth straight week - modern rock is taking over the charts; what's not to love?

And then there are all the personal, social aspects of the year almost behind us that each individual holds in memory - that which is sacred to one and no other - another chapter to add to one's own personal history. Maybe you graduated from high school or college, or maybe you finally met your perfect match, or maybe you discovered yourself or something about yourself by any of a variety of means, a list too long to list. Or maybe 2001 was a year of struggle and strife, of tough times and of pain - but you have made it through the year, and you have certainly learned much from your journey through your past, and certainly you are prepared to engage in your own future, to drive forth to better your life and your opportunities, and to learn more about yourself - or maybe just to get through one more year. One thing is certain, though: 2002 is just around the corner, and I'm ready for it!

December 29, 2001 @ 01:26

War between India and Pakistan is imminent now, if it has not already begun, as the nations have severed links and exchanged fire. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and India has been threatening war since December 13 when gunmen attacked India's Parliament. India suggests that the attack was sponsored by Pakistan, and Pakistan denies the charge, hence the conflict. Naturally, President Bush is working to calm the region in order to prevent conflict from escalating into World War III.

Also, in Wednesday's Best of the Web, James Tarantino debunks a Washington Post column which blames Clinton's failure to fight terrorism on Republicans.

Also in Wednesday's Best of the Web is a report that three in four blacks support Bush and his post-September 11 policies. Whether or not this will translate into Republican votes has yet to be seen, but perhaps a running mate like Condoleezza Rice in 2004 can help with that. It makes me feel better that the Democrats' arguments that any Republican always does a lousy job isn't working this time. I'm very pleased that Jesse Jackson is losing respect (or so it seems, which is good enough for now).

I feel like I should say something about this and how it goes completely against what Osama just said in his latest video, but I don't have the energy to analyze it. Someone just get the message to him, if he's still alive, that he has already lost and may as well stop now. I also feel like I should definitely mention the article with "cunninlingus" in the title.

December 28, 2001 @ 15:03

Something must be keeping me well entertained to keep me away from the web for as long as I have been away. For the most part, it has been Claire's family keeping me away from my computer, but there have been other things too. Yesterday, I awoke to drive my brother to pick up his car thirty miles away only to drive back (I volunteered; the drive was nice), and I stopped in the mall on the way back, only to (as it turns out) run in to nearly all of my best friends - all but Zach and Megan, really, and they both live within a couple stone's-throws of my old house in Warner Robins, so it is understandable that they couldn't make it. I suppose the point is that I have had some place to be night after night (which is ordinarily not how I like it), and I have decided to do the sociable thing instead of doing what my mind was telling me I wanted to do. To say this more bluntly, I acted on feeling instead of rationale (though in some way it could be seen as the opposite), and everything went smoothly. Instead of doing what I had rationalized to be my preferred activities for said days, I chose to do what others expected of me because otherwise feelings would no doubt have been hurt - they would have been disappointed, at the very least. Dare I say, then, that there can be somewhat of a rational explanation for following the path of feeling instead of reason occasionally? I don't think I need to bring up the John Stuart Mill quote again; no absolutes are perfect for anyone or for society - there is always room for compromise, for middle ground, for balance. That balance is different for every one, but we are living with these differences quite happily most of the time, so there is no reason to believe that we can not continue to do just that. (Man, I can turn anything to a socio-philosophical lecture. Yikes.)

So anyway, there is some news to report. Everyone's favorite terrorist has decided to tell the United States that its end is imminent, that the United States "would soon collapse, whether he lived or died, as Muslims around the world had 'awakened' to its tyranny". In what seems to me to be a desperate attempt to gain some form of satisfaction and/or control, he has urged muslims around the world to wage military and economic jihad against the "fragile" United States. I have opted not to read much else of the message delivered from this thirty-four-minute tape, which may have been taped weeks ago for all we know - I choose not to involve myself in the affairs of madmen, especially those trying (quite poorly) to topple the world's most powerful nation, especially when that nation is my nation.

I still have not entirely digested much of the year-in-review stuff floating around, such as Rudy Guiliani being named Time's Person of the Year, but I have decided that I am going to write up my own list of the best and worst of 2001, or something to that effect, before the new-year crossover. I encourage you to do the same, if for no other reason than to put the last twelve months into perspective before moving on to the next twelve!

Oh, and watch some college football this week. Root for Auburn, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Oregon, and (though I hate to say it) Miami! When in doubt, root for the SEC. Otherwise, I have no interest in the other games.

December 26, 2001 @ 23:55

This has unexpectedly been a better Christmas than usual. I enjoyed the time spent with family, and I enjoyed the time not spent with family (the latter is less of a surprise except that it comes in tandem with the former). I did not long for my computer, nor for solitude, nor simply to get away from it all (although that one picked at my subconscious). It's almost as if I can feel my own maturation, or my greater (comparing to years past) respect for familial responsibility. Whatever the reason for all of that, I have enjoyed both the requisite family time and the personal time (the latter of which is always enjoyed).

Certainly, another contribution to my contentment are all of the wonderful things I have acquired in accordance with holiday tradition. (Hey, I didn't choose the tradition, nor do I necessarily believe in its righteousness, but as a capitalist and an opportunist... let's just say that I am not one to look a gift horse in the mouth!) That said, it is about time that I disclose to you... (drumroll) ...The List!

