January 31, 2002 @ 23:43

Most publications that are reporting this are spinning it negatively, but I think it's a wonderful message. President Bush is trying to take a culture that does what feels good to a culture that acts responsibly. The only thing that the culture - collectively - does not realize is that, once it has reached the point of acting responsibly, people will still be doing things because they feel good, but feeling good will simply become a part of acting responsibly. I think this is perfectly logical because, well, don't you feel good when you accomplish something the right way?

Okay, maybe that's not good enough, but I don't think there is any logical reason that we should be "responsible for the decisions we make in life", as President Bush hopes we can be. Do you remember how you worked so hard and it was really exhausting and sometimes painful and always stressful, but in the end it paid off? Well, it's sort of like that, except it isn't exhausting, painful, or stressful - quite the opposite in fact. Just let the time fly by without acting irresponsibly or inappropriately and it will be a walk in the park.

Not that you need me to tell you how to live.

Also, a good question is asked: Can money buy security? Well, of course it can, but that doesn't make it perfect security. Until we find away to grasp infinity, there will be no such thing as perfect security, and there will always be a way to breach it. Still, to keep on target with the article, I say that the government's most important job is to protect and to secure its people - most programs and laws not explicitly for that purpose can go.

I hold (mostly) a libertarian stance on that, in case you can't tell. A government's primary objectives should be to protect the lives , liberties, and various properties of its people - nothing more. Government should provide military, judiciary, and police services, as well as legislative and executive branches as they exist now - only much smaller. There is absolutely no need for our federal budget to be more than $500 billion each year - even that is way too much - and it is expected to hit $2 trillion (for FY03?)!

We spend too much on a government that throws money away on useless projects, agencies, and services, and thus our taxes are much too high. We should be able to keep much more of the money we earn, but most of us would rather the richer half pay for everything, and so everyone gives up nearly half of their income year after year. It doesn't have to be that way...

January 31, 2002 @ 01:13

Yesterday's Best of the Web makes many excellent points regarding Bush's State of the Union address and several responses to it, including responses from foreign governments such as Iraq (hah). Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I enjoyed the speech (aside from the seventy-eight pauses for applause - he spoke for thirty minutes; they applauded for eighteen). But anyway... You might like some of those responses.

January 30, 2002 @ 19:42

I have received several good responses to my argument in which I related faith in the dollar to faith in God in an attempt to discredit Ayn Rand's claim that faith is a "weakness of the mind". The three best responses came from Rose, Nick, and Michael, in no particular order. Because posting all three of them would be a bit much, I will only say this: they mostly decided that faith and confidence are not the same and that my analogy using money and God was bad. They also reasonably rebuked the idea that the dollar is based on faith, because it is logically proven to exist, and is concrete, whereas God is an abstraction. Well, here is my latest response to all of that, which is also partly a response to Michael's email (thanks for the replies, Mike!):

I welcome further replies.

January 30, 2002 @ 15:37

If you might find yourself between Florida and Australia - that is, on planet Earth - tonight and Thursday, beware of flying debris: "NASA on Tuesday warned residents of a vast swath of Earth...that heavy chunks of a dying, 3.5-ton satellite could strike..." Right. So, whereever you may be, which in some way can be perceived as between Florida and Australia, watch yo'seff - or better still, ignore this warning, because there is really nothing you can do about falling debris. By the time you figure out where it will crash, it will have crashed. So just try not to be there.

January 30, 2002 @ 00:10

Fox News Channel wins. CNN is now firmly in second. Funny line: "While they've been busy down in Atlanta trying to figure out who is sexy or not, we've been giving viewers coast-to-coast compelling coverage." Well, Paula Zahn may be sexy, but that shouldn't be the focus of CNN's or Zahn's advertising. And just a few months ago Zahn was fired for violating her contract. Go CNN! Pick up Fox News's trash! (No offense, Paula... I actually liked your show. That one night...)

UPDATE: Oops, I forgot to link to the Fox News article. Naturally, it is more detailed.

January 29, 2002 @ 09:00

I have never declared any respect or disrespect for Boy George; he had never really grabbed my attention. But he did yesterday. He has written a new musical, at the heart of which is a heterosexual love story. (You, of course, know that Boy George is homosexual.) Well, according to this news release, many fellow gays criticize him for it. (I honestly can think of no good reason, since I know of many heterosexuals who have written stories of homosexual love. But anyway.) Boy George responded, "Well, I'm sorry. We live in a world with heterosexuals. There are a lot of them and they created us, God bless them." I always respect an open mind, especially regarding such a controversial topic.

That kind of makes me wonder, if someone mentions this in a New York school, are they violating their new restriction?

January 29, 2002 @ 08:54

From the Jerusalem Post: A man "unwittingly" brought a gun with him to the United States ... on a flight from Israel to New York. Neither security team, Israel's nor New York's, detected the gun. The man noticed it after arriving and immediately contacted the Israeli Consulate and explained the situation.

I don't feel all that secure when a man can unwittingly bring a gun into one of New York's airports undetected, especially from a flight, because that means he breached security - twice. If this man can do this unwittingly, imagine all the "wittingly" smuggles... Still confident that airport security reform is making it all better? Do you still feel that the "Airport Authority" is making it all better? Or is it just removing accountability from the airlines and placing it squarely on the government, specifically the officials who so heavily backed federalization of airport security? You would think that Washington politicians could smell something like this before it happened. Unless they actually thought security would improve, or unless major players in the airline business paid them handsomely. Well, I have a strong theory for why Democrats generally supported federalization and Republicans generally did not - aside from the fact that Democrats are domestically statist - but I won't share it here. It's just too obvious.

Of course, there is also a no-brainer question attached: How does someone not remember that his personal handgun is in his luggage?

January 28, 2002 @ 18:11

Tommy recommends that you read this. Georgia does not recognize Vermont's civil union as marriage, so by Georgia law, a mother who has a lesbian partner is refused visitation rights to her child; she and the father agreed that the child could not "stay overnight with a parent who is living with someone to whom they are not married or related". The father does not believe that homosexuality is appropriate in an overnight setting for his child.

I could defend either side in this case; I'm curious how it will turn out. On one hand, the father has legal custody, and both parents signed the visitation agreement, and the law is the law. However, the mother is still the mother. The question isn't about seeing her child, though, but allowing the child to say the night in the mother's partner's home.

January 28, 2002 @ 18:04

An excellent point was made on Sean Hannity's radio show today. As you may already know, many Americans (mostly liberals) are concerned that United States officials are treating al Qaeda terrorists too poorly; they feel that we should be treating them more humanely. (Whatever.) The point made on Sean Hannity's show was quite simple: tell that to your average soldier. Our armed forces endure much tougher conditions than the average American for a variety of reasons, two big ones being that Democrats cut military spending at every opportunity and that armed servicemen move around a lot and so obviously can not afford pristine living conditions at every new location. So, naturally, if the military can not afford decent living conditions for their own men, they aren't going to go any great length to make the prisoners' living conditions better. Sorry, but American priorities are with Americans. If you are an anti-American terrorist, then one of our priorities is to let you think about what you've done and ask, "was it really worth it?"

And then there is silly New York that bans the phrase, "God bless you", because it unconstitutionally represents church affiliation with state, or some nonsense like that, yet it is unconstitutional for Florida to ban Satan. Um, if I am not mistaken, freedom of speech trumps church and state issues. Either way, the Supreme Court better take a look at this now. Banning Christian blessings and banning the ban of Satanic blessings is, if not backwards, seriously bad.

January 28, 2002 @ 13:28

Hasn't John Ashcroft learned? Censorship is bad! You can't burn Harry Potter books without resembling Nazis, and you can't censor "the spirit of justice" without appealing to totalitarianism. From the Drudge Report: "At the center of the controversy: two enormous and stylized but largely naked aluminum statues. The female figure represents the Spirit of Justice; the male on the right is the Majesty of Justice. The male is clad in only a cloth draped over his essential parts; the female wears a sort of toga-style garment, but one breast is entirely exposed." And, of course, there is a picture of Ashcroft himself with the naked breast over his shoulder...

The statue does not need to be censored. America needs to mature, or at least act more mature.

January 28, 2002 @ 13:09

For any ardent objectivists out there, I am about to challenge your faith. "Faith?" Yes, faith. Nevermind that Ayn Rand, the author of objectivism, denounces faith as a weakness of the mind. I wish to challenge that, too. I have already argued that point though, essentially labeling faith as nothing more than a fancy word for confidence - they really are the same, except that, for some reason, faith is used in spiritual context at much higher frequency than confidence.

But on with the show. How can any reasonable-minded objectivist claim to be a diehard capitalist, as an objectivist must, yet still denounce faith as weakness of the mind, when the idea or symbol upon which capitalism is based in money? Money is nothing more than a symbol, an idea, a representation of value, and behind any symbol rests the central requirement of faith. A capitalist economy can not endure without faith in the currency, just as a capitalist can not be a capitalist without faith in the currency. How, then, does the objectivist philosophy preach so vehemently that faith and reason are diametric opposites? It seems to me that, in this case, faith must be entirely reasonable, and reason must be entirely based on faith.

I felt compelled to challenge this point after reading "What Money Is", chapter ten of Robert Heilbroner's and Lester Thurow's Economics Explained. I had formulated similar thoughts about money in the past - chapter ten essentially put my thoughts in better words and in more detail - but not until I read this chapter did I ever consider using money to make the argument for faith.

