February 28, 2002, @ 22:33

Michael Greene began his speech at the Grammy Awards show well last night. Good evening, music is wonderful, glad you're tuned in. Nice. It turned around after about forty seconds. I particularly like the title given on the Grammy's web site: "The Insidious Virus of Illegal Music Downloading".

What can I say about Greene's speech? Factually, he was nothing but correct, or I must assume that he was because I have no proof to the contrary. That bothers me little. What bothers me, however, is that he conveniently misrepresented or avoided altogether any factual information which could be used to support the opposing view – this is known to many as having a closed mind. (It also looks to me like his speech is not entirely represented on the web site. Hmm.)

Greene essentially argued that the entire music industry is at "serious risk". Out of respect for the artists and for the law, internet users should refrain from downloading music illegally. Greene is very careful to speak in general terms, because he knows that when it gets down to the specifics, the people disagree. Yes, when it comes down to respect, people don't want to break the law. But when the law is absolutely ridiculous, it will not be observed.

Here's how I see it. Before the internet, listeners only heard music from three sources, two of which were radio and television. In other words, listeners heard what the industry wanted them to hear, because the industry had nearly complete control over what music made it, what didn't, and what was commercialized; independent artists were considered extremely rare. In towns like Warner Robins for people like me, this meant nothing but southern rock, country, and the same top forty songs over and over (urban hip hop hit in the mid 1990s). I was basically exposed only to my parents' music plus whatever the crappy radio stations, MTV, and VH1 could offer.

Enter the internet, specifically its file-sharing capacity. Gradually, people were exposed to all types and blends of music from all over the earth. As a result, the industry executives no longer hold absolute control over what music internet users choose to hear. I was no longer trapped in a world of bad rock, pop, rap, and country, but free to roam in a world of endless variety, from techno to punk to jazz to metal... As a result, my CD collection took off. I was exposed to a much greater variety of music than ever before, and my CD collection necessarily had to represent the trend.

And so I expose the facts the music industry doesn't want you to know. CD sales took off before Napster was shut down. The music industry was losing nothing, and in fact had gained, but had Napster shut down because of the potential that they might lose power. After that slap to the face, music lovers across America have responded with an equally rude kick to the music industry's groin: we've found every imaginable way to get around Napster to download everything we could possibly want, and we've stopped emptying our pockets for every CD we want. We have essentially given them the result they didn't want ... and all because they took away our freedom.

Enter copy-protected CDs. James returns home from a successful trip to the CD store and hurredly unwraps his highly anticipated new album. He pops it into his laptop's CD-ROM. Nothing happens. He waits for a few seconds, and nothing continues to happen. He analyzes the CD and surfs the 'net for information. Lo and behold, the culprit is the new technology of copy-protected CDs, which come with that unfortunate side effect in most CD devices.

What will happen next? Will copy-protected CDs become the norm? If they do, many people will boycott the music industry and record labels, and they know it. Independent artists who love to sell their music cheap will thrive. The music will win in the end, and the money-grubbing, power-hungry executives will think America has gone to hell.

Another likely scenario is that an all new, much more efficient method of copying CDs will become mainstream. Example: run audio cables from your stereo to your sound card and convert the incoming sound to [insert format here].

Memo to the RIAA: You can't block every available technology for the sake of taking in more dollars than your job is worth. The artists do the work, you promote it, and you get all the money? At some point, you have to make a sacrifice for the common good and give the people what they want. The people have spoken; the music will win.

February 28, 2002, @ 21:57

So I was sidetracked, you see, and I misplaced my agenda for February sometime around the fifteenth, and I forgot to remember to keep up with my tribute to African Americans. Still, I have saved one for today, the final day of black history month.

The purpose of black history month, ever since Dr. Carter Woodson intiated "Negro History Week" in 1926, is to research, recognize, and respect American history with no bias against blacks. Because today's ridiculous political correctness movement discourages the use of the word black and instead refers to any person of said quality to be "African American", I will use that term. However, not all African Americans are black, and not all black people are African Americans.

Point one: Tony came to me with an anecdote a few days ago. I do not know the truth of the story because I have not research it myself, but the idea represented is clear enough. A story was written for a major news organization that involved a black man; the article used the word black to describe the man. The news organization refused to run the story unless the writer used the term African American. The term was changed, the story ran, and the man subsequently sued the news organization for misrepresentation of fact – the man is not American; he is Jamaican. Therefore, the news organization misrepresented him, or essentially lied to the American public to be "politically correct" over a detail that shouldn't matter anyway. (By the way, I made up the bit about the lawsuit; the point is that it could happen.)

Point two: Dave Matthews and the majority of the Dave Matthews Band were born and raised in Africa; they are therefore African Americans. However, if you have noticed, Dave Matthews is clearly white. So how is it fair to refer to a class of people by something that they all are not? All black people do not share the common trait that they are African Americans; the majority of black people are not Americans at all. All African Americans do not share the common trait that they are black, though most of them do.

Which do you prefer: factually correct or politically correct? I would much rather know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, than a doctored, pretty-painted, inaccurate representation of what the truth should be. Truth often hurts, but it's always right.

February 28, 2002, @ 21:34

So this is the product of our "new and improved" airport security force: "325 delayed flights and hundreds of passengers evacuated"! In recent weeks airport security forces in Kentucky and New York have had problems of their own, each resulting in similar delays. Federalization of airport security workers has done nothing to improve security, but the added rules as a result of federalization have certainly delayed thousands of people for countless hours.

Sleeping screeners. Unplugged metal detectors. Turning flights around because there was confusion about one man's improperly checked bag. Is it just me, or is airport security as good (or bad) as it always was? The only difference, it seems to me, is that we pay attention when idiots are busted on the job.

February 28, 2002, @ 21:23

This was submitted by Tommy:

February 27, 2002 @ 18:30

School, work, and I were too demanding to allow me to devote much time to my web site this month, and as a result, I forgot to keep up with my little tribute to black history month. So even when I did have free time to recognize another person, I didn't remember to think of it because it wasn't freshly on my mind. Notables that I meant to mention are Ali (the most recognized black person in the planet's history), King (self-explanatory), and a few who should be remembered when others are instead. (For instance, Jackie Robinson is remembered as the first black baseball player in major league baseball; he's not, but he is the first to have the impact that he did because of his talent.)