Let me first say that, in spite of (or perhaps because of) wanting considerably less than usual, I received much more than I expected. My mother demanded of her three children well-written Christmas lists, and because I am the only one with whom she lives, it was easier for her to get a list out of me. She demanded a long list so that she may surprise her "babies", so a long list I wrote. And a long list I received! From my mother, father, and other various relatives and friends, here is The List! - my list of acquired goodies in no predefined order:

1. CD: Silver Side Up by Nickelback
2. CD: Down To Earth by Ozzy Osbourne
3. CD: Hoobastank by Hoobastank
4. CD: Morning View by Incubus
5. CD: Satellite by P.O.D.
6. CD: V by Live
7. DVD: Finding Forrester
8. DVD: The Matrix
9. book: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (huge paperback)
10. book: For The New Intellectual by Ayn Rand
11. PlayStation 2 game: Red Faction
12. Oregon Mighty Ducks green sweatshirt
13. black sleeveless t-shirt
14. FDNY t-shirt (actually from New York!)
15. polo shirt
16. ink jet printer cartridge refiller
17. air-compressor / tire pump
18. 16 megabyte Flash card (upgrade for digital camera)
19. Flash card reader
20. purple/lavendar freezable mug (the best substitute for ice - I hate ice!)
21. Car-pet (squeegee for windows, carpet/seat brush, etc.)
22. PC game from 8-year-old second cousin: "9" (looks like fun)
23. desk chair on order!
24. 25 CD slim jewel cases (to go with the other 25 from last year?)
25. $95 cash (cumulative amount)
26. chocolate wafer sticks
27. and, of course, the usual headache and mild fever, though a day late this year

Despite being nearly broke, I managed to purchase a few items for a certain girlfriend of mine, and I managed two small gifts from me, to me - both books: Concepts and Categories by Isaigh Berlin and Bowling Alone? by Robert Putnam. I swear I have more books than I can read any time soon, but I also swear that nearly all will be read before I reach age thirty!

I hope to pick up a few new items with my remaining Christmas cash in the next few days. I expect the money to be spent on clothing at after-Christmas sales, specifically at Aeropostale (they just have comfortable clothes!). I could also stand some new pants.

I hope your holiday is going as well as mine. Tomorrow I shall return to business as usual (politics ad nauseum).

December 25, 2001 @ 16:36

Two days ago I posted my Top Ten Albums of 2001; now I post my Top Ten Songs from 2001. I will add a disclaimer to this list: I consider a song to be a song if it includes vocals; no matter how wonderful some instrumental pieces may be, they are in a category of their own, and so I disqualify them from this top ten. This does not mean that I like them less (quite the contrary in many cases); it only means that they are not included here. Consider yourself forewarned: I enjoy some mainstream music. Also, note that I only include songs whose albums were released in 2001. Linkin Park's "In The End" is not included, despite that it was released as a single in 2001, because its album was released in 2000.

Look, ma! No Creed or Nickelback! All the Nickd-mailing-list-ites will claim that Hell has frozen over. Please do not be disappointed that I left off Coldplay's "Yellow" or any of a number of great songs by the Dave Matthews Band. There were scores of songs from which to choose and it was a bitch choosing the last couple of the ten. I'm certain that I'll remember a couple in the next few days that should be on the list but are not, just as I have remembered today that Stabbing Westward's self-titled album released in May should be among my Top Ten Albums of 2001 instead of Staind's Break The Cycle. Perhaps I'll update the list(s) on New Year's Eve.

Honorable mentions must go to Puddle Of Mudd's "Blurry", Depeche Mode's "Dream On", Hoobastank's "Running Away", P.O.D.'s "Alive", Adema's "The Way You Like It", the Offspring's "Defy You", Dope's "Now Or Never", and Stabbing Westward's "I Remember" and "The Only Thing". I'm sure there are other songs that deserve mention, or artists at least (Creed, Nickelback, Dave Matthews Band, to name a few), but that's just how these things go. Feel free to offer your comments.

And geez! I had no idea that so many pop songs would make the list. I definitely prefer to listen to rock - usually the harder, the better - but I think it is no secret that the best songs have orchestral elements or other superior aural appeal. I really like the sound of violins and pianos in music... It should be no wonder that the Hell Freezes Over version of the Eagles' "The Last Resort" is one of my favorite songs of all time, then.

December 25, 2001 @ 00:45

a4stringdemigod: i wish i was santa

boy with purpose: why?

a4stringdemigod: he knows where all the bad girls live

boy with purpose: ...

a4stringdemigod: and what toys they like

boy with purpose: ......

December 24, 2001 @ 21:00

» Car Trouble?

Glenn Reynolds asked on December 16, "If SUVs got 80 miles per gallon, but stayed as big, opulent, and expensive as they are now, would the SUV-haters still hate them?" He asserted that they would, and I agreed. I had no idea that there would be any follow-up, but it seems that has been today's theme.

First, reader Luke Pingel responds with a detailed summation of the average SUV-hater's reasoning. Adding several shorter responses later, Reynolds ends with, "Minivans...block vision as effectively as SUVs, but no one seems to complain about that. Big pickups park and handle as badly. And idiot drivers, sadly, abound in all vehicles. But there seems to be something about SUVs that transcends the specifics."

I have nothing to add, but I find the discouse incredibly educational and entertaining. Never in my life have I found so many good reasons to despise and avoid SUVs than on this man's web site this afternoon.

Oh, and he prefers the Passat over any Mercedes (and defends that preference well), so we know he's a practical man.

» Jesus Speaks (Is this a joke?)

And then there is the story of Stephanie Salter, who claims to be writing in the voice of Jesus, and the extremely hilarious, extremely logical rebuttal. I won't advertise it anymore. If you don't read it, that's your loss.

December 24, 2001 @ 16:10

I think I have become desensitized to this whole Christmas thing; I think most everyone has, the only exceptions being the few who still celebrate it as the religious holiday it was intended to be. You see, everyone has gained such a huge respect for the "humanitarian" side of the holiday, its secular side, and we now give gifts to selfish little brats who think they rule the world (which isn't far from the truth) in celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Tell me, if you gave your life for the sins of every living soul for the rest of eternity, would you want those living souls to celebrate this ultimate altruistic sacrifice by cheering, singing songs about a fat man in a red suit, and giving each other everything they want to convince themselves the impression of their own superiority over the next?

I sat down this morning to try to figure out the meaning of the Christmas spirit. I came to realize fairly quickly that I no longer get excited, or even happy, about Christmas time. At best, I am a little thankful that I know there are people who care about me who would spend their hard-earned money on gifts for me. But do I want them to do that? In most cases, no. You see, there are very few "things" that I want, or that I want people to buy for me. I am somewhat of an opportunist, so I do not look a gift horse in the mouth, but I am also a warm-blooded capitalist. I enjoy the overwhelming sense of pride that follows accomplishment, and I have a feeling that most others feel the same.