January 28, 2002 @ 13:08

I have a nitpick for grammar nazis, an argument against using "collective verbs" improperly. An example of a collective verb is more-than-qualify: "His SAT scores more-than-qualify him to get into UGA." This usage is questionable at best, but acceptable (logically speaking). Excluding the hyphens throws in two words acting as an adverb to modify the verb, but I would hardly consider the words more than to be eligible for usage as adverbs in proper English. The best way to say to write the sentence above is, "His SAT scores qualify him to get into UGA", or more accurately and awkwardly, "His SAT scores are more than enough to qualify him to get into UGA". I suppose that more can qualify as an adverb modifying qualify, but I can not accept the usage with than separating the words without hyphens.

Tony and I really need to initiate the project to develop our collaborative emending of the English language. We have each coined several potentially useful words - most of mine which I can only remember when its usage is required - and we each have critiqued illogical rules of the language and suggested reform. If we ever seriously consider compiling our grammatical, linguistic discontents, I believe the resulting mass of text would be publishable...

January 28, 2002 @ 03:38

Wow. The Washington Post is retelling the story of September 11, 2001, in an emotionally intense series of feature articles, to the first of which I just linked. The article is about 7000 words long, or about the size of seven high school essays. And this is only part one.

An excerpt:

At 9:05 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, also a Boeing 767, smashed into the South Tower of the trade center. Bush was seated on a stool in the classroom when Card whispered the news: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Bush remembers exactly what he thought: "They had declared war on us, and I made up my mind at that moment that we were going to war."

January 28, 2002 @ 01:52

I feel like punching holes in another pro-gun control argument. Monica Bauer writes:

I could argue the semantics of her words, how she spins to make her point, but I'd rather tackle the issue head-on. The reason why school violence seems more common in American schools is because (1) there are many more schools in America than in other countries, (2) they're comparatively socialist, and (3) average parents and teachers have no concept of educating children properly, especially about guns - which, by the way, are not the only source of danger. There is a wide and varying line of balance between discipline and education that will result in a properly raised child. I say "wide and varying" because there are different combinations of control and education that result in well-rounded and unique adults. However, average parents and teachers are unaware of such a balance, or are far from it. A child that knows a lot but is not disciplined exploits what he knows. A child that is controlled so much that he is not given the chance to be properly educated about, well, a number of things, will be more prone to over-react to new knowledge.

Sex and drugs are just as dangerous as guns without proper education and discipline.

January 27, 2002 @ 23:14

I'm excited! For the first time since acquiring it, I have been playing Red Faction all day today. I probably felt the sudden urge to play because, on Friday, I read a press release announcing the sequel, Red Faction 2! (In case you're wondering, I speak of the PlayStation 2 version; I care very little for PC games that aren't Tribes.) Red Faction 2 promises several new features, comparable to the differences that Perfect Dark had shown as a semi-sequel to Goldeneye for the Nintendo 64. Mmm, yummy: four-player split screen and customizable bots in multiplayer, not to mention a refined graphics engine and many other enhancements...!

I suppose you have noticed that I rarely get excited about video games. I think I have ranted and raved about my favorite game of the moment only twice before - for Perfect Dark in the summer of 2000 and for Gran Turismo 3 in the summer of 2001. Well, I knew I wanted Red Faction as soon as I played it back in June, but knowing that I would not be able to play two games before the Fall semester began, and that playing a game during a semester would be just silly, I decided to hold off until Christmas. (Of course, I didn't even get the PlayStation 2 until my birthday in July, when many of my closest friends and relatives pitched in to buy it for me - thanks guys!)

I like IGN's one-line introduction to the game: "One part Half-Life, two parts Total Recall, three parts World War III. All goodness." That sums it up quiet nicely! (Although I have never played Half-Life or seen Total Recall, I am familiar with each.)

While I'm at it, I may as well throw another top ten list at you. It seems that throwing around top-however-many lists has become a theme of the past six weeks for me, so I don't see the harm in sharing my all-time top ten video games. (I have three specific favorite genres, in this order: first-person shooter, 2D side-scrolling platformer, and driving/racing simulator.)

Also note that the most recent games may have an unfair advantages; that they employ technologies that may not have been available to previous games. However, unfair advantages are acceptable when choosing favorites. I mean, what am I going to do? Distort accuracy in the name of fairness? Whatever!

I should mention Virtual Pool (N64), the original Legend of Zelda (NES), and Tetris (NES, Gameboy, etc.)! Some of the classics like Missle Command, Nibbles, and Donkey Kong also hold a special place in my heart, but the fact that I never itch to play them (well, except Donkey Kong) does not earn them any honorable mention with regard to my top ten.

As for PC games, there have only been two ever to have been worth my time: Tribes and Sim City 3000. I recognize Tribes as the first great first-person shooter for the PC, and Sim City 3000 was just a highly addictive, highly entertaining, massive waste of time. As for Tribes, online play had its perks, but I am too much a fan of the excitement of playing against a roomful of friends with food and drink to enjoy many PC games. Still, many fun hours have been spent on Tribes. I am also certain that I would love Half Life, but I only have time for so many games; I need no new addictions...

What games do you like?

January 27, 2002 @ 01:15

Today was a pretty big day for me. It seems that my family and Claire's family likes to take turns inviting the other over for dinner, and tonight was Claire's family's turn to invite us (well, it was really their first turn, but whatever). I'm surprised that our families get along as well as they do, and I'm glad that they do. That's an important ingredient for a successful relationship... Well, any relationship with me.

So anyway, we arrived at about 5:00 and were soon snacking on some delicious zuchini and shrimp fritters with what I think were honey mustard and pepper sauces - all of it was wonderful. In fact, I had so much of the appetizer that I was full halfway through the main course, but that didn't stop me from enjoying the meal.

So we enjoyed being together - all nine of us - and a few of us stuck around until 11:00. My dad stayed and played name-that-tune while Claire's dad tried to stump him with classics from his vinyl collection. My brother, who rode with my dad, was so enthralled by this stump-or-be-stumped match, that he opted to stay and watch/listen instead of forcing my dad to get him home so that his Saturday night could be spent elsewhere. We were all genuinely surprised. Of course, Claire and I kept him entertained (or they kept me entertained); we played a few stream-of-consciousness games in which we connected celebrities and characters one at a time. For some reason this kept us busy for over two hours...

I don't suppose I should bore anyone else with any more details of the evening, but it was fun. Oh, and by my measurement, Claire's house's master bedroom is about four square feet larger than my house's master bedroom. This is not to say that I was accurate, but I settled an argument!

January 26, 2002 @ 15:43

This March, be prepared to see Mike Myers as ... Austin Powers! ... in ... um, wait, what's it called?

MGM and Danjaq, the British company that controls the Bond film license, have obtained a cease-and-desist order against New Line Cinema that prohibits New Line from calling the latest installment of Mike Myers' shagadelic spy series Austin Powers in Goldmember. Apparently, the 007 folks weren't too keen on the double entendre of Goldmember - a takeoff on the 1964 Bond classic, Goldfinger - and released the legal hounds to force the name change. "MGM/UA and Danjaq have a zero-tolerance policy towards anyone who tries to trade in on the James Bond franchise without authorization," says an MGM spokesperson.

Blah. Here's my argument:

MGM set the precedent when they allowed the second installment, Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, to keep its title, despite the obvious parallel to the 1977 James Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me. The original Austin Powers film took in over $88 million worldwide ($53 million in the U.S.) in 1997 - which is a lot, especially considering that it was intended to be a one-time parody and had reasonably low expectations. There would have been good reason for MGM to sue over its sequel, The Spy Who Shagged Me, if they were worried about a competing movie making money off of James Bond. But they didn't make the case in 1999, so that should throw out the case for 2002's Goldmember.

To simplify that, The Spy Who Shagged Me took in about $310 million worldwide, or just over $200 million in the U.S., so I can see why MGM and Danjaq are more concerned about Goldmember now. Still, it only makes them look like greedy businessmen. If they really cared because of copyright issues, they would have made the case in 1999. That they didn't only proves that they only care about money.

And that doesn't even begin to cover the issues of free speech, which I take very seriously. That a company can register for the rights to words and prevent others from using them is ridiculous to me. For instance, if I were making money in a play in which I used the line, "you've got mail", to tell someone that she had mail, could AOL sue me? I wouldn't be surprised, but it would be ridiculous. That obviously isn't exactly analogous to this situation, but the concept is the same.

But that's just the classic-liberal/libertarian in me speaking. Obviously, money is just as important as freedom to most people. (Then again, this isn't a U.S.-centric issue, so my American ideals won't mean much in this case.)

Still, I think MGM and Danjaq are doing more to hurt than to help themselves. Is it just me, or do movies recycle old titles all the time? And what happens when someone realizes that the title is similar to or the same as an old movie title? Well, if they are reminded of something, they just might watch it! There is no guarantee of that, but one would think that a company would love the idea of a mega-franchise like Austin Powers paralleling something of theirs, as such would certainly be mutually advantageous.

January 26, 2002 @ 12:44

I assume that you heard about the shooting at the Appalachian Law School last week; the media was all over it. I assume also that you heard about the hero students who stopped the attacker. I assume also that you were not aware of the media's bias that prevented you from knowing just how these students stopped an armed gunman. Well, that's what John Lott's article is for.

You see, the typical liberal-Democratic position on gun control (and every other type of control, except government control) is that it needs to be much more strict. This is a fundamental part of the contemporary liberal philosophy: they believe that they are somehow better and more responsible than every man and woman in the country, so they believe that they need to control every man and woman in the country. You know, because in the end, it will work out for the best for every man and woman in the country.