Aside from that, expect changes around the site soon. By "soon", I might mean next week, and I might mean before before May. Time is relative, and tasks which I am undertaking are relatively time-consuming. In any event, you'll realize the inevitable when it slaps you in the face.

Entertainment news: The Grammy Awards will be handed out tonight. I will be watching. I will be hoping for the Moulin Rouge soundtrack to win several awards, but it will not because it is not nominated for many, despite that it is better than all but maybe two other soundtracks released in the eligibility period... blah, whatever. The Grammys are hardly representative of pop culture. I dislike the Grammys more and more every year... Why do people care about them, again?

I bought the Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back DVD and volume 2 of the Moulin Rouge soundtrack today. I have opened neither, but they both rule. So there.

February 25, 2002 @ 22:20

Cindy Nessing's letter to the editor in Sunday's Macon Telegraph tickled my funny bone. I don't suppose you would care if you're not familiar with the great-but-deteriorating-because-its-mayor-is-an-idiot city of Macon, but I think you can follow it:

See Jack

See Jack run

See Jack run for mayor of Macon

See Jack run off the police chief

See Jack run off Macon Braves

See Jack put up privacy fence

See Jack not follow zoning standards for privacy fence

See Jack try to get city of Macon to pay for private security system

See Jack have hourly police check while other citizens hide behind locked doors

See Jack have private, chauffeur-driven car paid for by the city of Macon

See Jack have private driver who makes lots of overtime while police force short staffed

See Jack pull over private motorist using police lights

See Jack go to Atlanta

See Jack take campaign contributions

See Jack not know where he was when he took campaign contributions

See Jack at office of campaign contributors retire campaign debt

See Jack give campaign contributors city contract

See Jack sign contract

See Jack not know contract was a contract

See Jack not know campaign donations over the state limit

See Jack backtrack

See Jack...

What's next?

The city of Macon does not dislike its mayor because he's black. The city of Macon dislikes its mayor because he is a very bad mayor. But, the city of Macon being forty-seven percent black, there should be little doubt in anyone's mind that a significant portion of the population in Macon that voted for him did so simply because he was black. That being the case, I am frightened. This example perfectly describes why I am afraid of urban centers. (Not because of the black-ness, but because I generally dislike the prevalent political forces in urban areas, and because they rule and I dislike them.) Yay, Suburbia!

February 25, 2002 @ 19:00

I just realized that the last twelve posts or so were a day off; I have been behind by one day for the past four days. I thought today was February 24. It didn't hit me that today is February 25 until I realized that CDs, DVDs, and such are always released on Tuesdays, and I have known for weeks that Volume 2 of the Moulin Rouge soundtrack and the Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back DVD will be released on February 26. That's tomorrow, meaning today has to be February 25.

Brilliant deduction, self. Perhaps later you can learn how to use a calendar.

And Adam, you can start looking for the egg now. No cheating! At least not until the end of class...

February 24, 2002 @ 18:32

Mmm. Orgasm for my brain:

David Duchovny will reprise his role as FBI Agent Fox Mulder when he stars in the two-hour series finale of The X-Files Sunday, May 19 (8:00-10:00pm) on FOX.... The final five episodes will begin to provide highly anticipated answers to many of the show's most-asked questions, culminating in the two-hour finale in which Agent Mulder is reunited with Agent Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) after having gone missing for the past year. Also, the final episodes of the series will examine many of the pieces involved in the long-running mythology that has continued throughout the show's nine seasons.

The greatest television program I have ever watched (so far), probably because of its timing (age 11 to 19), is wrapping up in exactly the way I hoped it would! I speak not of the plot – I know that I will be satisfied with the plot – but I am absolutely thrilled that Duchovny/Mulder will return for the end.

Hell, I knew he would. Not doing so would only piss off legions of X-Files fans, and his budding big-screen career doesn't need that.

DO NOT even try to bother me when the X-Files airs until after May 19. I will laugh at you, if you're lucky.

February 24, 2002 @ 08:58

In response to yesterday's post about the law prohibiting any potential South Dakota candidate from running for two public offices, Dave had this to say:

I'm not supporting Daschle; however, one could say it's unfair because that law isn't in effect nationwide, so another candidate could run for both simultaneously, but he can't. What about equal protection under the law? If it involves nationwide offices, then I think it should be a nationwide standard. However, that would probably require a constitutional amendment.

But several states do have similar or same restrictions imposed, just as several, but not all, states enforce term limits on public officials. I think it certainly is fair, because one benefit of there being fifty states is that we get to choose which system of the fifty best fits our interests. From geographic location to legislative structure, we have a virtually infinite amount of variables to play with and fifty states from which to choose... and then there's counties, municipalities, school districts, not to mention Washington DC, the city with national representation...

It's definitely fair, in my opinion. The Constitution dictates the powers of the federal government, and those not explicitly expressed are reserved for the states. There are, of course, implied powers as given by the elastic clause...

I don't think laws should be made to make every state equal, and certainly not in this sense. That would defeat the purpose of having separate states in the first place. A Senatorial or Presidential office is a national office, yes, but you have to have your name on the ballot in your home state, too. And electing Senators isn't national; they represent the entire nation as a whole, but only states as individuals (or as pairs of individuals).

So, in sniffing for a loophole, I still ask this: If Daschle ran for re-election to his Senate seat in South Dakota and won the presidential primary for the Democratic nomination, could he run for president by listing his name on the ballots of forty-nine states? Could he run for president and not campaign in his home state at all? A state law should not be able to prohibit that, so I would be curious to know exactly how this plays out.

February 24, 2002 @ 00:03

I changed the colors of the subtitle bars and the links (on mouse over) to red to give the page a more patriotic look. It isn't much, but I was tired of the same old blue every where. I hope you don't mind.

In other news, I have typed three pages of single-spaced notes in ten-point Times New Roman on Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone ... after reading eight pages of the book. The assignment was to turn in five-to-ten pages of notes on our book of choice before Spring Break, meaning by Thursday of this week. Because he is probably assuming that everyone will turn in five-to-ten pages on notebook paper in scattered form, and because my notes are organized in paragraph form and already are comprised of more than two thousand words, I think I have more than satisfied the assignment ... except that I have not even completed chapter one of the book yet. So, in other words, he'll likely get about twenty pages of notes, and I'll tell him, "Sorry, but this is just the way I take notes", and he'll just have to deal with it.