I also have a feeling that part of the Christmas spirit is the "spirit of giving" - that sense that, by not participating in the grand gift-giving scheme, you are being selfish. As an objectivist, I am not burdened by that too much, but I do feel the pressure of those who are.

Regardless of all of this, I have decided that it makes the most sense that the true meaning of the Christmas spirit is to let happiness prevail - to put aside the pressures of work and school life, of ordinary days, and to celebrate what one can while one can before resuming life as usual.

That said, I should clarify how I derive my happiness (or how I think I do). Though not as much as I did six months ago, I derive my happiness from the happiness of those with whom I find myself surrounded. I do what I may to provide and preserve the happiness of my closer family and friends, while also not disturbing my drive to serve my isolated self-interests. Knowing that I am serving my own self-interests while also serving the interests of others is really what makes me happy; finding that balance between selfishness and benevolence toward others is what it's all about for all of us I think (we just have difference balances). Of course, I believe that, if every man and woman served his and her own self-interests, as a result of that all members of society would be serving themselves, the cumulative result would be society would be serving itself, rather than the combined cumulation of society serving what it thinks society wants. Face it, you and I do not know what the next persons want, but only what we want; by assuming that everyone wants anything, we are kidding ourselves. Only be serving our own wants and needs can true happiness be found.

So it is no wonder that I do not crave the material things as much as, say, the average four-year-old who's favorite four-letter word is "MINE!" (We've all been there.) I would rather get what I want and/or need when I can, and otherwise I am perfectly content with what I have now. I do not have any great desire for anything more than what I can give myself; I do not find the same joy in objects which I have not obtained by my own accomplishments.

I wrote this in a rush, so forgive me if it is a bit scattered. Enjoy your holiday, no matter what or how you celebrate!

December 24, 2001 @ 15:33

In an interesting move, Geraldo Rivera has offered to resign from Fox News if a panel of media analysts decides that he did anything unethical in Afghanistan. I don't know, like, or dislike Rivera. When his war reports come on, I usually change the channel or get up after only a few moments. But that is no reflection on Rivera; I would change the channel or get up for anyone's "from the field" war reports. I don't much care to hear what everyone else is saying on every network across the country. I want to hear the implications of what they're saying, and that usually comes a few moments later (sometimes before) on the web.

Still, I'm interested to see how this "panel" votes. I don't think Rivera did anything "unethical" in Afghanistan, and neither does he, but a group of panelists that want him off of Fox News might vote otherwise. (For media panelists to vote a leftist off of the supposedly right-wing Fox News, something of which the network is apparently in short supply, would also be quite interesting.)

December 23, 2001 @ 22:11

I'm unoriginal sometimes, so I'm going to follow Nick's lead. It's time for my top ten albums of 2001. The order of the list approximately represents the order of my preference for each album. This is not meant to persuade you to enjoy my "suck rock", nor is it intended to sell any records. This is merely my memory of the best new music of 2001. You'll find that my favorites are amazingly mainstream; brace yourself.

Okay, so I am not as gifted as Nick in describing or explaining why I like bands or albums, but I know which ones are at the top of my list. I also know that I probably missed a couple. I should note that I don't count "greatest hits" or "best of" compilations, because the music usually isn't new. For that reason, I can not count Madonna's, Pink Floyd's, or Collective Soul's new albums (otherwise each would probably be on the list).

And yes, I just admitted liking Madonna. Hell, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that she's a talented musician. Her music sounds good to my ears, and that's what matters...

December 23, 2001 @ 21:25

"Richard Reid" turns out to be a Sri Lankan national, and we now know that Osama bin Laden had in his possession both uranium and cyanide - nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction. As a result, the United States is back on terror alert.

I don't know about you, but such facts bring out some mild frustration in me - not because bin Laden has the potential to do something horribly great, but because we still endure anti-war, near-seditious speech day after day. I am not suggesting that we silence the wrong-headed idiots; that would be a violation of their free speech, and that would illustrate a prime example of exactly the type of "potential tyranny" of the majority over the minority that our founding fathers aimed to prevent.

No, we should not silence them. We should convince them that we are right. Never underestimate the power of persuasion. Sit down for a rational conversation, and really enforce the rationality part. Don't get overheated... Just discuss. It can't be too hard to convince a few more Americans that they live in the greatest country in the world. (The greatest, obviously, only because it's their country. If I were born in England I would obviously believe England to be the greatest.)

December 23, 2001 @ 21:15

Dawson has responded to my abortion comments with a resounding, "I disagree". He has not yet formulated his argument, but it seems that one is on the way. I like it when people offer opinions regarding the material on my web site, whether in agreement, in disagreement, or any other comments.

I am always interested in any opposing opinion. However, I have found that abortion is generally not something to be taken lightly, and one's opinion about it is not likely to be swayed (if developed in detail). It's the type of opinion that opposing arguments rarely can budge at all. The best one can do when arguing such an issue is simply to try to understand the opposite case... I learned this after arguing for about an hour with someone who is vehemently opposed to my stance on abortion.

The principle difference lay in that we had differing opinions on what constitutes the beginning of a human life: I believe that all cells and tissues of an unborn child, from the moment of conception through birth and life and until death, are alive. However, those cells and tissues do not constitute a human "life" at the zygote, embryo, pre-fetal stages. Not until the time when the mass of living tissues has developed into the form in which it can sustain life on its own without the mother's body does it constitute a "life" of its own. Until then, it is nothing more than living cells and tissues of the mother's body.

In other words, it is not a human life until it can live separated from the mother. It is living, yes, but as a component of the mother, not as a human life. Dissenting opinions may vary, but in the most recent case, the opposing argument was that life began at conception. I simply argued that the potential for human life begins at conception, but it does not become a human life of its own until... Well, I explained that already.