Well, as for the gun control issue, they believe that guns are absolutely bad and can serve no good, ever. They seek to remove guns from private citizens' hands, despite the fact that the second amendment of the constitution strictly prohibits such. I have no idea what the ulterior motives for disarming the American public would be, but I do know that it would create a field day for criminals. Think about it: if a criminal wanted to break into some homes and steal stuff, what would make it easier? Removing guns from private homes!

Look at the example set by England. A few years ago legislation was passed to disarm the general public. Violent crimes skyrocketed. Why? Because the average, law-abiding citizens willingly gave up their guns for the greater good, only to come to the unfortunate realization later, with a gun pointed at their temples, that they had given up their only and best means of self-defense.

So back to the Appalachian Law School shooting. Two young men stopped the attacker from continuing his rampage or escaping (whichever he had in mind at that moment). Do you want to know how? As soon as they heard the gunshots, they ran to their respective vehicles, pulled out their own guns, and ran in the opposite direction of all of the frightened, screaming law students. They pointed their guns at the attacker. The attacker submitted.

Guns in the hands of responsible citizens probably saved the day for a few other potential victims that day, but you didn't hear about it. In fact, according to John Lott's article, only four out of 280 stories even mentioned that the heroes had guns of their own. It is unfortunate that so many reporters would keep such a detail quiet, especially when it is a journalist's duty to report the whole truth to his/her readership.

Be careful how you interpret this. Note that I never said that I am in favor of guns in general. I don't like guns. I hate guns. I think they only have two purposes: to destroy and to inflict fear. However, no amount of control - unless we become a totalitarian nation - will ever be able to reduce the gun's threat to the point that removing it from the general public's hands would be the best answer. I am not an advocate of gun ownership, but I am an advocate of the second amendment. The freedom to choose is more important than the choice.

January 26, 2002 @ 00:26

I don't like the idea that people complain so much about President Bush receiving about 540,000 fewer votes than Gore in the election. So he won with only 48% of the people behind him... so what? Clinton received only 43%. Sure, there was a greater margin of victory in that George H.W. Bush was millions of votes behind, but that doesn't negate the fact that 56% voted against Clinton, while only 51% voted against Bush. So, sure, Clinton was a clearer plurality, but more people supported Bush.

Of course, we can also look at the election of 1860. Abraham Lincoln took fewer than 40% of the votes, meaning over 60% of the country voted against him. He is now regarded as one of the our greatest presidents ever. This brings me to my point: I think men who are elected president in controversial elections have a considerable advantage over those elected in smooth elections - the former are more likely to be remembered as "great".

In other words, I think that presidents elected in controversial elections generally will be, by default, better Presidents. Why? Because they consciously strive to prove themselves to be worthy, to be men who will do the best job possible. They know that they must earn the trust and support of the people, and so they strive to do what is actually best for the people, because that's the only way to prove themselves. Other presidents already have the people's trust, so they are not held to the same rigid standard, and are more prone to attempt more questionable presidential actions - because, hey, they already have the people's trust and support!

Hence, I think Bush will go down as one of our all-time greatest Presidents - in the top ten for sure, and easily in my top five. I know it's too early to know for sure, but assuming that there are no major mishaps, it isn't possible that I could hold him in lower regard.

Thanks for a great first year, President Bush. I'm looking forward to seven more!

January 25, 2002 @ 23:43

I get in trouble with my more Republican friends once in a while when I claim that I can think of no evidence that Clinton was a bad president. Hell, I've read what he's done from both sides of the political aisle to know that he is not a guy I would vote for unless he were running against his wife, but other than bringing our country subtlely but effectively closer to socialism, I can't see how he's done much wrong. (Wait, did I just say that?)

I'm just trying to introduce you to the following article, which I found through today's Best of the Web, in which Clinton actually makes sense! I know, I know. You don't believe me. I didn't believe it either, at first. (Maybe his socialist ways are entirely derived from that business partner of a wife of his. Food for thought.)

January 25, 2002 @ 23:22

I think whoever said using tables was regressive was just trying to see if anyone would believe him. Tables, by the fact that they are still supported, are not regressive. In fact, tables can be quite valuable when attempting to comply with web standards, to develop a web site which can be viewed relatively cleanly in most common browsers (which unfortunately includes Netscape 4.x) and which doesn't look boring.

Combining web standards with multi-browser compatibility is quite a task, but I'm good at it. Heck, my site loads perfectly in Netscape 4, if you don't include the huge picture of George W. Bush covering the upper-left corner of the page, including 60% of the Pentagon image and several links on my list. (Don't worry; as soon as new updates push the image off of the page, it will only afflict the January 2002 archive page, which means you will never be able to read the last entry of the month!)

I have good reason to tinker with my web site all of a sudden; it's called ITEC 4283, otherwise known as Advanced Web Development. It's nothing difficult, but it is new to me, and I am enjoying it! Advanced students in the class should fully grasp JavaScript and Cascading Style Sheets, which, when used together to create a somewhat interactive web page, are collectively referred to as Dynamic HTML. Well, I already know HTML and CSS very well, and I have discovered that, thanks to mIRC, I am already familiar with Java syntax, so JavaScript is turning out to be quite easy!

So, a question for you. I know that some people use abnormally huge screen resolutions, so my 750-pixel-wide box for a web site might not be near big enough on some screens. So would you, the viewer, care to realize the advantage of a web site that automatically configured my web site based on the width of your screen? I would only include settings for 800x600, 1024x768, and 1600x1200 screen resolutions, but I think that would be quite sufficient, don't you? Heck, screw your opinion. I want to play with JavaScript!

January 25, 2002 @ 20:43

I sit efficiently rebutted. Dave offers these comments:

I have always felt that there was a bit of hypocrisy in us all, even if I didn't know it for sure. I'm glad there are people who actually read my site who care to analyze my thoughts once in a while.

Well, Dave, I have to agree with you for paragraphs one and two. I'm busted. There is nothing else I can say to that. Good job!

But some of the ideas represented in paragraphs three and four, well, are sketchy at best. I know that it isn't my place to challenge your relatives' views directly, so I will just take your general ideas and respond to them. You claim that they dislike Bush because of the "what happened in the election" and "especially now with the Enron thing". I, certainly biased, but well informed of the facts of both issues, know (in my mind) that neither of those issues is good reason to dislike George W. Bush.

The Election: George W. Bush won the election against Al Gore fair, square, and by the method described in our constitution. He did nothing wrong. As it turns out, even if the recounts had continued as Al Gore had liked, Al Gore would still have lost! (Perhaps that is because Gore was using a bad strategy; using the only complete strategy - recounting every county's votes in Florida - he would have won.) Basically, there is one reason why Al Gore lost: George W. Bush (legally) obtained a majority of our country's electoral votes. (Remember, Bill Clinton won the election in 1992 with a smaller percentage than Bush in 2000. But the media didn't make such a fuss about that, now did they?)

Enron: There is no good reason for anyone to dislike Bush for any reason that involves Enron, unless they work for Enron. Why? Because Bush did not help them out, which is how it should be. It is not the government's job to interfere with businesses' affairs, even if they may affect the economy. And the allegation of scandal is hardly fair. Many allege that it is a political scandal, that this is "Bush's Watergate" or worse. However, if people actually look at the facts (and it seems that only a tiny minority actually does), they find that the Clinton administration was much more involved - trading favors for several years, favors that cost American tax-payers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Sparing a full argument, I'll sum this up: There is no factual (which, in my mind, means "rational" as well in this case) basis for disliking Bush for either of those two reasons. If nothing else, one should admire him for being morally, politically, and legally correct in each case.

Directing comments back to Dave once again: thanks for pointing out my error. Considering myself to be somewhat of a Libertarian, it isn't healthy that I have ideas like that - that people should move out of the country if they don't like it here. But, in fairness, I never suggested that they should ever be forced to leave. I merely suggested that they should not force anti-American ideas upon America. (Of course, you would have to read where I had argued this previously to know that, and even I am too lazy to fish it up.)

Thanks for your comments. They are always welcome!

January 25, 2002 @ 20:17

Is George reading what I think he's reading? Why, yes! Yes he is! That's Bernard Goldberg's BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News! Excuse me, Mr. President, but can I borrow that book when you're done? (This picture was taken today before the President took off for Maine.)

Speaking of Goldberg's book, I just picked it up today. I can't decide whether to read it or Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone, a thick book that details civil society's breaking down as a result of people becoming more disconnected from their families, communities, and (worst of all and most noticeably) the country itself. Hmm. Rationality kicks in: I'll read Bowling Alone first, but only because I have decided to read it for my Domestic Issues project, though I really do not know what the specifics of the project are yet. I hope it doesn't involve developing a visual aid...

January 25, 2002 @ 19:50

Nickd.org looks pretty again!

January 25, 2002 @ 19:40

You never know unless you ask, right? Well, ask and ye shall receive! You don't even have to ask, really, as long as you provide efficient hints. I'll be to the point: Anna said that my web site, because it no longer reflects my feelings and opinions, is somewhat "less human" these days. I've been thinking along those same lines recently, but for several reasons, it has been difficult to correct this issue. The most prominent reason is probably lack of effort on my part, but lack of time and of memory are also factors.

So anyway, what's going on in my life lately? Well, I've decided that I need to be entertained more. Despite that it is a distraction from the events that actually keep the world in motion, entertainment (movies, music, games, books) is necessary to some degree in order for me to keep my sanity.