Maybe I should double-space them and raise the size to twelve-point so that (he can read them more easily) I can hand him thirty pages. Geez. Maybe there are times when not giving my all is justified. But, well, I actually want notes on this book... so overworking this assignment is entirely justified. I'm such a geek.

February 23, 2002 @ 19:38

I have accidentally begun to read Alan Dean Foster's new book, Star Wars: The Approaching Storm, the sequel to The Phantom Menace and prequel to Attack of the Clones. Episode 1.5, if you will. I say "accidentally" because I had zero intention of reading this book, but it was in my presence, and in a few moments with nothing better to do, I have found myself half finished with Chapter 2. Granted, I am not even five percent of the way through the book, but I am quite interested. It seems that I have suddenly become a fan of trilogies and other epic forms of entertainment.

The currently selected quote is from this book and is spoken by the character Mousul, a Senator from the planet Ansion. That means little to you unless you are a Star Wars fan. If you are one, perhaps you should visit your local library (free rental!) or book store (free reading, but you can't take it with you) and pick a copy of the book up. Or any other book for that matter. Reading is good.

February 23, 2002 @ 17:11

Some weeks ago, I reported that a yet-to-be-proposed bill in the South Dakota state legislator would prohibit a South Dakotan from running for President and for another office simultaneously (within the state of South Dakota). Fox News suggests that this is a "roadblock" for Tom Daschle, but I still believe that there is a major loophole. Daschle could run for both as long he does not officially run his campaign for President in South Dakota. His name would not be on the ballot for President in South Dakota. The problem, of course, lies in whether or not South Dakota could place another Democrat's name in place of Daschle's if Daschle were to gain the Democratic nomination. So, according to how those rules work, the state legislation may or may not be a "roadblock".

Either way, I think it's fair. The state of South Dakota bans any person from running for two public offices simultaneously unless one of those offices is the President or Vice President of the United States. Double standard, anyone? By eliminating a candidate's ability to run for any two offices simultaneously, including President and Vice President, South Dakota's legislature is not only ensuring that it's laws are fair and rid of one more double standard, but it is also hoping to prevent a powerful wannabe-socialist from holding a powerful public position in the United States.

So, I have to ask: How can any one who proclaims that he stands for further equalizing political, social, and economic opportunity and freedom for all assert that the legislation soon to be passed in South Dakota is unfair to Tom Daschle?

February 23, 2002 @ 16:58

Fred Barnes asserts that Democrats will be hurt worse than Republicans by this campaign finance reform legislation. He also asserts that it isn't nearly as bad as previous attempts for campaign finance reform, and is therefore somewhat good, since campaign finance reform is apparently inevitable at some point anyway. He explains himself in column at the Weekly Standard. Not bad for a conservative...

Barnes uses reason and cold, hard facts to explain how some items of the bill are not bad, but are in fact necessary (for various reasons, including inflation). According to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, "Shays-Meehan could produce Armageddon for [Republicans]". According to Barnes, "there's a better chance the measure will aid Republicans in winning the White House, Senate, and House than impede them".

And as with any bill, there are loopholes. Barnes addresses two significant loopholes and explains how this bill is really not so much a reform, but a minor adjustment in from where political campaign funds will come. Contributors who are serious about contributing will know of these loopholes and will continue to contribute to their candidate(s) of choice.

Barnes also addresses the obvious flaw in this bill – the ban of issue ads in the final sixty days before an election. This provision clashes with the first amendment quite nicely, and it is unlikely that the courts will accept it, so it is likely that issue ads will continue to flourish, according to Barnes.

My favorite bit is Barnes's explanation for why Democrats support legislation that will likely hurt them more than their opposition. The reasoning? Liberals think that rich people and corporations are responsible for their ideas not becoming law, so "get the money out and wonderful new regulations will flow". But Barnes suggests that the bill would not "change the campaign equation that much, but whatever impact it [would have] should leave Republicans pleasantly surprised".

Like I said, the more I read into it, the more I like this bill. And I was in favor of campaign finance reform from the start. Never underestimate the power of bias, and never give in without a fight (or, if you do, have good reason).

February 23, 2002 @ 16:02

On March 22, all theatres still showing the Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring will end with a three-and-a-half minute trailer for the sequel, The Two Towers, to be released December 18. In other words, any Lord of the Rings fans should plan to catch the matinee showing of the film on March 22 even if for no better reason than to see the preview before everyone else.

Speaking of the Lord of the Rings, Ian McKellen has earned my respect. In the January 29 E-Post section of McKellen's web site, he answers scores of submitted question about the movie and how it has affected him. I won't begin to get into any of that, except to quote from a couple of his replies:

Why am I so caught up in this film? You would never know that I had absolutely no desire to see the film before I saw it. I knew I would see it eventually, as I try to watch any extremely popular films, but there was no urge to see the Lord of the Rings derived from any previews of the film or prior knowledge of Tolkien's legend (of which I possessed little). Still, I am caught up in the movie and all things about it... Even if I don't show it much.

February 23, 2002 @ 14:21

Japanese consider it whether it isn't Chinese noodles-lover than a Chinese of the home, and it is the Chinese noodle's consumption nation. It loves it, and I eat Chinese noodles early in the morning, too. It is a delicious the Chinese noodle's shop is taken away by media, and long line can in front of store big sale. Soup is white, and "Sal Chinese noodles" to Hokkaido with much do it plainly.

And foreign nations criticize Americans for not knowing their languages... Do yourself a favor: don't try to cook anything by these recipes.

February 23, 2002 @ 13:50

Glenn Harlan Reynolds of InstaPundit has a new column up at Fox News. This time he addresses human cloning, and he addresses it quite well. (I have basically reproduced much of the content of his article here because, well, I know most of you won't click the link. So give Reynolds most of the credit.)

Reynolds essentially points out that there is no good reason, or at least no publicly known good reason, to be against human cloning. That it is bad or wrong or scary or inappropriate means little if there is no good explanation for why such is so. A good Reynolds line: "'Slippery Slope' arguments are well and good, but you must still establish that the bottom of the slope is a bad place."