If you understand my position, and you still disagree, then you likely understand my previous argument that it is unlikely to sway one's developed arguments regarding abortion. It is simply a touchy argument, and perhaps through a better understanding of dissenting opinions we can come to some final understanding of what may be best for society. Regardless, I do not believe that a government dominated by males has any business legislating the goings on within the female body.

December 23, 2001 @ 17:18

Local resident Riccardo Del Mastro writes this in today's Macon Telegraph:

Family time begins now. I'm off for an undisclosed amount of time.

December 23, 2001 @ 17:13

Another Jesse Jackson (blunder?) moment, brought to you by InstaPundit:

Just read the December issue of Ebony, which had the section where black leaders talk about September 11. Marian Wright Edelman and Hugh Price served up appropriate sentiments. But Jesse Jackson opened by talking about the segregated army of World War II. He then segued to the present (an anti-Confederate Flag harangue) with something like this: "But as our soldiers struggle with two armies under one flag..." ...So Jackson makes it sound as if we still have the segregated army of World War II, completely ignoring that today's military is, in fact, the most successfully integrated body in American society.

Like Bill Clinton, Jackson has had a hard time finding the right tone since September 11.

That is all.

December 23, 2001 @ 17:06

I am definitely too nice for my own good. Maybe it's because, just for once, I actually want to enjoy a peaceful holiday season with my family. I'm really kidding myself if I expect that to be how things go for the next two days; my sister and father can't keep from yelling through one sentence, much less an entire evenings.

What brings this on? Well, I ask my sister to please remove herself and her operations from my computer at approximately 3:30, and it takes her an hour. First of all, it's my damn computer (or mom's, but definitely more mine than hers, especally considering that she will only be here for a few days). Second, she knows we're leaving at approximate 5:00, and she takes her sweet time anyway. Third, she starts new things while she knows I'm waiting! Fourth, she's installed several stupid and pointless applications onto my computer - and she can use them for, what, two days?! I really struggled not to get pushy, and luckily my brother is running late getting here, or I would be gone and would not have been able to check my email (and the important message I was expecting was waiting).

No matter how much she claims otherwise, she still believes (subconsciously?) that the world is her oyster, or that it should be. If everything is not orchestrated to serve her purpose, it isn't good enough. Hell, I'm the same way about my own things, but I don't travel 3000 miles to be with family and to set up their things to serve my purposes. I certainly don't install my favorite applications or change settings on someone else's computer - it's not mine!

She's so irrational; and she's a liberal. Wait, that's redundant.

I don't know which half of me is stronger right now. The half that wants her to read this right now, or the half that would rather it wait until after she heads back across country. It really would be nice to have a benevolent, rational-thinking, conscientious sister for a change. But alas, if that were to be the case, I wouldn't have Jenny.

December 22, 2001 @ 22:08

Glenn Reynolds makes an excellent point that I can't believe I didn't make. Today's situation in the skies on Flight 63 was a prime example of airline security being the problem. Airline security's "federalization" has obviously not affected its "professionalization". I'll continue to stick with the argument that the security forces don't need new bosses, and they especially don't need to be federal employees. Maybe they need better incentives, or maybe there needs to be more, but federalization doesn't change the quality of the workers. Here are a few problems with the airline security in this case that Reynolds noticed (I noticed too, but I didn't think to make a big deal about it - what was I thinking?):

Blunder #1: Reid's passport was "questionable".

Blunder #2: He was boarded with wires protruding from his shoe.

Blunder #3: The heroes here are those onboard the plane, especially the passengers - the security personnel simply allowed the threat to be realized.

I conclude with Reynolds's thoughts: "Screw airport screeners. It's passengers who are the only source of security here. How about a little gratitude from the airlines, instead of treating us like cattle?"

December 22, 2001 @ 21:48

A man identified as Richard Reid by his British passport tried to ignite a substance consisent with C-4 in his shoe onboard today's American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami. A flight attendant was drawn to him by the smell of sulfur from a lit match, and when she challenged him, he tried to light wires protruding from his shoe. Passengers then subdued him and belted him to his seat; doctors used an onboard medical kit to sedate him. Two F-15s escorted the Boeing 767 to Boston's Logan International Airport where it landed a few minutes before 1:00pm. The 197 persons onboard were taken off safely. Reid's passport was questionable; it was issued in Belgium three weeks ago, and Reid carried no additional identification or baggage.

Why would anyone with a death wish want to stoop so low as to take scores of others with them? Look, I'm no fan of suicide, but if you're going to do it, don't do it in a manner that would require others to go with you. If you are truly dedicated to erasing your existence from life as we know it, why is there any need to bring any others with you? It's not like they'll be bothering you after you're. It makes no sense and only makes you look like an idiot, and an evil one at that. Not that anyone with such plans will ever read this...

December 22, 2001 @ 18:00

My collected philosophies and views, which I have jokingly referred to as "Paulosophy" on multiple occasions, are indirectly based on Paulism. I say indirectly, because while I agree with the concept behind Paulism, I had no idea such a thing existed. My ideas are based somewhat on those concepts, though I had no idea they had been collected to be known as "Paulism". It's nice to know that other Pauls think like this one does.

December 22, 2001 @ 17:30

Nick has this to say about the new movie, The Lord Of The Rings:

There's this one movie I saw recently, and I have to agree with many other people that this is the next Star Wars: it's just one of those staple movies that all people absolutely have to see, or they're labeled as Communist and excommunicated to Micronesia... If you have not seen this yet, you suck ass and need to either see the movie or die promptly.

Now is a good time to announce that, unless Claire really wants me to go see it with her, I have no intention of seeing this movie any time soon, and I have no intention of reading any of the books - ever. You see, a particular group of people thought it would be a great idea to spoil nearly every detail of the movie and missing details from the book, not to mention their careful, speculative analysis of every intricate detail of varying characters and themes - it's worse than throwing my entire CD collection into a fire.