So, in contributing to the entertainment of Paul, I have acquired many new forms of digital entertainment (CDs, DVDs, software, and so on). Starting with DVD movies, I have bought (since Christmas) Mission: Impossible 2, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, Moulin Rouge, and, just last night, Gone In 60 Seconds, bringing my total of DVDs to seven. I am also newly addicted to motion picture scores, recently acquiring the scores to such films as A Beautiful Mind, The Lord of the Rings, and The Rock, among many others in that already huge and growing collection. I have acquired several new audio CDs - too many to name - and I have seen a rebirth in my love for some of my old favorites.

Speaking of which, it is probably a good time - as good as any - to list my top five favorite albums. This was no easy list to make, but I think it is accurate... for now. I can't explain what qualifies music to make my top five, except to say that it must sound incredible (to me) and mean something. I know that that is generic, but that's as good as it's going to get. Also, note that I do not include compilations that include non-original pieces of music, but I do otherwise count multi-volume sets. Here's the list:

If I had to disappear tomorrow and could only have five CDs, those would be selected. Of course, with the advent of CD-Rs, I don't have to worry about albums that have three good songs and seven crappy ones... I mix my favorite stuff to build my own compilation albums. But that's beside the point!

I was just reading this. Hmm. A beautiful mind, indeed...

January 2001 has seen many significant changes for me. It snowed like it hadn't snowed in years (er, um, yeah), I signed up for way too many classes (but I like them!), and I have taken on my first job - well, not counting the orientation job I have at Macon State for about sixty hours per year.

My new job is nothing spectacular, but it is honest, and it also drives me absolutely bonkers, because while I know I'm not doing it for the money, certain other people can not grasp the idea that someone could have my job and not be doing it for the money. (Is it fair enough to say that positive income is a result, but not necessarily a reason, for getting a job?) Of course, no matter how I look at it, I can't come up with a good explanation that anyone would understand, so I may as well call myself a hypocrite and save you the trouble. (Oh yeah, and I'm not a Republican either.)

Oh, right, the job. I work at the local public library, and I shelve books for about three hours per day. It really isn't so bad. I don't sweat, the people are nice, and I get paid as I would be for doing any other job, so I kinda like it. However, it bothers me that I don't have a job in my career field (Information Technology), and it bothers me that I can't work every Saturday morning (ten hours per two weeks) instead of every other entire Saturday (eight hours per two weeks).

And, um, let's see. There were many other things of which I have recently thought that could and should fill this space, but sitting in the chair now, I can't think of them. Anna, do me a favor, remind me in every email you send me to "include something personal today" on my web site. Then maybe I won't have to splurge like this.

Have a great weekend! I want a nap.

January 24, 2002 @ 19:03

I skimmed this last night, and a thought entered my head: why do terrorist victims deserve financial help more than accident victims? I don't think I reasoned much at all; I simply decided that it wouldn't be a good idea to say much about it. But then Boortz said it, so I felt better knowing that I'm not the only insensitive conservative thinking about it.

Here's the deal: George Bush signed a bill into law which grants tax breaks to family members of those killed in the Oklahoma City bombing, September 11 attacks, and anthrax mailings. Now, unless this is part of some hidden agenda to lower taxes for every one else in due time, I can't see this as a good thing. It's essentially discrimination, and discriminatory tax breaks are very, very bad.

A girl I knew in middle school was killed in August in an extremely unusual traffic accident (I won't disclose the details; focus on the word accident). She was 19, and she had an infant son (unless it was a daughter, but an infant nonetheless). Her family no doubt has suffered emotionally from her loss and financially from the recession (as have most people), so why are they less deserving of a tax break than families whose loved ones were killed in terrorist attacks? What makes the distinction worthy of a tax break for which no one else is eligible?

I've ranted on taxes enough in the past three months to write a short story about taxing horrors - maybe I could parallel Edgar Allen Poe's style - so I won't delve into it much more than this. Simply put, I think this is bad legislation... unless, of course, as I previously mentioned, it's part of a grand scheme to reduce taxes for everyone in the long run.

January 24, 2002 @ 14:07

I just thought that I should let you know - perhaps because I enjoy reporting stupidity - that the New York City Board of Education has banned the phrase "God bless you" in writing on school property.

January 24, 2002 @ 08:45

Dear Cary,

This is one question from this week's Salon Sex column, from which questioning persons ask personal questions, and the kind, ever-knowing, sex gods and goddesses of Salon provide their insight. Mark the calendar: this is the first time in its several weeks of existence that the sex column has mentioned anything remotely similar to sex. Questions are usually more like, "Why is he staying away?", or, "How can I get him to stay away?"

The response to this question is particularly good. I will show an excerpt of the response, much shorter than the concatenation of the question itself above. (The full answer and response are much longer, and they're the last on the page.) It's probably very difficult to come up with a good response to this complicated problem, but I think a very good response is provided:

Every time a guy gets a threesome, somewhere in heaven an angel gets his wings. As a guy, I can do nothing but cheer you on, worries be damned, full speed ahead, pick a girl, any girl, how hard could it be, get down tonight...

Don't worry. He gives good advice too. I just thought that was priceless.

January 24, 2002 @ 00:24

By now you have certainly heard of the monument that was to be based on Tom Franklin's photo of three white New York firefighters who were to be represented as being one white, one black, and one Hispanic. There are two sides of this argument: (1) that representing the diversity of (America, FDNY, whatever) is more important than representing the three firefighters because, after all, the monument isn't for them, but for America; and (2) that representing political correctness through fallacy is absurd because, after all, the photo would not have been taken in the first place had the three (white) firefighters not raised the flag.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, Stephen Beaty said it best in my domestic issues class yesterday, and I can't remember how he said it. He made an excellent point (even if he is a Democrat), and I remember commending him for it. But I can't, for the life of me, remember exactly how it was he said it... Ugh.

Either way, I think both sides are at fault in this argument, but that isn't the issue. I think that the fire department and designers of the monument should have consulted with the three firefighters before finalizing their plan to commemorate diversity instead of the actual act. The way I see it, those three men are responsible for the photo being possible, and none of them should have to try to explain to their grandchildren why that black man is really him. Still, I have a feeling that the three firemen would have agreed to it had they been consulted first, but that doesn't mean that the other minorities (Asian-Americans, Native Americans, women) would have liked it any more.

This presents the same problem that affirmative action presents: discrimination in favor of any one if not every one is a bad idea. If you want to raise standards, be fair about it; don't treat any group or individual specially. Blah, blah, blah...

January 23, 2002 @ 23:09

The introduction reads: "Whether it's providing housing or medical care, every dollar the government spends is picked from the pockets of citizens. The government cannot spend the nation into prosperity, but it can waste tax dollars in ways the private sector cannot."

Richard Rahn's article attacks the Democrats' notion that increased government spending can increase economic growth. Fact: Government spending has been increasing since the government started. Opinion: This isn't exactly ecomomic paradise. On the other hand, there are billions of dollars wasted each year on unneeded programs. Read the article.

January 22, 2002 @ 08:50

In case you missed it, Robert Altman won the Golden Globe for best director on Sunday night for his work on Gosford Park, though as he said himself, it was a foolproof script. Well, it turns out that the resulting press time is allowing him to get a few thoughts off of his chest, namely that he thinks President Bush is an embarrassment. Read his comments, and then you tell me on what side of the political spectrum he can be found:

When I see an American flag flying, it's a joke....This present government in America I just find disgusting, the idea that George Bush could run a baseball team successfully - he can't even speak! I just find him an embarrassment.

Well, my interpretation is quite simple. He has either been influenced by hanging around so many British for so long, or he is far more socialist than the average American for some other reason. (And by the way, being a socialist is not a bad thing, but socialism in America is.) Either way, Robert Altman has set a wonderful example! For those of you who, like Altman, genuinely feel that our bumbling, fumbling, stumbling president is an embarrassment, you obviously need to leave, because over 80% of the people here love him. If you can't feel comfortable with a leader that 80% of your peers love, well, then I can understand your discomfort, but it should be for entirely different reasons.

Thanks for setting such a brilliant example, Robert. Any other socialists should feel free to follow his lead; if you don't like it here, there is a massive European continent full of nations better suited for your political ideology.

January 22, 2002 @ 01:08

If you really want to upset the political left, send them to the most recent New York Times / CBS poll, which asks, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President?" I don't know what the results will reflect as the votes add up, but just now, the poll results stood at 86% in approval, 9% in disapproval, and 4% not sure. That's even better than the most recent Gallup poll (the official one), which lists Bush's overall approval rating at 83%. You know, for unintentionally liberally biased news publications, their readers/viewers are showing a lot of support for a Republican president.

January 22, 2002 @ 00:58

I should have thought of this long ago, and you should have too. It has been suggested for years that Americans understand little about the rest of the world, but why should we if the rest of the world doesn't understand us? Or worse, the average American realizes that he doesn't understand the rest of the world, while (it seems that) the average foreigner wrongly believes that he understands us. Obviously, I don't know the average foreigner, and neither do Glenn, Steven, or Daniel, but the argument is worth consideration.

Even more worth consideration is Glenn's subsequent idea: "to begin a massive public-education program, starting with distributing a lot of translated copies of The Federalist Papers. Most world leaders will probably hate that, which only adds to the fun."

I suggest that you at least glance at each of the linked articles above. Steven's and Daniel's essays are two of the best political arguments I have read in months, as is William's, which is not linked above.