If cloning is morally wrong because it produces babies that will suffer serious genetic problems, then shouldn't it also be morally wrong for couples who would produce children with other serious genetic problems (such as from an STD) to produce offspring? You can't ban one and not the other, at least not with that reasoning. Besides, this isn't even an argument against cloning; it's an argument against bad cloning. Reynolds knocks the first one out of the park.

If cloning is morally wrong because it will work too well, eliminate or considerably diminish the utility of sexual reproduction, and therefore produce so many successful clones that it will lead to a loss of genetic diversity... Well, if everyone were healthier, it shouldn't matter. Besides, that would finally allow us to prove whether or not [insert anything here] is hereditary or derived by one's environment. Besides, if everyone cloned themselves, we'd have just as much diversity, but twice as many people.

If cloning is morally wrong because it will produce "soulless" zombies, then shouldn't identical twins – natural clones – be considered "soulless" as well? Besides, it is a well known fact that one's environment plays a significant role on the development of the mind, so the zombie in anyone is derived from life, not the means by which its life came about.

If cloning is morraly wrong because it is playing God, against God's will, or what-have-you, then shouldn't God explicitly say so? Once upon a time, taking medicine was against God's will; administering certain medical procedures was playing God. Today they are widely accepted health services.

And then there is the core argument, according to Reynolds: that cloning just frightens people. Their gut feelings tell them that cloning is bad (where is the reasoning in that?). So, tell me, why are the feelings of someone against cloning privileged over the feelings of someone who is not against cloning?

There may be a persuasive and well-founded case against cloning, but it hasn't been made yet in the public sphere. And the prevalence of sloganeering and "mad scientist" references makes me doubt that cloning opponents have much more than you see above. That's too bad, since we're supposed to be having a national debate on the subject. But debates require arguments, not just positions.

Why is cloning bad?!? I am not asking you how it makes you feel. I am asking why it makes you feel that way, why it is bad. And that's question six.

February 23, 2002 @ 12:39

When I mentioned CNN's interview with Bono yesterday, I forgot to bring up the topic about which I intended to write which led me to mention the interview in the first place. This overly dramatized article reminded me of that purpose... and reminded me that Bono is a socialist. (I just stated a fact; please don't try to interpret what I meant by it. I only meant, "Bono is a socialist".)

Other than the obvious fact that socialism clashes horribly with capitalism and therefore violates several a young capitalist's young principles, it is difficult to discourage the advocacy of socialism. By exclaiming that it violates the principles of capitalism, one merely argues from the other side of the argument – makes a heavily biased argument – and gives no serious, open-minded thought to the issue. That, of course, is how most right-wing Americans argue in favor of capitalism (some eighty million Americans, right?), compared to the billions around the world leaning toward socialism who do the exact same thing advocating socialism.

My point: socialists have no better reason than that they are much larger in number to persuade capitalists – the minority – that being selfish and trying to earn one's own place in life is wrong, while working for society as a whole, only keeping the fair share, is right. But, for socialists and capitalists alike, there is a simple reason why neither argument never persuades the other side: neither side appeals to the other's reasoning. The socialist contends that the capitalist is wrong and needs to see the light. This is insulting to capitalists because they generally hold a "live and let live" philosophy, and because they simply represent the step above an oppressed minority. The capitalist contends that the socialist is wrong and needs to see the light. This is insulting to socialists because, aside from the obvious selfishness of capitalism, capitalists are so few by contrast that it is unbelievable that they would have the audacity to resist the preferred order of the world.

So what we have here are clashing value systems with no higher authority to declare either right, wrong, or roughly equal. So I'll stop analyzing now; I just wanted to give you something to think about. Back to Bono. In the interview, Bono said:

We want the rich countries to drop the debts that they're owed to them by the poorest countries.... The relationship between the so-called first and third world is just so screwed up. We give the tiniest percentage of our GDP every year toward the problem. I mean, it's a shocking statistic when you tell Americans or Europeans that the richer they get, the less they give.

At that point, a few-second clip from one of my favorite U2 songs, "One", played. At that moment I realized how that song is really a call for socialism. However, as I am one to like music for its aural appeal and creative use of language, I don't much care for the meaning – whether good or bad – as long as it sounds good... for the most part.

One can not say that U2's music is bad because it promotes a socialist cause, but one can say that promoting such a cause could be damaging to America's capitalist system, or at least more so than Eminem's work, in that U2's message may indirectly be persuading young minds to abandon the principles of capitalism in favor of socialism. Again, this is not to say that socialism is necessarily bad, but it is to say that, for America, it is incredibly bad.

America was founded on, among other ideas, tolerance. Americans generally "live and let live". Sure, there are several instances in which Americans prove their hypocrisy by showing intolerance (right-wing censorship, left-wing McCarthyism, etc.), but the cumulative result is a country that, despite words and perceptions, is more tolerant than any other on this planet. America tolerates anything and everything that it may as long as it does not interfere with the system under which the United States operates. The republican government of the United States is funded by a capitalist economy; trying to alter this nation's republicanism or capitalism is one way to get your name etched into the "Axis of Evil".

Oh, and by the way, Bono's real name is Paul David Hewson.

February 22, 2002 @ 22:18

Rachel Klein's most recent column for the Daily Californian is rather stimulating (pardon the pun). Her intentions may have been simply to inform or also to attract, but one thing is for sure: this article does both. Warning: Sex education is suitable for only some viewers. If you are not one of those readers, or if you're my mother (Hi, Mom!), please hit the "Back" button on your web browser, do not read the quoted material below, and – whatever you do – don't click this link! Otherwise, you may proceed.

A good friend told me her orgasms rely on hard sex that deeply penetrates – so her G-spot, named for Ernst Grafenberg, gets stimulated. Another friend said more or less the same thing.... Of course I had no clue what they were talking about. But their whole reasoning for this was so their G-spots were attended to.

Okay, what makes this article so interesting – aside from the obvious reasons – is that it is apparently printed in a California newspaper. Okay, so it's "Independent Student Press" and originates in Berkeley.

Wait, that explains it.

And, to think, before I came across that article, I was going to say something like, "Only a girl would write an article like this". Hmm. It's interesting, too, but not nearly so much as the Klein's article. That just goes to show you that, in order to be a successful writer, you don't necessarily need incredible talent. You only really need two things: a basic knowledge of the language and some sort of sexual fantasy.