Now is a good time to announce that I will never, ever, ever watch Titanic again. I've seen it once, and I hated it. If anyone should try to force upon me a viewing of such film, I will promptly show myself to the door and see such person another day. Think of all the adjectives you will to describe my attitude about the movie ("stubborn" comes to mind). I will not watch it, and do not try to convince me otherwise. Got it? Good.

Meanwhile, I plan to watch The Matrix for the fiftieth time sometime soon (yes, I've kept track - it's that good). The half-century mark is pretty important, and this is the first film I've seen that many times, if you don't count the ever-boring, ever-annoying Christmas classic, A Christmas Story, which is aired thirteen times consecutively every Christmas. I have hated that movie every time I have watched it, but because family would not allow the channel to be changed, I had little choice but to watch it. I am glad I am old enough to leave the room.

That is all.

December 22, 2001 @ 17:15

» World War III

You will not be comforted to know that India and Pakistan are on the brink of war, nor will you be relieved to learn of President Bush's prediction that 2002 will be a "war year". Assuming that you are an American and that you like your life as an American, you should be pleased that the U.S. military is preparing to use a newly developed weapon, the thermobaric bomb, which sends a powerful shockwave into enclosed spaces (such as caves) and use all the oxygen in the area. Speculation that Osama bin Laden could be dead might be somewhat calming, but I doubt many of our officials take it seriously at all; I think it's more of a ploy to dare him to provide some evidence of his enduring existence so that we may be able to further clarify his location to our special forces. Of course, that's just my logic.

» From Social Security To Socialism

But now it's time to sound off about this whole Social Security deal. First, I have a question. Is it your government's job to provide for you? Or it is your job to provide for yourself, and by effect of everyone providing for themselves, society providing for itself, thus making it our society's job to provide a government for ourselves? I mean, it's a government by the people, not a people by the government. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence, that sacred document written by Thomas Jefferson which clarifies the founding principles upon which our country is based? One of those principles is that the people allow for the government - the people are responsible and accountible for the doings in Washington, D.C.

So, back to my question: is it your government's job to provide for you, or is it your government's job to protect you and your right to provide for yourself? I would like to think that you would pick the latter. It is not the government's job to take from the world what it can and give it to you. It is the government's job to protect its people from foreign and domestic threat. Let me pound this into your brain with a very simple statement: Our government's job is to protect, not to provide. Our government does not provide for us our civil liberties; it protects them!

So how does this relate to Social Security? Simple. It is widely (and wrongly) understood that the purpose of Social Security is to support a sustained decent living post-retirement. It is also widely (wrongly) understood that there exists some Social Security "fund" which is being depleted and which will run dry before Generation X gets its turn. This is simply untrue. The United States government has only one budget, and it includes everything. There is no Social Security fund. There is no military defense fund. It's all part of our federal government's - the biggest business of them all - budget. Sure, they keep track of all the receipts. They know how much money is put into and coming out of each program (although they can't always explain how the money is spent). But there are no isolated funds for the individual programs. Case in point: The U.S. Postal Service loses money year after year; the postal service does not pay for itself, but other government agencies and programs which do turn profits pay for it. The government pays for it.

People expect Social Security to be around forever, and people expect Social Security to pay all the bills when it's their turn. This is simply now how it works, and not how it should ever work. Social Security is just that, "social security". It is not meant to cover your every financial need, but instead to provide a little "bonus" to provide a little extra comfort. Your prior decisions in life - for which you are and should always be held responsible and accountable - should hopefully provide well enough for you that you should have no complaints. And if you do have complaints, don't complain about insufficient Social Security; complain about your own insufficient effort.

I may not work my ass off to earn money, but that's mostly because I don't derive happiness from money. Money is nothing but an idea of man. Money is an illogical means to an absurd end. Money is the sad, pathetic result of man's attempt to organize the barter system. The problem with money is that varying goods and services for which money pays can be more valuable to one person than to the next. People simply think differently. What is morally right or wrong to you and me may or may not be to the next guy, just as what you may hold to be valuable may not be to the next person. Yet we are all bound by the same monetary system. Values differ, yet money attempts to apply a concrete value to every object, regardless of the world's six billion or so varying value systems.

My point, in short, is that I could do without Social Security. It is another form of insurance for which I do not believe our country has any need. However, I would not advocate taking it away completely. I may not care for it personally, but that does not mean that I want to take it from those that would like to keep it around. If they want to pay extra to receive a small check from the government twelve times per year after retirement, let them go ahead. I would rather invest my money in myself now to ensure that my money grows as I see it to grow, if I am forced to live with it.

Aristotle argued that a self-sufficient man, an individualist, poses a threat to the state. I do not question his logic, but I partially, respectfully disagree. A man who abides by the laws which protect others, but who also aspires not to necessarily abide by those laws which harm no one when broken, poses little threat (if any) to the state, and helps to define, in my opinion, a significant weakness of an increasingly socialist government which attempts to control that which is not harmful to the state or its people in order to preserve and expand the state's power over its people. But that's just the Libertarian in me.

December 22, 2001 @ 16:06

Well, I pass as a responsible person. Riley, James Dean (J.D.), and Allie survived the week under the reign of the Caretaker (that's me), and Claire and her family should arrive late tonight. Today is also my mother's twenty-ninth birthday (she thinks she's forty-six, but don't listen to her; she's twenty-nine, I tell you!), as well as the first full day of winter. For those of you who have been saying, "I wish it would get cold for winter already", you will be glad to know that winter officially started last night, hence why it did not get cold until this week. (Does it bother you when people want winter weather in the fall? Winter is cold enough! I don't need it in the fall, too!)

When the week began, I expected to slacken up a bit on posting to the site, but it seems as though I have posted more this week than any other week of 2001. Instead I slackened up a bit on my video games and reading - I suppose isolated entertainment just isn't tops on my priority list.