While perusing William's site, I ran into a link to a hilarious Christopher Hitchens editorial about President George W. Bush. The funniest part though, as William suggests, is that, well, a good laugh wasn't Hitchens's goal. But, as I am beginning to realize, that's all his columns are worth.

Finally, I'd like to add a bit more on the nonsensical issue of multiculturalism. Today's inspiring thoughts come from Diana West's Friday column in the Washington Times:

Did I know before this story broke that of the 11,495 members of the FDNY, 2.7% are black, or 3.2% are Hispanic? Did I ever even consider skin color while looking at the photograph? No. Now, however, having layered a racial consciousness onto a historic image, the statue's designers are pushing us to take inspiration from their vision of what should have happened - a multicultural moment - rather than from what did happen - an expression of love of country - which, until now, seemed plenty good enough.

There is a variety of good essays on the subject, including John Leo's, Mona Charen's, Ann Coulter's, and several others that I don't have the time to name. Nor do I need to, because they all paid off. The project has been cancelled. We win.

See, America, that's all it takes! If it bothers you, open your mouth! Remember, the fundamental difference between America and just about anywhere else is that the people have the power here! On that note, we need to see a lot more referenda, initiatives, and recalls...

January 21, 2002 @ 23:31

Abortion politics are indeed "alive and kicking", and as the headline of this Fox News article suggests, abortion politics will (likely) never die. I'll stand by my abortion rant of a couple nights ago, and I'll agree. Abortion politics will always be alive as long as people skirt around the issue, which seems to be the popular way of going about it. Instead of solving the problem, which would simply involve a very careful, controversial, and consensual decision regarding when life actually and legally begins, my prediction is that politics will continue to concentrate on the atrocities of killing the unborn and refusing the freedom of choice. Those two words are emphasized because, according to contemporay politics, they are the issue. Contemporary politics is wrong, and most people know it. The issue is when life begins, and that is what the arguments need to address. Period.

January 21, 2002 @ 19:02

What is more mind-boggling? That the fourth installment of the adventures of Indiana Jones is in the works, or that Fox News is just now reporting it, despite that news regarding Indiana Jones 4 has been available since June? I heard about it some months ago, though I am not sure exactly when, because apparently I said nothing about it in my weblog (I am sure that I did, but I can't find it).

Anyway, I was both pleased and disappointed last night. My favorite television series, "24", did well, but crappy HBO television series took most of the awards, which is ashame, because I think most of them suck - they're just knock-offs of other shows that don't include nudity or coarse language. My favorite two movies, Moulin Rouge and A Beautiful Mind, won several awards, though I think Moulin Rouge deserved more than it received. For more information on The Golden Globes, visit the official web site.

January 20, 2002 @ 19:56

"Lab specimens of anthrax spores, Ebola virus and other pathogens disappeared from the Army's biological warfare research facility....someone was secretly entering a lab late at night to conduct unauthorized research, apparently involving anthrax." The "experts" don't seem too concerned, so I don't know whether or not we should be too concerned, either. I just thought I would let you know.

Also, please take note that today marks the end of George W. Bush's first year as President of the United States, and the beginning of his second. I don't care for any email responses to this, but I would like for you to think about it: What do you think of Bush's job over the last twelve months? How has your opinion of him changed? How has your opinion of the big political machine in Washington changed since Bush took charge?

I'll offer some sort of answer to my own questions later; the Golden Globes start now!

January 19, 2002 @ 23:59

Proof that I don't blindly follow George Bush, or any other Republican for that matter - our faithful leader says (or writes?):

This Nation was founded upon the belief that every human being is endowed by our Creator with certain "unalienable rights." Chief among them is the right to life itself....Thomas Jefferson wrote that, "[t]he care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government." President Jefferson was right. Life is an inalienable right, understood as given to each of us by our Creator.

The problem is, Mr. President, that the argument does not lie in whether or not life itself is an unalienable (or inalienable?) right, but when life begins. The typical anti-abortion argument asserts that life begins at conception. The typical pro-abortion argument exists only in abortion clinics, because most rational people are not "pro-abortion", but merely "pro-choice", or in favor of allowing the mother to believe until a certain point is reached in the child-to-be's development.

My two cents: the pre-lifeform does not take on the blessing or burden of life until it has (more or less) reached fetal stage, or until it has begun to take the general human shape. In other words, an embryo, or any other group of cells or tissues that in no way resembles the living human form, is not a living person, does not constitute life, and therefore is not subject to President Bush's argument.

There is then the argument of whether or not the pre-child is alive. I have what I believe is an unusual answer, but it works for me, and I believe you will understand what I mean. (Note to reader: I am not trying to persuade you. I am trying to explain my position.) I believe that, until an unborn "child" has developed into the human form and could survive on its own if necessary, it is living, but it is alive.

There is a difference between "living" and being "alive", and I will try to explain that. I believe that "living" implies that the subject can do so indepedently, such as from the mother. To be alive is not necessarily to be living, then, but to be living is to be alive. (It works in the same way that all rock bands are bands, but not all bands are rock bands.) An unborn "child" in the womb is alive, but is not living its life, but is alive as a part of the mother. Should it develop properly, it may be expected that the "child" will develop the ability to live, but before it reaches that point, it is not living, but is merely alive. To be living, the subject itself is doing the action itself. To be alive, it is not necessarily "living" on its own.

Keep in mind, again, that I am not trying to persuade you, but I am merely sharing my view. Also, I believe that words like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are horrible labels for a complex issue which varies so greatly from person to person that such labels are insufficient, or just plain bad. Instead of trying to label arguments, people should try to argue arguments. Maybe then we would all understand each other better.

What President Bush has done is apply a label to abortion as a killer of life in order to achieve a goal - to make abortion illegal. If President Bush is serious about that goal, he should be arguing for when life begins. He will never win the abortion argument by throwing the "sanctity of life" argument at us; he needs to persuade the populous that life begins at conception.

(Let me stress that I am not in favor of abortion, but there are circumstances when it is the best option, so I am in favor of the ability to choose abortion in those circumstances. Naturally, I do not wish for abortion to be available to the average whore who accidentally gets pregnant, but I do not want it to be unavailable to the sixteen-year-old rape victim. Take that as you may. I have been called both "pro-life" and "pro-choice", which only exhibits my argument that the labels are bad, as most are.)

January 18, 2002 @ 22:04

Scandal-hunters everywhere are trying to find something about Enron to hurt the Bush administration's approval rating, but it isn't working. It doesn't help their cause, either, that the only political ties to Enron that could be deemed scandalous tie to the Clinton administration. I have already reported this, but there is nothing wrong in reading a second or third opinion, so check out this Washington Times editorial.

Take note of the two $100,000 contributions to the Democratic National Committee to correspond with the Clinton administration's careful overseeing of Enron's business endeavors and with the Clinton administration's effort to re-elect President Clinton in 1996. You might be curious about why American tax-payers funded $398 million of one of Enron's overseas projects as well.

Okay, okay... So the Clinton administration was friendly with a corporate giant. Big surprise right? The Republican Party, and therefore the Bush administration, was much more friendly! Right? ... Um, no.

What did Enron receive from the Bush administration? Well, it seems that Enron distinguished itself as the biggest victim of President Bush's first outright reversal of a campaign pledge: On March 13, 2001, Mr. Bush, citing the nation's short- and long-term energy problems, changed his mind on a campaign promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Enron had hoped to get fabulously rich trading carbon-dioxide credits, which the Clinton administration had intended to create as part of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Two weeks after Mr. Bush deep-sixed limits on CO2 emissions, his administration poured salt into Enron's wounds by formally junking the Kyoto treaty, which Enron had embraced with gusto. According to an internal Enron memo, the Kyoto Protocol would "do more to promote Enron's business" - including its substantial interests in natural gas pipelines - "than almost any other regulatory initiative." Ouch.

Most of the whining heard by Democrats asserting that this is "Bush's Watergate" or worse echoes the same thing: that Bush officials have met with Enron representatives five times, and that Vice President Dick Cheney met with Enron Chairman Ken Lay for - oh my goodness - a "half-hour meeting"! As it happens, Mr. Lay and other Enron representatives met with Clinton officials several times, including Energy Secretary Federico Peña, Vice President Al Gore, and the President himself, "Slick Willie" Clinton. According to this article, "Mr. Pena even told his Enron pals to keep his staff informed about congressional developments in energy policy."

Compared to the extensive financial help the Clinton-Gore adminstration bestowed upon Enron following the firm's soft-money donations, the Bush administration simply stood aside as Enron's house of cards collapsed, letting the unforgiving forces of capitalism take their toll.

So let this claim of political scandal be dropped, or let it be focused on the Clinton administration (where it belongs). Let the perception of "big business" working in cahoots with Republicans alone, and certainly of George Bush's allegiance to "big business", be dropped. It has already begun to backfire on those who thought they had discovered the perfect plot to bring down the President's approval rating, so why don't they give it up?

Oh, but then they would be playing fair, and that isn't taught in politican science 1101. (I know; I took the class, and I was quite disappointed that my professor did everything to recommend cutting corners without actually formally recommending cutting corners.)

January 18, 2002 @ 21:39

Every Friday at 1:00pm, a group of faculty, staff, and students at Macon State College meet in the cafeteria to discuss things. The discussions are nearly always political, but we refrain from calling it a political discussion group because, well, it isn't always political.

Today, Dr. Tate mentioned that he had not been as well educated in economics as he would have liked, and that should he pursue any further education, he would focus heavily on economics. He emphasized his disappointment that economics is not required knowledge to earn a bachelor's degree in political science. (I agree; economics and politics are too greatly intertwined for either economists or political scientists not to have been required to study the political science or economics, respectively.