So it should come as no surprise to you that I have maintained for months that I shall write a book.

Things like this make news that actually matters seem dull and boring. No wonder the general public cares nothing for substance and everything for style, nothing for what makes everything possible and everything for entertainment. The shield provided by the entertainment industry is killing people, and they're too busy having fun to realize it. Ah, pop culture. And I have to live in a country dominated by people like that. And they vote. I feel the urge to vomit rising inside of me.

February 22, 2002 @ 15:07

In an interview on CNN this morning, U2's lead singer "Bono" was asked about some of the early days of the band before they were discovered. When confronted with a part of his history that left him, at best, slightly uncomfortable, he replied in jest, "I hate when people do their research..."

Hey, Bono, I understand your concern. But that's part of the price to pay for fame, and it isn't always worth it. It just makes me wonder, though: why don't journalists research and ask the uncomfortable questions to, say, Dan Rather? Quality, substantive investigative reporting is hard to find these days, unless the motivation is distraction – as such is the nature of pop culture, to distract the audience from the forces that guide "the system".

February 22, 2002 @ 14:08

Ingenuitas is a site much like Slashdot in that its content is mostly submitted by the visitors. I think Ingenuitas is a great idea and has great potential – if people just start paying attention and start using it. Hey, even if we don't have time for it all the time, cruising through once in a while will at least provide a little added entertainment and knowledge. While user-submitted stories may not always be the most accurate or representative work, it does allow those who are passionate about politics and life share potentially clashing ideas in order to understand each other. And in politics, perception is reality.

So check it out. Or don't. I think it's worth it.

February 22, 2002 @ 14:04

As I've asserted and will continue to assert, if there is any political element to the Enron "scandal", it's Clinton's scandal.

I apologize for being slow recently. My schedule barely allows me any free time at all, and most of that I should be spending doing homework. Besides, with six classes, there is a good chance that I can have a test every week, and I expect to have three major projects due at about the same time in a month or two. That should be preceded by some very fun weeks.

Also, have you heard that James Traficant is abandoning the Democratic Party? Not because of ideological differences (well, certainly he clashes with mainstream Democrats, but his values more accurately represent Democratic values than the semi-socialists running around Congress these days), but because his trial takes up too much of his time for him to run for the Democratic nomination.

Whether I agree with that reasoning or not, he shows one quality that most politicians would rather avoid for the sake of pleasing people: at least he's honest. So he can't be a Democrat by today's standards.

February 19, 2002 @ 23:44

From today's Best of the Web:

Screeners still are not required to have a high school education. The easiest way to board any flight is to look like a terrorist, because profiling is strictly prohibited. The individuals that make up this insufficient security force will be nearly impossible to fire. I felt better about flying on September 12 than I do now.

I agree with Neal Boortz; the only two groups to benefit from the federalization of airport security screeners are the airlines and government employee unions. The airlines are thrilled. Three days ago they were held accountable should security be breached. Now it's the government's deal. The airlines' responsibility to keep their passengers safe has been absolved; to provide your safety is no longer their duty. And if something bad does happen, they can't be punished, except that people will stop flying. And the government can't exactly fine itself when something goes wrong...

People continue to moan and groan about big business and big oil; when are people going to realize that the real problem lies with big government?

This campaign finance reform bill is turning a lot of heads. There is little doubt in the average American's mind that the role money plays in political elections needs to be adjusted – campaign finance regulations need to be reformed – but to be fair, there is little doubt in my mind that the current bill is absolutely absurd. Even if it is to pass the Senate, I don't think President Bush will sign it. And if he does, someone will challenge the law and the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional. Well, that's just my opinion.

The more and more I read of campaign finance, however (not the bill, but how campaign financing works), the less and less absurd this bill sounds. It is beginning to seem to me that Republicans are playing a typically liberal role in attacking this bill; they are trying to appeal to the feelings of Americans by claiming that the bill is an infringement on free speech, and hoping that that will stir enough of an outcry to dissuade current supporters of the bill. Last I checked, it was the Democrats and liberals who habitually appealed to the emotions of the public for political persuasion.

To be fair, I do think the bill is unfair and should not be passed. However, that is all I can really say in opposition to it, because I am in support of campaign finance reform – just not this bill. Campaign finance reform is, in my opinion, an important step that must be taken to ensure that political free speech remains free, and even to extend political free speech to those who previously could not afford it.

This goes back to the argument that Democrats and Republicans – the two-party system – have power and will do anything legally possible to ensure that they keep it. They don't want any significant third parties to emerge, and they don't want any significant third party ideas to become mainstream without taking credit for them. I have a big problem with greedy or power-hungry politicians, especially those that continue to dominate because they have money that others can not match because of an unfair advantage provided by current law. Discrimination, anyone?

February 19, 2002 @ 14:47

Dave emailed this response to last night's "greatest president ever" post:

I don't deny that Roosevelt was one of our greatest, but all too often (I think) presidents are remembered better because they were there at the right time. Most political scientists would probably agree that the greatest likable thing that a president can do is handle a war well. Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and ... perhaps Bush ... all had significant foreign threats with which to deal, and each dealt with them effectively. (Obviously, we do not know the full effect of Bush's presidency yet, so I'm extrapolating.)

While Roosevelt had a much larger threat in that Germany and Japan each were threatening to invade (Japan indirectly, but attacking our western territories in the Pacific can be perceived as a test to see how strong we were, in that regard), Bush has a much different kind of threat – and we can not say that either is larger than the other – in that we have several rogue nations apparently supplying these terrorists who stop at nothing to wreak havoc on innocent citizens of the world, particularly the United States. While the threat against Roosevelt's America and world may have been much more direct, it is impossible to measure the magnitude of the threat then or the threat now, and thus is impossible to compare accurately. I wouldn't dare to say that either Roosevelt or Bush is a better president for handling a threat better, but handling it well does provide good reason to remember...

My top five greatest presidents, in chronological order and not counting George W. Bush, are: James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Ronald Reagan.