I will say that I felt a comforting sense of belongingness Thursday night when I spent the night at Claire's house. The cats, Riley and J.D., had spent much of the day outside in the sub-forty-degree cold, and when I lay down to go to sleep at, oh, 3:30 (after chatting online for hours), the two cats hopped on the bed and slept with me. Riley curled up on the blanket over my legs, and J.D. sprawled out on my sweater next to me. We didn't move for roughly ten hours.

Despite that I ended up posting item after item all week long, I seriously will not likely post very much between tonight and Christmas Eve - something about devoting time to famile (and Claire!). I'll make a pit stop around here once in a while; it's not like I have a regular schedule around here anyway.

P.S.- Can you believe it's almost 2002?

December 21, 2001 @ 16:30

A flight instructor warned the FBI back in August that a potential terrorist wanted training on a 747. "Do you realize how serious this is?" the instructor asked an FBI agent. "This man wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon!" Zacarias Moussaoui, the student in question, was arrested the following day and has since been charged with conspiring to help carry out the September 11 attacks. Many more details are available in the article.

To top things off, China supplied al-Qaeda with weapons...even after September 11!

I apologize for the lack of posts today. I have finally decided to employ the use of a CD ripper and MP3 encoder to rip a few of my own CDs to mp3s. The first (only) CD I ripped is the Tomorrow Never Dies video game soundtrack; it's a unique mix of the James Bond theme in the form of orchestral heavy metal. Playing with new toys is fun, especially when the toys are on my computer!

December 21, 2001 @ 03:00

I have addressed the issue of abortion occasionally in the past, but tonight I think I finally concluded my position on it. You see, I am pro-choice; I believe it should be the mother's right to choose to have or not to have an abortion. In the event that the mother is too young or for some other reason could be threatened by pregnancy, then abortion may occasionally be the best choice. In any event, the government should never be allowed to regulate the goings on in a woman's body. It is not the government's decision; the government is not raising the child.

Let me clarify one thing, though. I am not pro-abortion. I am simply pro-choice. I do not believe that abortion is morally correct, and nor do I believe, as somewhat of a Libertarian, that my moral values should decide anyone's freedom or lack thereof. If I were to make the decision in a relationship of my own, I would not allow an abortion. I am somewhat against abortion. But I am much more against the government regulating it. Abortion is morally wrong, in my opinion, but I will not stand as a Libertarian and try to enforce my moral values on others in order to prevent them from exercising a freedom that they ought to have.

Of course, abortion is not a serious issue to me. I can take it or leave it, much like the death penalty (although I am more in favor of the death penalty, if only for people like Osama bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh). Those are two issues that could go either way with the next average Joe, and as Nick says, I don't think either issue is solvable. All this because Tony and I started a conversation about the economic stimulus bill, praised the flat tax, bitched about Tom Daschle, and discerned that I am moderately Libertarian, at which point he decided that he wanted to have an argument about abortion with someone who is pro-choice.

Tony also questions the view of objective reality: A deaf man can not find rational evidence for the existence of sound, just as a blind man can not find rational evidence for the existence of light. "Imagine everyone standing in a circle around an object. We all see it differently, yet we are all totally rational." Think about that.

I guess that explains the concept of inequality, and the absurdity of equality. Equal political and social opportunities are a must, but to expect absolute economic, political, and social equality for every different person is quite absurd.

December 20, 2001 @ 21:18

If you have ever seen the movie Playing By Heart (starring Sean Connery, Angeline Jolie, Gillian Anderson, Jon Stewart, Ryan Phillippe, Jay Mohr, and Dennis Quaid, to name a few - one of the best movies of our time, and many people have never seen it, probably because of the inaccurate reviews), then you might remember a scene when Dennis Quaid's character told a story about having too much to drink and getting into an accident, killing everyone in the other car. In the other car were his wife and kids. I remember watching the movie the first time and thinking, Wow, imagine the odds against that, and imagine the emotional turbulence to follow.

A spokesman for the Florida Highway Patrol is questioning the probability of that same phenomenon tonight. A twenty-one-year-old male was allegedly drag racing his Ford Mustang with another vehicle on a two-lane state road when he rear-ended his mother's vehicle. In the other vehicle were his forty-five-year-old mother and a seventy-two-year-old friend; both were pronounced dead on the scene. Despite his injuries, the young man asked emergency workers to tend to his mother when he realized that he had rear-ended her car.

According to the article, he was going over 100 miles per hour when he struck the other vehicle. A decision on whether to charge him or not will not be made until after the crash investigation is completed in a few days.

December 20, 2001 @ 15:17

Fox News reports that scientists in London have discovered the world's funniest joke. No, really, I laughed. Pretty hard, too. I really do not understand why it is so funny, but it triggered an automatic emotional response in utter disregard for my attempt for self-control. The second-funniest joke in the world is funny too.

Also interesting to note: Men prefer jokes of aggression and sexual innuendo, while women prefer a play on words. The study also discovered that Germans are easily amused - Germans rated more jokes as "very funny" than any others - but being easily amused doesn't say much for their sense of humor...

Also, in case you are interested, I updated the disclaimer, terms, and conditions of your viewing this web site. View them by clicking "© 1999-2001 Paul McCord" at the bottom of any page on this web site.

December 20, 2001 @ 12:55

All references to Nash's homosexuality in A Beautiful Mind have been scrubbed completely from the film version. Apparently, there were a few staunch homophobes on the set (that's my theory), so rather than shoot a movie that is true to the story, they shot a movie that has molded a character to make the movie fit the traditional Hollywood formula. Do you ever notice how movies that don't fit that formula - movies that are original and/or creative, like American Beauty, The Matrix, or Moulin Rouge - are usually the best, yet they don't do well in the box office. (American Beauty is an exception; it was a door-opener. It brilliantly critiqued and satirized middle-class, suburban family life, something to which the average American can easily relate, hence the movie's success.)

Anyway, the filmmakers behind A Beautiful Mind scratched the gay scenes (and any evidence of homosexuality) for concerns that it would hurt the movie's performance at the box office. (Well, duh.) A "well-placed source" told the Drudge Report, "The homosexual stuff found in the book got in the way. Besides, American audiences don't care to see Russell Crowe getting it on with a man! It would just kill us at the boxoffice."