Joseph Perkins's column in today's Washington Times begins with this: "Tom Daschle earned a political science degree from South Dakota State University back in 1969. Too bad he received only rudimentary instruction in economics." Under normal circumstances, I would simply agree, bash Daschle a little bit, and move on. But after my ardently Democratic political science professor admitted knowing "not enough" about economics to weigh in on the tax cut / surplus / defecit issue, I feel confident that this explains a lot about Daschle's economics.

The article concludes with the assertion that it is understandable that Daschle would like to keep or to better his position, but that he will not do so by bashing tax cuts supported by millions of tax-paying Americans, not to mention 24% of Senate Democrats. I will add that Daschle either needs to study economics, or in the event that he knows what he advocates, he needs to change his game plan.

January 18, 2002 @ 21:14

Brilliant Fox News article on the modern civil rights movement - I suggest that you read it. One good line (of many) stated that blacks are (or should be regarded as) "competent human beings for whom excellence is expected and not met with surprise." Read the article. It has implications on us all.

January 18, 2002 @ 19:44

I don't know what any real lawyers might say about this protest, but I don't think the argument holds any water. Not surprisingly, the ACLU of Southern California has taken the argument under its wing and has filed a lawsuit. The plaintiffs assert that "the new law requiring airport screeners to be United States citizens is unconstitutional and discriminatory". (Well, of course it's discriminatory, and so is affirmative action.)

First, let me tell you why I am in favor of that law. I believe that any United States federal employee should be a citizen of the United States. Period. If you're just visiting, then you don't get to milk us for benefits. If you want a federal job, you must be part of the federation! That should not be difficult to understand, but the ACLU understands very little about what is good for America. Their concern, aside from the money, is that they defend anything that can in some way, shape, or form be construed to be a "civil liberty". Of course, they often choose sides in a battle when the civil liberties of each side are being infringed upon, which is very hypocritical if the ACLU is really to stand for everyone's civil liberties.

Because the argument will be raised, I'll go ahead and address it: in what way is this discriminatory by ethnicity, gender, or creed? This doesn't discriminate against any particular ethnic group, and it certainly does discriminate against either gender or any religions, so I can see no basis for the argument. The primary line of defense is that we should remember that our "forefathers were once immigrants, too". Yeah, so what? They shouldn't have held federal jobs until they were citizens either.

Now, unconstitutional? How? In what part of the Constitution does it state that federal jobs must be available to non-citizens? Oh wait, it isn't there. And do you know why? Because the Constitution was written for American citizens! If another two years will pass before your are eligible for U.S. citizenship, then another two years should pass before you are eligible to be a federalized airport security screener.

Hey, we federalized airport security, which many others and I claimed would not make airport security any better than it was before because federalization has nothing to do with security efficiency. It's just one more thing for Big Government to control. The Congress we all elected voted to federalize airport security, and now we must deal with their laws for it. If you didn't want to lose your job, you should have complained like Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Reynolds, or myself before your job was federalized.

January 17, 2002 @ 23:25

Some bad news. Do you remember any of my past ramblings about the "richer" portion of our population paying way more than their fair share of taxes? Probably not, unless you're Tony, because no one else remembers political facts unless they're involved in the game. Well, think about it this way: unless you're at the very bottom of the tax bracket, making just barely enough to pay a tiny bit of income tax, then you're paying way more income tax than your fair share.

In 1999, the richest 1% of the population made roughly 19% of all the income in the country. (If you just thought, "what an outrage!", move to Europe.) Okay, so maybe it isn't "fair" that less than 1/100 of Americans can make more than 1/6 of Americans' income, but that is not nearly as bad or unfair as those same few paying more than 1/3 of America's income taxes!

If you want a real comparison that a teenager can understand, let's look at it this way. You and Steve have the same job, but you work more hours. Steve makes $15,000 for the year, and you make $25,000 before taxes. Uncle Sam comes and pockets your taxes, and Steve is left with $12,000, and you're left with $16,000. You both work the same job, for the same company, for the same hourly rate, but because you made more money, Uncle Sam is taking a much larger percentage from you! You just lost 36% of your income, and Steve only lost 20% of his; your income before taxes wasn't even twice as much as Steves, but you were taxed three times as much. Is that fair? No! (By the way, I know that this is a very crude example. It's just meant to get the point across, not to be realistic.)

Of course, then there's this scary fact: the richest half of our country - the millions of people who in total make exactly 50% of the total income - pay 96% of the income taxes. What the hell?! The bottom 50% - not the bottom 140 million people, but the bottom 200 million or so who make up the lower 50% of the total income, pay only 4% of the taxes. That means that people with real jobs are footing the bill for these pay-nothings who rake in the welfare checks that the over-achieving, over-tax-paying "evil rich" pay!

I haven't formed this argument very well, and for that I apologize. But I think you understand my point. It is absolutely wrong that any person should pay a greater percentage of his earnings simply because he earned more. He made the choices to earn the position he's in to make the money that he made, and because of that he pays a greater percentage of it. What ever happened to the virtues of humility, responsibility, accountability? Be responsible for your own actions. Be accountable for whatever results may come. And, above all, don't be embarrassed by humility - it's one of the seven virtues! (You know, the seven that oppose the seven deadly sins?)

Ann Coulter and a discussion on the nickd mailing list have got me thinking: who gets to decide what "minorities" should be included and excluded in the "politically correct" version of Ground Zero statue? Here's the story, if you live under a rock and are therefore unaware: there is a somewhat famous photo of three firefighters at Ground Zero in Manhattan hoisting up an American flag, very similar in nature to the Iwa Jima picture. All three of the firefighters are white (or "Caucasian" for the politically correct crowd), but the statue will represent them as one white, one black, and one Hispanic.

I'm with Neal Boortz on this one. I am by no means offended by small actions for the sake of diversity, but when it comes to replacing fact with fiction, to forsaking historical accuracy so that the past may reflect better, well... that's ridiculous. I think I read about this in 1984... something about "down the memory hole" with historical accuracy, and in with the new history that reflects better on "The State". I agree with Michael Barone: the bad half of American domestic politics is becoming quite statist.

So back to my question. Many people have praised this "diverse" statue, but what about the two firefighters who are being replaced by black and Hispanic men? What if one wishes to tell his grandson, "That was me". "But that man's black, grandpa!" Or what about Asians? Or women? Who gets to decide what qualifies as ethnically diverse? Who gets to decide which "minorities" to include and exclude?

Why can't anyone get it through their thick skulls? We are one nation. We are all part of the same majority; we are Americans. We are all equal and like minorities; we are individuals. I, a suburban, white, lower-middle class male, am no lesser or greater an American than an urban, black, upper-class female. We are no different as Americans! She is American and I am American. She is an individual and I am an individual. If we were to have a conversation, we would treat each other as equals, even if our ethnicity, politics, and social class vary greatly. No amount of distinction can separate the fact that we are both Americans with our own distinct identities.

But so many millions of Americans band together in groups to put down others (or more accurately in today's context, to raise themselves, which is the same thing). It boggles my mind that we have let this come so far. Since long before Abraham Lincoln, Americans have sought equal opportunity, but instead promote overall equality. Don't you understand? Equality is impossible! Be thankful for your differences and focus on something worthwhile. We will never succeed in providing equality for all, so spend your time more wisely - educate yourself. You can never learn too much.

We all think we know it all once in a while, but aren't you always learning something new? Every new moment is something new, something that had not been previously experienced, new knowledge! Wouldn't it be great, then, if we could all make use of our ability constantly to learn new things? Let's not be proud to pursue equality, but proud to celebrate our inequality!

The end.

January 17, 2002 @ 18:02

Article of the day. Monica Lewinsky is tired of being equated to a sexual act of derogatory jokes. (I'd be tired of it too if I had gone down on the President. Really tired of it.) Hey, Monica! Just be thankful that it was the President...you know, as opposed to someone like Gary Condit. At least you're still around to face the humiliation (which is a virtue, by the way). On a related note, the search for Chandra Levy is turning into a criminal investigation, and Gary Condit is increasingly becoming the focus of the investigation.

On a sad note, the X-Files is coming to a close in May at the end of its ninth season. I haven't missed an episode since the fourth season, and I'm sure that I've seen all but one or two from the first three seasons, thanks to reruns. Maybe David Duchovny will think about returning for the last few episodes of the series before it vanishes for good. That would make a lot of X-Files fans happy, including me!

Finally, this is an interesting start to this article:

January 16, 2002 @ 18:17

Break from politics! The Atlanta Braves yesterday traded right fielder Brian Jordan, pitcher Odalis Perez, and minor league pitcher Andy Brown to the Los Angeles Dodgers for Gary Sheffield. This has got to be the Braves' best move since the Braves acquired Fred McGriff on my birthday in 1993. I would only say that that move was better because we didn't give up any players near as good as Brian Jordan at that time. Sheffield is nearly twenty months younger than Jordan and is arguably a much better player (and is much more expensive). Of course, one can understand that Brian Jordan doesn't like the news quite as much as the average Braves fan (even I don't like losing Jordan, but baseball is business...):

[Atlanta Braves General Manager John Schuerholz] said, "We made a trade today and we got Sheffield." I was like, "Wow! Cool! Improve the team. That's awesome." Then he said, "You were involved in the trade." And I said, "You gotta be kidding me." ...I hung up on him. I was just shocked.