Franklin Roosevelt's social and economic reforms did very little to help America and really only served to greatly expand the government's involvement in our daily lives – bad, bad, bad. Most of his social and economic programs, agencies, and so on should have disappeared before 1950. They didn't pull America back together; the war did. Therefore, although FDR was incredibly successful in that he did what the people wanted during those times, his greatest contribution to America was a hint of socialism. A great man did what he had to do, and I don't criticize him personally for it. I criticize him as a president. (But hey, maybe American ideas about socialism are shifting; it sure seems that way as highly as Clinton is remembered right now, and as much as socialist laws are being considered and passed these days.)

Bush, while among my favorites, hasn't done near enough to prove to me that he should be among the best *ever*. A current president always tries to do what is popular with the people, so his generation will always rate him higher than many of the rest. It isn't until time moves slowly on and the president's actions move into the past that his job can accurately be judged. That said, Bush is my favorite ever, but he won't broach my top five for the greatest ever for another few years (probably). For right now, I think that Monroe, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt , Wilson, and Reagan have been the greatest presidents. Having to choose just one, I'd pick Lincoln.

February 19, 2002 @ 00:00

Who is/was the greatest president of all time? Abraham Lincoln, according to an ABCNews poll conducted by telephone among a random national sample of 1025 adults. John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush round out the top three this President's Day, and Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton mark a three-way tie for fourth.

George W. Bush was chosen first overall by Republicans, fifth by Democrats (surprise?), and third by Democrats. Seniors (age 65 and up) picked Franklin Roosevelt as the greatest ever. Abraham Lincoln placed first among whites, second among blacks. Blacks chose Bill Clinton by an overwhelming margin over their emancipator. (My theory about that is simple: Clinton's stance on affirmative action and fighting inequality is such that, overall, blacks can not help but love him. Clinton all but supports reverse discrimination, or at least as long as it helps his or his wife's campaign. Drawing the line between affirmative action and reverse discrimination is extremely difficult, and we all have different views regarding it, but subscribing to my conceptions, I can be highly critical of Clinton's highly hypocritical fight against inequality.)

Bush, Clinton, and Reagan have an advantage; the memory bias plays a large factor in polls like this. People can't accurately rank (or remember) presidents who served before the time, and the average American isn't a historian. That said, here is my prediction regarding those three: Bush will be remembered as great (top 5), Reagan as good or much better than average (top 10), and Clinton as mediocre or just above a steaming pile of dog droppings (above the bottom 5, but in the bottom 10).

I am no historian, but I am deeply interested in politics, and I love to immerse myself in current and historical facts, especially regarding the our country's Constitution and presidents. I know enough about a majority of them to have my own rankings for them, and I fully expect my rankings to be somewhat close in twenty years or so. (Of course, if the United States continues on its path toward socialism, which Bush's presidency has great potential to stop, Clinton may be remembered a bit better than I would remember him. Hopefully, though, socialism isn't America's answer.)

February 18, 2002 @ 23:33

I can't really complain much about Al Gore's latest speech. It seems as though he's putting together his campaign to get the Democratic nomination again, and if that's the case, I'm all for it. Not only is he better than most of the other Democratic choices for president, but I can't imagine any plausible scenario in which Gore could beat Bush in the election of 2004; so bring him on!

But that's not what doesn't bother me about it. Gore's words unfortunately emphasize that handling the problem of inequality and unfairness is equally as important as rooting out the evil of the world, but they also divide the Democratic Party. Daschle and his poll-playing, back-and-forth stances on everything since Enron broke are confusing the hell out of potential Democratic voters for the upcoming midterm elections, and prominent Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and Al Gore keep disagreeing with (supposedly) the most powerful Democrat in all the land. If this keeps happening, not only will Democrats not know what to think about the presidential nomination in 2004, but candidates for the 2002 elections will have to choose a Democratic position to earn Democratic support – it would be a field day for Republicans if the Democrats had no solid, universal game plan.

And not only are Democrats dividing themselves by playing the polls and making generally bad decisions, but they are overwhelmingly supporting a Campaign Finance Reform bill that clearly violates the first amendment of the Constitution. Despite popular support for a bill that would limit campaign contributions (which is only mildly a free-speech issue, and I think there are plenty of loopholes for that), a bill that attempts to control who advertises, what they advertise, and how they advertise it is completely unconstitutional (assuming, of course, that the advertisement isn't legally obscene, which is a very difficult charge to make).

Of course, that could blind-side us all and be the Democrats' only hope. But I don't really see how, and I expect a Republican majority for at least the next four years, if not for much longer. I can hope, right?

February 18, 2002 @ 16:09

The Democratic Party jumped for joy when the Enron collapse began to break, thrilled to have a scandal to pin onto George Bush, but it hasn't made sense to me from the start. First, the scandal was never political. The higher-ups of the company took the money and ran, leaving the minions of workers with little to nothing. Second, even if it were political, tying it to President Bush would only disprove one of the Democratic Party's major claims regarding the President's character – that he's allegiant to "big business". Apparently not... seeing as how his administration, upon requests for help, refused to bail them out.

What the Democrats have done is turn a complete one-eighty on their own attack strategy; instead of accusing the Bush administration of bailing out big businesses in trouble, they are attacking it for doing exactly the opposite.

I would rarely refer to any political party, group, or individual as "slime", but in this case there is no better word for it. The Democrats have proven themselves to be, at least on this issue, slippery worms who would stop at nothing to take from those in power in order to assume power ... rather than try to work with those in power in order to better serve their constituents, which is what every politician should be doing. Democrats know very well that challenging the President's character through Enron is simply a partisan effort to discredit him; I just do not understand why they keep thinking the rest of us can't see it.

Okay, so maybe not everyone sees it, but I think it's obvious. However, in fairness to the other side of the argument, I would like to know what you think. (And if you organize your thoughts well, I might post them on the site.)

February 17, 2002 @ 16:02

If my brother and I had resolved our many years' worth of problems spawned from sibling rivalry, today might undo it all. It's his seventeenth birthday, and I've decided to bring back a dark chapter in his life. You see, he is the only human male alive who has had his penis smashed by a toilet seat ... twice. (Today's birthday card that Claire and I made for him tells him that enough is enough, and besides, purple really isn't its color.) I know you needed the visual, so I stopped at nothing to provide you with one.

Happy James Patrick's Day!