It's "politically correct" attitudes like this that perpetuate the obscenity and fear of homosexuality in the common person. Homosexuality is not new to film, nor will it disappear. It is becoming more mainstream whether we like it or not, so we may as well get used to it before some irrational interest group attempts another unreasonable scheme of persecution. Perhaps I exaggerate, but that doesn't mean what I just said can not happen.

It is generally known that, to overcome fear, one must simply come to terms with the source of the fear. One must first learn of it, then understand it. All that we fear is that which we do not understand; we generally fear the unknown and the misunderstood. And we only fear that by which we feel threatened in some way. This brings up a question: how is homosexuality threatening you, unless you are harboring homosexual thoughts of your own volition while condemning them on the outside? Look, there is nothing wrong with thinking about the things that you don't find to be personally appealing, but if you know it isn't for you, then take it as that and move on. But don't try to force your value system on others - unless they are your children of appropriate age to have values forced upon them - especially when they are not trying to force theirs on yours.

Of course, this works both ways. I know enough members of the "gay community" to know that they do not simply flaunt their sexual preference like a person flaunts a new car. Those that do flaunt their sexual preference by intentionally participating in drastically culturally different activities (such as a male dressing in a female's dominatrix outfit) is a bit too in-your-face for the average American, especially (and this might be the only time you see me say this, so consider it well) children. It's ten times worse than telling the Johnsons' five-year-old that there is no Santa Claus; everyone has a method to explain that. Trying to explain to little Billy or Susie why that man is dressed in a funny-looking girl's swimsuit and a dog-collar is a bit more difficult.

I'm not sure what my point is any more, but I think I can relate it to a point made in one of the satellite seminars this last semester in my Humanities class: "we should employ moderation in everything, except moderation". The average American has no concern for your sexual preference. As far as I am concerned, all ordinary persons are just that, ordinary persons, unless they flagrantly display otherwise, such as by dressing so abnormally that attention is improperly diverted. The American people will adjust - we are constantly adjusting to yesterday's controversy - so be moderate and don't force yourself or your values, and you will be accepted.

December 20, 2001 @ 12:01

I will never again question the intelligence of a disc jockey. All this talk of cosines and functions and equilibriums makes me remember complicated mathematical formulas, such as the LaGrange's Theorem. I no longer need this calculus in my head; I have decided not to major in math, and I will instead take the road which is essentially surrounded by technology and social science on either side. There will be the occasional gift shop on this road for mathematics or language urges, but I trust that the business world does not need another mathematician or linguist from me. So I will take the technology road until I am satisfied with that, at which point I will either retire or find something else to do. I will have been writing all along, hopefully in this very same space (although my web site can not possibly remain at crash.neotope.com forever, I will certainly not misplace any of it). Politics and law interest me enough; I do not care to involve my career directly with it, but I won't say it isn't going to happen. Considering that I discuss it more than the average lawyer, probably, I won't sit here and deny that I would consider a career in law and/or politics.

» McCain: Bush is "Man of Year"

Senator John McCain, one of President Bush's opponents in last year's election, writes an inspirational piece about our leader and explains why President Bush should be man of the year. McCain offers praise of Bush for every act mentioned in an attempt to help Americans who still do not support our President or our war efforts to see the light. I think McCain does a good job.

² Music Industry versus the Artists

I knew not of what I spoke in specific details, but apparently I was right (no, left!). The music industry is indeed hurting itself in more ways than I knew, so much so that several bands and artists "will perform at five benefit concerts the night before the Grammy Awards telecast to raise money for a legislative fight against the record industry". Some artists who will be performing at these concerts are Elton John, No Doubt, the Eagles, Offspring, Billy Joel, Stevie Nicks, Weezer, Dixie Chicks, Ozzy Osbourne, and Sheryl Crow. More artists are expected to join the list.

Dexter Holland of Offspring says, "It's about time for artists to take control of their work and how it is presented to our fans". Visit the Recording Artists Coalition web site (ArtistsAgainstPiracy.com - clever?). The site is simple and does not mention the specifics of the current issue, but provides other information about the coalition and its mission(s).

December 20, 2001 @ 01:19

STUPIDITY WATCH: St. Petersburg police chief Mack Vines was fired after saying a black suspect had acted "almost like an orangutan". Vines apologized and said he never intended for his comments to be interpreted as a racial slur. I think Vines needs to offer no apology; that should be the duty of the mayor who fired him. Vines said nothing wrong.

Of course, I could turn this around. I could say that, by relating a man to an orangutan, Vines words were more qualified to be a racial slur than anything that actually fits the contemporary description of a racial slur. You see, all homo sapiens have the same basic genetic code which make us all human, just as all flowers of the same species have the same basic genetic code to make them the same kind of flower. A man's skin color has nothing to do with race, just as the color of a rose's petals has nothing to do with its classification. Skin color is a mild genetic variable, but we are all humans, regardless of our skin color.

However, orangutans are not humans. Their genetic code is far too different from ours, and so therefore they are of a different race. Therefore, when Mack Vines accused a black suspect of acting "almost like an orangutan", Vines words qualified as a racial slur in the only true sense of the term.

But politically correct morons would never understand that. Oh no. If it offends, it must be censorable, punishable, and most likely the truth.

December 20, 2001 @ 00:19

Bernie Goldberg's book, BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, will debut at number thirteen on the New York Times best-sellers list this Sunday. "For a book to become a New York Times best-seller based on a first week of sales, when it reached only about 15% to 20% distribution, just shows there was a huge demand", says Regnery Publishing president Alfred Regnery. Glenn Reynolds writes that this is an incredible feat, especially considering the subject matter of the book - "Is it even imaginable that a book like this would have even been heard of by most Americans in 1980, before Drudge and Amazon?"