As a Braves fan, I'm happy! But now I must enter governed mode - governed by school and work. Homework is recommended, and attending classes and work is a must, while this web site is only a hobby. I should have plenty of time to play with it outside of class, on slow days, etc., but be forewarned that traffic will be slow over the next four months or so.

January 16, 2002 @ 17:54

Things like this really piss me off. I won't go into spilling the details of either event, except with this question: has anyone else noticed that both guns are described as .380 caliber automatic or semiautomatic? That likely means nothing, but if they turn out to be the same type of gun, there would at least be room to investigate that. (I'm in a speculative mood. I have to be, since being in school again means that the majority of my day is spent taking someone else's word for it as they pound new information into my skull. What's worse is that I usually know conflicting information, but that comes with the territory.)

If you haven't already, you really need to read Glenn Reynolds's new column about Enron. In it, he asserts that "the facts probably won't matter much anyway", but what does matter is "the ability to manipulate the press and the appearance-game that passes for political ethics in Washington". He covers his topic very well, and I'm beginning to think that he needs to write a polemical book, if for no better reason than to entertain people like me and to educate others.

January 16, 2002 @ 10:30

I spent about half an hour to an hour last night writing up a JavaScript and new style sheet so that Netscape 4 users, despite their need for upgrade or death, may view my web site. I have decided that the best reason for including them is that my school seems to like Netscape 4 over the wealth of more recent (and free) browsers available, including Netscape 6 and Internet Explorer 6.

It isn't a great accomplishment, nor one that I ever cared to accomplish, but it is kinda neat. And Claire might be able to see my site from work now.

And speaking of work, I have a job. If you're wondering why I haven't told you personally, it's because it isn't really all that exciting to me. I'm a college student taking nineteen hours of classes which pretty much takes up all of my time except what I spend trying to relax and do homework, and now I will probably have to find other time to do that, or not do it at all. And because homework is necessary in my situation, my web site will likely begin to suffer noticeably. Ah, I can't wait for Spring Break - er, I mean Winter Break - now.

January 15, 2002 @ 16:57

In Domestic Issues today, Dr. Tate divided the class into groups of roughly five people apiece and told us to discuss something. As one of the goals of the class is to develop discussion skills, it is probably helpful to note that he intends for people of varying political backgrounds to discuss things about which they will disagree. That said, my group consisted of Tony ("ardent Republican"), me (Republican-voting libertarian), two black girls (presumably Democrats, but I could be wrong), and another woman whose politics I can not exactly figure out. To disguise my surprise I shall put it midly: our discussion was smooth and calm.

Tony kicked things off by introducing the South Dakota state legislation that would prohibit any South Dakotan from running for any two public offices. If you recall, the current law states that no South Dakotan may run for any two offices unless one of the offices is the Presidency or Vice Presidency, and the Republican legislator wants the loophole closed in the name of fairness. He asserts that the legislation is not aimed at Senator Tom Daschle, but any one will know that that has something to do with it.

I had two things that I eventually offered for this part of the discussion. First, that we do not know whether it is directly aimed at Daschle or not. It could have been suggested before and is only receiving press now because of who Daschle is, or it may be getting attention now simply because the loophole has been exposed due to Daschle's situation. (Nevermind that several other states already have laws preventing public officials from running for any two offices simultaneously.)

The other point I offered was a good one, my group decided. I suggested that we take a look at precisely what this legislation, if it were to pass, would really do. It would only prevent Senator Daschle from running for two offices within the state of South Dakota; it is a state law and can not regulate his running for the Presidency, but because he can only be elected Senator from his state, it can regulate his being re-elected to the Senate. Therefore, should he decide to run for both offices, he would not be able to include his name on the presidential ballot come election time. The state legislation can not prevent a man from running for both offices, but it can prevent state support of one or the other. If he chooses to receive state support for his Senatorial campaign, he can easily find outside support for his presidential campaign. Besides, South Dakota carries how many (three?) electoral votes? It would not be the destruction of Daschle should he fail to carry his own state, but the negative press surrounding the passing of this law, should it pass, could have an adverse effect.

Anyway. We also discussed other potential Democratic presidential candidates and the economy and tax issues. I am certain that we briefly mentioned other topics, but those were our big three. We focused on highly partisan issues and somehow emerged from bipartisan debate. There was no bickering, no overly emotional remarks, no irrationality. Just peaceful discussion.

Do you know what the key to rational political discussion is? When you think someone is wrong, don't let them know that in debate. Instead, ask them to consider the issue from another perspective. "Have you ever thought about it this way?" It comes out so much more nicely than, "That's just not how it is!" Instead of telling a person that he/she is wrong, appeal to the person's rationality. Offer another perspective for consideration, and whether that persuades the person or not, he/she is at least aware of one more perspective, and that's better than nothing.

January 15, 2002 @ 16:30

Big baseball news! Barry Bonds was wearing a Yankees uniform! (I'll pause while Tony chokes on a pretzel.) Well, he was, but Gary Sheffield told him that he looked like crud and that he looked better in a Giants uniform. The Giants think so too; they re-signed Bonds to a five-year, $90 million contract. But that's not the kicker. This is: "the deal also calls for a 10-year personal service contract - with the Giants to pay $1 million annually to the Bonds Family Foundation - after his playing career is over."

Man, if some stupid franchise offered me all of that, I would have put my name down for another five years too! I admire the athletes (who make millions more than the average American doing nothing more than entertaining the masses) quite a lot; they are perfect examples of talent paying off. However, I don't have much respect at all for the owners who exploit a few dozen men and pay them millions of dollars to play games. But hey, that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to play for one. I'd settle for minimum wage as a major league baseball player - that's $200,000 per year!

January 15, 2002 @ 14:49

Note to self: never earn a speeding ticket in Finland. In Finland, "traffic fines are not just based on the seriousness of the infringement, they're also tied to the offender's income, and there's no limit". Nokia executive Anssa Vanjoki has learned firsthand the harshness of such a law (which is perfectly fair, and is how the law should be in America, in my opinion); he has received a speeding ticket for traveling at 46 miles per hour in a 31-mile-per-hour zone (I am guessing that those numbers are converted from kilometers per hour). Because his net income was approximately $5.2 million in 1999, Vanjoki's speeding ticket is priced at roughly $103,000.

Vanjoki is arguing that, because his income in 2000 was significantly less - under one million dollars - the fine of more than 10% of his income is ridiculous. In a previous case, a fine was slashed from $45,000 to $119 when the defendant's income was shown to have dropped significantly.

I agree with proportioning fines for traffic violations to the "danger afflicted", but I can also see how this law can promote quite unreasonable fines at times. But, in any case, I'm sure that few rich Finnish citizens are caught speeding, which is definitely a good thing.

January 14, 2002 @ 19:42

According to Kevin James, a member of the Vulcan Society, "symbolism is far more important than representing the actual people, [and] the artistic expression of diversity would supersede any concern over factual correctness". Neal Boortz translates this to mean "political correctness should count more than the truth". I think it's horrible that we have ourselves sink so low as to represent lies in order to be politically correct. No, it does not bother me that a black man is being included in the sculpture when the moment depicted in the sculpture did not include a black man. The only thing that bothers me about it are James's comments. I would not have been offended or even upset had he kept his mouth shut. It seems, though, that he's trying to turn it into a victory for political correctness and, worse, for racial concerns. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

January 14, 2002 @ 19:28

Glenn Reynolds knows why liberal politicians and pundits are so quick to turn to "scandal" before any evidence of political impropriety involving the Bush administration: "Now that so many of these guys have disgraced themselves by being so utterly wrong on Afghanistan, it's natural for them to want to move the market into an area they're more familiar with." Yeah, I'd say the last eight years of the twentiety century acquainted them with that "market" pretty well.

January 14, 2002 @ 19:14

What's scarier than Mariah Carey in a mob movie? (Didn't think it could get much worse, did you?) That national ID cards will soon be a reality! Why? Because there really is no good reason, at least not to the people that "count", for our drivers' licenses not to contain such data as fingerprints, digital photos, and such. "The goal is to improve security following the attacks of September 11", but for every good intention our government has, there are scores of ulterior motives and thousands of others that would like to mess it up.

"Some have called for the creation of a formal national identity card system. But that would be an expensive undertaking and is opposed by many who fear it would dangerously centralize too much personal information." The implications contain more potential for bad than for good. When a state must resort to monitoring its subjects for "security", the state is taking the interstate bypass, the easy way around the downtown traffic, a shortcut on the journey toward totalitarianism.

The proposed upgrades to the state licenses are seen as an intermediate step, and haven't drawn nearly as much criticism. In fact, some analysts say the changes are long overdue as licenses have become necessary for all sorts of daily activities, from opening a bank account to boarding an airplane.

I can live with a fingerprint and photo on a card, but I'm quite sure that it doesn't stop there. Big government wants every statistical aspect of your life available conveniently so that it may keep track. Have you ever heard advice along the lines that you should never keep all of your eggs in one basket? The analogy is simple enough: if you keep everything in one place, it's much easier to steal.

I don't like the idea that any terrorist or criminal would automatically know that every law-abiding citizen in the country had gobs of personal information on him at every time. You see, this benefits criminals because they are the ones with malicious intentions! No one who is following all of the laws will benefit from any national ID cards directly, but criminals who specialize in fraud quiet easily could. It's the same story with Democrats' pushing for gun registration laws; no (potential) criminal who intends to use a gun illegally would obtain one through the registration process - that's traceable! A criminal will obtain a gun in some other manner, so only the law-abiding citizens would be inconvenienced by such a law.