My younger brother, James Patrick McCord, was born on an otherwise ordinary Sunday evening – February 17, 1985. Every year since, schools every where take a day off in silent recognition of Jim's birthday [well, they say it's something about Washington and Lincoln, but I know the truth]. Because St. Patrick's Day is exactly one month later, it only made sense to label the seventeenth of February with an aurally similar title, hence "James Patrick's Day". And, yes, I am the nerd who came up with that.

Happy Birthday, Jim. :)

February 17, 2002 @ 16:05

Okay, so only one person – my mother – cared to answer the question last week. Perhaps it was worded badly (I thought so from the beginning), or perhaps no one cared, or perhaps no one comes to my site. Whatever. Not only have I simplified the question, but alos, well, couldn't wait any longer – here's my response:

The closer the kinship is between two people, the higher the IQ correlation. This makes perfect sense. The values of one society or group are held more valuable than the values of another, and therefore a member one group would be regarded as intellectually inferior to a member of another group within the context of the second group. Americans score higher on American IQ tests than on German IQ tests.

All the same, IQ tests are not an accurate measure of intelligence, but only of the test-writers' conception or representation (in each particular test) of what intelligence is. Obviously, if we knew exactly what intelligence was and how to measure it, there would not be so many different IQ tests. IQ tests reveal a person's experience and educational background, not their innate or express intelligence.

There have long been debates regarding cultural and other biases in standardized tests – not just IQ tests, but tests like the SAT, ACT, graduation exams, and so on. The average standardized test fails to account for difference in the individual test-takers' (educational, economic, social) environments.

The concept of a single measure of intelligence is faulty; there is too much to consider – language, math, attention to and retention of details, and even behavior – to get accurate measurements of intelligence from any test or combination of tests.

Intelligence, in my view as I have tried to explain above, is mostly influenced by environment. I will not suggest that there is no hereditary element to intelligence because I honestly don't know; there is no conclusive evidence to support either side of that statement. But there is evidence to support that similar environments produce children of similar intelligence, and extremely different environments may produce children of extremely different intelligence – not necessarily in terms of intelligence and unintelligence, but perhaps in terms of different skills and knowledge learned.

The problem, it seems, is that we lack a common, general definition of intelligence, and therefore are unable to work together with it. Whether environmental or hereditary, there is a strong correlation among the IQ scores of people raised in similar communities, or even the same home. This proves only that the correlation exists, and that man and his curious nature will never stop until he knows why.

February 17, 2002 @ 15:59

I don't know who the idiot to blame is in this case, but the bad interpretation in this Washington Post article irks me. According to the article, "Colin Powell strongly advocated condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS" (and pregnancy, too!), which understandably angered many on the political right, and especially some of President Bush's closest supporters. Then comes the horribly unfounded interpretation:

Powell's remarks...appeared to diverge from the message delivered by the president and other administration officials that abstinence from unmarried sex is the principal weapon against the spread of the deadly human immunodeficiency virus.

Um, no they didn't. Powell has never said that condom use is more effective than abstinence, and he would never imply such. Powell knows quite well that condom use is only a tool to help prevent the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. He also knows that it is only a tool for those who wish not to practice abstinence.

Politics is politics, though, and I can certainly understand why some right-wing, "pro life" solons would attempt to alienate Powell by asserting that his statements "diverge" from the President's views. The simple fact is that they don't. Colin Powell is showing that he has an open mind, and that he is not afraid to use it, unlike far too many right-wing politicians.

Ken Connor, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said Powell's remarks were "reckless and irresponsible" and a "slap in the face" to the president's core constituency. Powell is "skilled in areas of diplomacy," said Gary Bauer, former Republican presidential candidate and president of American Values, but on "public health issues, he should follow the lead of the Bush administration, which he serves."

The only slap in the face I've seen are reckless and irresponsible responses like Connor's. Many on the political right already accept Powell's view, not only because it makes sense, but also because it does not conflict with their pro-life ideas. And as for Bauer's statement, any father knows about sexual reproduction – his statement is a direct slap in the face of the secretary of state...

...And it's a bit ridiculous if you ask me, but that's coming from an individualist who absolutely hates the idea of any politician, or anyone else for that matter, masking one's own ideas in order to support the consensus. Doing so may be comfortable in the moment, but it is dishonest and cowardly. You know what they say about living a lie, right? The first lie used to represent oneself is only the foundation. On top of that are placed subsequent lies, more false ideas for the sake of endearment, until eventually the perception and the person are two completely different people.

My point: Colin Powell did the right thing by "defying" the administration for which he serves and by representing himself first.

Bauer also said that "condoms give teenagers a false sense of security, a view shared by Tom Coburn, new chairman of Bush's advisory commission on AIDS". Now why couldn't that have been the entire substance to their argument? That is a reasonable, valid, and substantive argument. It relates! Attempting to alienate Powell has nothing to do with the issue at hand, so drop it.

February 15, 2002 @ 13:59

Olympic Scandal, Valentine's Day, Kevin Smith movies, and severing ties... Story of my week. Although I don't know the exact dates, I have recently purchases both Dogma and Chasing Amy for myself, and I bought Mallrats for Claire for Valentine's Day, so all we need now are Clerks (the first), Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back (the latest), and Drawing Flies (the Canadian) to complete our collection of Kevin Smith DVDs. Of course, now I want the scripts to the movies, which are only $15 apiece, so I think I might order those one day.

In case you haven't heard about the Olympic scandal, let me briefly explain. The International Olympic Committee is questioning the ability of the United States to host future olympic events. Apparently, this year's winter olympics are too patriotic for the IOC. They believe that the United States is using the Winter Olympics as propaganda for the war effort. One IOC member says this:

This is a show designed to send a message to Osama bin Laden. President Bush is saying, "Look at us: you bombed us but you can't stop us going about our normal lives." But that is not what the Olympic Games are supposed to be about.

He's right. The Olympic Games are not supposed to be about going about our normal lives; they are supposed to be about a temporary timeout in international struggle to represent international unity; to represent that, despite contrary foreign perceptions, we all have the same common interests, which include international peace and kinship.

He's wrong. The Olympic Games are supposed to symbolize international unity and resolve, and therefore are supposed to discourage anyone who might wish to disrupt that. The IOC suggests that security and propaganda are damaging this year's Olympics and the United States' probability of hosting future Olympic games. If we banned this "propaganda", we would not only be censoring ourselves, but we would be doing so because you don't like us. And, imagine that we went slack on security and bin Laden's group successfully attacked Utah and killed thousands of fans and several participants in the games. Is that what the Olympics Games are supposed to be about?