December 20, 2001 @ 00:01

I just took another good political identity quiz at Politopia, which argues that the left/right political model is quite inadequate. For instance, we can easily place Jesse Jackson and Rush Limbaugh, but what about Bill O'Reilly, Adolf Hitler, or Ayn Rand? There are too many factors to consider today for a strictly linear political spectrum. I think a three-dimensional model would be most accurate, but for now a two-dimensional model will suffice. The Politopia model organizes the political spectrum into quadrants based upon the cardinal directions - north, south, east, and west - as opposed to the old one-dimensional model.

It's a quick, fifteen-question quiz. Check it out. There is no clear bias in the organization which has developed this quiz, and I think it has placed me very accurately. Here's where I land and how I compare to others, according to the Politopia quiz:

You would feel most at home in the Northwest region. You advocate a large degree of economic and personal freedom. Your neighbors include folks like Ayn Rand, Jesse Ventura, Milton Friedman, and Drew Carey, and may refer to themselves as "classical liberals", "libertarians", "market liberals", "old whigs", "objectivists", "propertarians", "agorists", or "anarcho-capitalist".

Considering that I have advocated objectivist and libertarian ideals, including "a large degree of economic and personal freedom", and that I have on many occasions referred to myself as a "classical liberal", "libertarian", and/or "objectivist", I can justify two things. One, that I know myself very well. Two, that this quiz, unjustifiably based solely on my results, is incredibly accurate. How many times have I quoted Ayn Rand or praised Jesse Ventura? Apparently not enough.

It is safe to say now that, in the 2000 presidential election, I did not vote because I empathized with the Libertarian Party, but I did not exactly like Harry Browne as a candidate. I preferred Bush over Gore by a long shot, but I could not bring myself to vote for a candidate who I did not fully support, nor could I bring myself to tell a few of my friends that I did not vote for Bush - mostly because I didn't want to hear him lecture me about it. Despite that Bush was my realistic hopeful, my principles would not allow me to vote for him. A variety of other excuses could be heard ejaculating from my lips at the time, but they were just that - excuses.

P.S.- I should note that the word "ejaculate" traditionally has nothing to do with the male sexual organ. The traditional meaning of the verb is "to eject or discharge abruptly" or "to utter suddenly and passionately". It can be synonymous with the words spurt, spew, or exclaim, among others. I made a promise to use the word in the traditional sense at some point on my web page, and I figured the above situation to be as good as any. Despite that the word is rarely used in its traditional way any more due to its sexual connotation, I, being the English language and grammar nut that I am, felt like sharing this little lesson with you, perhaps at the cost of ridiculous jokes (ridiculous: characterized by ridiculing) because I used "ejaculating" and "from my lips" in the same thought. Laugh now.

December 19, 2001 @ 23:09

» Multiculturalism

Steven Den Beste offers some brilliant insight based on this news story:

What are the purported goals of multiculturalism? To understand other people and how they live, to accept them for what they are. What would be the best test of that? To actually live among them and to blend in, wouldn't it be? So what group of Americans are the foremost multiculturalists of our time?

The Green Berets, of course. Could anyone from Marin County uproot and move to Afghanistan at a moment's notice and blend in the way they have? They've been wearing native clothes, they've often eaten the local food, and they even participate in local sports. Can you imagine anyone from Marin County participating in a game of buzkashi?

» The Anti-Patriot

If you want to know what the liberal spin on President George W. Bush could have done to America, look at what it's done to Barry Reingold. The man is essentially the epitome of anti-Bushism, and his words remind me of a long-lost (and rightfully so) post-World War I legislation, the Sedition Act of 1918 (which was actually section three of the Espionage Act). While I stand by my argument that many of the rules of government and constitutionality are changed during war time, I also support that the Sedition Act took things a bit too far, which is just another example of how varying interpretations and ideals of government power may blur the lines between what is acceptable and what is not.

But the point is that Reingold is engaging in near-seditious activity. When accused of not supporting America, he responded with, "Sure I do. I work here. I was born here. I pay taxes. I just have a problem with the ruling class." When the FBI knocked at his door to question him (one of thousands who have earned house calls for potentially suspicious comments or activity in relation to the war on terrorism), they acknowledged his freedom of speech and left when he refused to comment on statements he had allegedly made regarding September 11, "Big Oil", George W. Bush, and terrorism.

Now he complains that, because he is an ordinary man simply expressing his opinion, "It's like we're becoming a police state". You see, because he has done nothing wrong, it is absurd that the FBI would want to question him to make sure of that. I mean, absurd! (Note my sarcastic tone, please.) "Reingold firmly believes that had he been Arab or Muslim, it would have been much worse for him. He's certain he would have been taken in for more vigorous questioning, maybe even jailed. Then, he said, he'd have to decide which was worse, fascism or racism."

Of course, no one can really know the difference between how Reingold was handled or how he would have been handled if he were Arab or Muslim, because he isn't, and no one is blessed with the knowledge of that which does not exist. Still, a good point is made. And my counterpoint is this: such may be and often is necessary during wartime, especially when the enemy is known to have floated among us for over two years, disguised as "ordinary Americans" until they attacked on September 11.

Look, no one likes war. No one likes what governments must do during a war. No one likes to be the ones doing what governments do during a war. But it simply must be done, and so it must be looked upon as that which is necessary to preserve the best possible state of existence for our nation. If you have done nothing wrong, then cooperate! You have nothing to fear if you have done no wrong ... except fear itself.

December 19, 2001 @ 22:26

According to this Wired article, "music consumers will be paying twice if they want to listen to their music on their stereo and on their computer". Newly developed copy-protected CDs, which prevent consumers from listening to music on computers, game consoles, or other portable devices, could become the new industry standard. I agree with Glenn Reynolds: the music industry is committing suicide. They're reducing the valuableness of their product without appropriately adjusting the price, just as your local grocer switches from the 16-ounce to 12-ounce butter container without appropriately reducing its price. Glenn adds,

They're selling copy-protected CDs that won't play on computers. Then they want you to pay again to download the same music as a digital file to listen to there. Then, perhaps, a third time to listen on a portable device. And they'd