But anyway, back to Mariah Carey's movie. Roger Friedman has good and bad things to say about her. In her new movie Wise Girls, says Friedman,

She doesn't have responsibility for the whole movie, and this time - as opposed to the god-awful Glitter - it works....Even though she tends to wear skimpy outfits as usual, her line delivery is sharp and she manages to get the right laughs. She shows good comedic timing in places where you wouldn't expect her to get it right."

Of course, the movie sucks, especially in comparison to The Godfather or even The Sopranos, but Carey's getting better! Why does this matter? Um, I'm not sure... I guess because people are interested in Mariah Carey.

January 14, 2002 @ 02:38

Tony points me to another article. Have you ever heard the claim that the world is heating up because of us? Because of human irresponsibility, global warming is accelerating? Yeah, I didn't believe it either. If the globe is truly warming, it is out of our hands to control, at least at this point. (We may as well initiate development of huge spaceships in the shape of maids to clean up the atmosphere, if it is really our responsibility to fix the earth - and it isn't, so long as we don't dump oil into rivers and throw paper cups and cans on the ground.)

Anyway, this article reveals facts that, on the surface, provide that the earth may not be heating up at all, and that it is only going through another of its endless supply of phases:

The Antarctic has cooled during the past 35 years despite the worldwide temperature rise...[which] challenges the belief that global warming is raising temperatures across the whole of the southern continent....A drop in Antarctic temperatures is a puzzle because most climate models suggest that polar regions should respond first and most rapidly to worldwide temperature changes.

I guess some politicians just want to have control over everything, so they assert something that can not be proven until after years of careful research that can not accurately be tested, and so they are essentially allowed to take control despite that it can not be proven that anything can be done. That's like me assuming control of a canoe as it topples over a waterfall. Hmm, if I just row a little harder, maybe I can... Who am I kidding? Rowing while falling down a waterfall might change my trajectory at the very most, but will have no effect on the eventual outcome, which I would guess to be "splash" or "splat", or perhaps a messy combination (which is what environmental "experts" seem to be providing for us).

Don't get me wrong. I don't mind environmentalists in favor of preserving rainforests and such, but when it comes to confiscating hundreds of square miles and forcing people off of their land in order to save some endangered species that will one day be extinct anyway - so what's the point in delaying the inevitable? - I draw a line. And another line. And another. And another. And they come together to form crosshairs, in the center of which you will find some very annoying environmentalist's forehead.

I must be very tired; I would ordinarily not draw such an analogy. So good night.

January 14, 2002 @ 02:21

This Enron thing is proving to be more interesting than I thought. According to this informative report to which Tony pointed me, Democratic officials, which still assert that this is a political scandal as big as Watergate, say that "they will explore whether the [Bush] administration could have done more to protect employees and shareholders".

STOP THE PRESSES! The Democrats are paddling up the creek! Is it just me, or did that just say that they are accusing the Republican administration of not helping out the big corporation? But, wait a minute, that can't be right, because big politics is tied to big business all over the place! Right? Right?!

I predicted that the Democrats would turn a 180, but I thought that they would do so with economics long before they would do so with business. I suppose the two are closely related, though, so perhaps they're not done, or perhaps they don't realize what they're doing. Either way, good job!

January 14, 2002 @ 02:12

"You register a stress percentage of 12%, which barely registers. Get a job. Your Stress Test answers indicate that to reduce your stress level even further you should eliminate at least one of the following from your life immediately: consciousness." Well, I would have been the first to tell you that stress barely registers in my life, but I had to settle for second, since TheSpark's Stress Test results told you instead. Feel free to take any number of TheSpark's Tests and link your results to mine; the email address I use with it is jpmccord@neotope.com. Did you know that I'm only 84% compatible with myself from a year ago?

January 13, 2002 @ 17:52

The final word on the N'Sync / Star Wars connection is in, and boy, what a difference a fan base can make. Complaints from Star Wars fans have paid off, and for better or for worse, the band has been cut from Episode II. (Tony cheers. Loudly.) So what's keeping Jar Jar Binks in the film?

Another thing that I would like to point to those of you who like to fiddle around with web development languages, tools, and toys should really like the tutorials (or toys) the professor has put together for my Advanced Web Development class. He claims that he really likes to "tinker with things", and the detail of these tutorials prove it. Go ahead... knock yourself out.

January 13, 2002 @ 17:10

Today my family and I are celebrating the eighty-fifth anniversary of my father's mother's screaming entrance into this world. The anniversary is actually tomorrow, January 14, but we celebrate today because the weekend is just more convenient for such a gathering. Both of her sons and most of her grandchildren were, are, or will be present (those in other parts of the state and country are excused). As is expected of any gathering in this family, the celebration is focused on (aside from the guest of honor) the food. Everyone but the grandchildren has prepared something for the feast which shall be devoured in about one hour.

That said, I hope no one minds that I have not added the results to question four to the web site yet. They are in HTML and are ready for your perusal, except that they have not been proofread yet; I always proofread anything that goes onto my web site that I have not written.

Also, should my writing style ever affect you (whether you love it, hate it, or just can't figure it out), let me know. Tell me what I'm doing right, wrong, differently, or similarly. Or, since I do not expect anyone to do such a thing, just think, "That's an odd way of saying that", and ignore it. (And nevermind that it's actually the correct way of saying it, as opposed to the popular and incorrect way of saying it.)

January 12, 2002 @ 18:31

Is this what CNN means when they say that Bush and Democrats are calling for agreement on the budget? If it is, it doesn't impress me much. Right about now might be the best time Republicans have ever had or will ever have to try to knock out a few government programs and reduce government spending, but instead President Bush is taking the "bi-partisanship" route. Sure, the win-some-lose-some philosophy might be admirable at times, but not when it means that 300,000,000 Americans need to continue to pay for wasteful government programs and projects.

What is your government's job? To provide things for you? NO! To protect your ability to get things for yourself? Sure. To manage and to control you? NO! To protect you? Sure. It is our job, as citizens of the United States, to manage and to control our government, not the other way around. You are supposed to use your freedoms and liberties protected - not granted - by your government to do things for yourself; your government should not do things for you. If you don't know where I get these ideas, read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the two most important documents regarding American spirit and policy with which every American should be very familiar. The Declaration of Independence all but defined the attitude that separated colonial America from its motherland, and that definition still rings true today - if people would only care to familiarize themselves with it and realize it. The difference between democracy/republicanism and socialism/communism is the difference between protecting and granting freedom and liberty.

But back to the budget "problem". From the Fox News article: "The $5.6 trillion surplus projected over the next ten years has been reduced to $1.8 trillion. As a result of the dim economic outlook, political partisans have already begun the drumbeat over who is to blame." What the hell? There should be no blame to be assigned, but credit to be given to whomever is responsible for the diminishing surplus! Looking at the numbers, we are still predicting a surplus, meaning American tax payers are still paying the government more than it needs!.

Yes, a $1.8 trillion surplus indicates a "dim economic outlook", but not because the surplus is shrinking, but because it is not shrinking enough. The closer to zero the budget surplus is each year, the less American tax payers are wastefully throwing away into government hands.

The term "budget surplus" is simply a euphemism for "over-taxation". America has a history of not treating over-taxation very kindly, and it boggles my mind that we have let it come this far.

But back to the "bi-partisanship" issue. Both the President and Democrats seem to agree that the budget, in the near future, "should concentrate on security and economic issues". The CNN article clarifies this side of the story, but agrees that "disagreements remain to be worked out on how best to revive the economy". I can not imagine Democrats agreeing with Bush on economic issues, unless they are coming out of their balderdaschlical shells and facing the facts - specifically the fact that every major tax cut in American history has been immediately followed by economic improvement.

January 12, 2002 @ 17:35

Here are a few of my current top priorities:

Organize for new semester. This includes moving file folders from last semester into the "Old" section and creating new file folders for my current classes as they need them. This also includes punching holes in all handouts from each class so far received, as well as figuring out some convenient means of writing down and remembering homework assignments from one class to the next. This also includes actually doing homework.

Announce the mp3. Not the mp3 of the day or week, but just the "mp3". Because I seem to have other things on my agenda, the "mp3otd" seems to have lost its place here. Similar reasoning lies behind my updating the quotation at the top of the main page precisely "whenever the hell I want" - I do not know when I will be encouraged or inspired to replace an old quotation in favor of a new one, so there is no defined interval between one and the next. The same is true with wonderful music - I do not know when I will be inspired to stop repeating one mp3 over and over in favor of another, so it will no longer be referred to as the "mp3 of the day", but simply as the "mp3". I think I will also begin allowing visitors to download the mp3 from this web site.

Get a job. Believe me, I'm working on this. One job just expired, and another was allegedly opening up for me, but my supervisor-to-be informed me, after she had told me the opposite for weeks, that there was no position available for me. My next-most-likely option, which has nothing to do with school, involves shelving books - manual labor - at a public library for fifty cents per hour more than I would have made working at school. So there. (I'll know about the library job by Thursday.) If that fails, I will continue to fill out applications around Macon until someone bites. Barnes & Noble, Best Buy, and Media Play are on my list.

Update web site. This is always a priority, but today it includes creating a page for and adding all of the answers to the short-answer "poll" (question) I asked of my readers a little over a month ago. I plan to do so between now and midnight tonight, but I am a procrastinator. I am also working on a new header graphic that more closely represents me in general, which is what this web site is really about. It may seem to you as though it