Face it, IOC. When there are dangers in the world such as al-Qaeda, and when we know that as many as several hundred or even several thousand of their organization is on American soil... um, yeah, security is going to be up a bit, and you're insane if you think we're going to tone down our nationalist sentiment. That's the only defense common citizens have against potential terrorism.

I meant the other Olympic scandal (wait, there's two?!), because what I just discussed isn't so much a scandal – at least not yet – in that there doesn't seem to be any obvious conspiracy to destroy the United States by attacking its citizens' love for their country. I mean, com'on, isn't that ridiculous? Next thing you know we can persecute Frenchmen for loving France.

The Olympic scandal that is making a few headlines involves Canadians, Russians, and a few stupid judges. On Monday (or Tuesday?) night, the Canadian pair out-skated the competition. By far. Their scores reflected this – nothing but 5.8's and 5.9's across. Then the new judges results came through, and most of the judges placed the Canadians in second place behind the Russians, who not only registered scores of only 5.6 and 5.7, but also made four errors! The Canadians were flawless!

Everyone in the arena booed. The announcers were befuddled. Claire's family and I were hysterical. The Canadians were simply the best that night, and even they knew it. The second-place rating came out and you could see the disbelief in their eyes, but not in their smiles. They knew better than to show that they knew they had performed best.

At first, it seemed as though a few judges were simply biased, or perhaps influenced by the Russians dominance over this event since the 1960s (biased). As it turns out, some of the judges were "pressured" to vote for the Russians – one for sure, who has been suspended for misconduct.

The problem has been resolved as of today. The IOC was planning on reviewing the scores, but the obvious misconduct was enough to prove that the event had not been judged objectively, and it's evident enough that the Canadian pair deserved the gold medal. However, the Canadian officials did not want the Russian pair to be stripped of their gold medal (further evidence of Canadian honor and integrity), so the Canadians and Russians are co-gold medalists for the event.

(In 1993, a second gold medal was awarded when a judge who mistyped a 9.7 score as an 8.7 was not allowed to correct her error. Because the 9.7 would have earned the Canada's Sylvia Frechette the gold, a second gold medal was awarded to her. As in the current case, the decision did not affect the original winner of the gold [an American, if you must know].)

Also, if you must know, the judge who confessed to being persuaded to choose the Russians was French.

Mmmm. School. I love how I have all the time in the world for school and work, and no time for the internet. It all evens out...

February 12, 2002 @ 22:17

In case you are worried about me, don't be. I've been spending a lot of time at Claire's lately, and because I only work on my web site at home or at school, I haven't had as much time to play with it. No matter, though. While my web site is very important to me, it is not essential to life, and if forced to, I could live without it. I don't anticipate that happening, though, so be merry in your hearts knowing that any slow periods on this web site are only temporary.

Thanks for staying tuned. Feel free to drop me a line or two about anything you please. (Especially people like Tony, who might want to sound off on campaign finance reform, public education, or anything else through my web site.)

(Also, I left an update on the hard drive at school and forgot to upload it this afternoon. I'll post it tomorrow or when I can in its original state, though it won't make any sense, because I make particular reference to a Tuesday/Thursday class that I obviously don't have on Wednesdays. Man, is that ever messed up!)

February 12, 2002 @ 1408

I have been watching scenes in random order from two of Kevin Smith's movies, Dogma and Chasing Amy, and I have conluded, following the advice of Rufus the Thirteenth Apostle, that holding beliefs can be and often is quite dangerous. Instead, we should probably hold ideas. The idea (heh) is that ideas can be altered, while beliefs are solid. Altering one's beliefs simply brings about new beliefs.

To that (not expressly identified) end, I shall try to avoid using the words "I believe" to introduce my ideas an opinions in the future, and instead I shall try to replace those words with "I conceive". To conceive a notion is "to form or to hold an idea", in that manner of its usage.

While on the subject... These are the longest words in the English language, that I can find, in which their letters are in alphabetical order and no letters are repeated: abhors, begins, begirt, bijoux, and deigns. Three of the words are present-tense verb conjugationss, another is a verb which I have never before used, and the last is the irregular plural of a little-known, barely-used word. But that's five six-letter words without repeating letters that are arranged in alphabetical order. (I think words like accept, access, and so on are cheating.)

February 11, 2002 @ 00:40

The following quotations are ripped directly from Dave's site. They represent a few points with which I agree. There were more from which to choose, but I thought these three were best worth mentioning:

"Anyone in a free society where the laws are unjust has an obligation to break the law."

- Henry David Thoreau

"The world owes you nothing. It was here first."

- Mark Twain

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

- Abraham Lincoln

February 10, 2002 @ 23:59

If my count is accurate, I'm down to twenty-five African Americans for my "black history month" feature. I'm not intentionally neglecting my tribute to black history, but given my philosophies, you may understand how I might not be extremely dedicated to the feature. I have only missed three days, right? Well, today I want to get back to someone who represents somewhat more of a cultural icon than a political icon. Let's see who I can come up with...

How about Michael Jackson? Michael Jackson may arguably be the most popular black man on the face of the planet right now, or certainly in recent times. The "King of Pop" has certainly received his fair share of the spotlight, and he is showing no signs of slowing down. Admittedly, I have enjoyed his new album every time I have heard it so far, which is approaching thrice. No matter about the new album, though...

Michael Jackson is simply one of the most influential – and controversial – African Americans of his time, if not ever. His career begin innocently enough with the Jackson 5; little Michael was the five-year-old lead singer of his band of brothers. The Jacksons were quite successful, but no one could have predicted what was to happen for he and his sister Janet, who went on to become modern icons of pop culture.

Michael Jackson's first solo album, Off The Wall, was released in 1979 and was the first album ever to spawn four number-one songs. His second album, Thriller, sold its first copy in 1982 and has since sold over 27 million in the United States alone to become the best-selling album of all time (over 50 million worldwide to date). Jackson became the first black artist ever to have a music video aired on MTV with "Billie Jean". In 1983 he performed his moonwalk for the first time. In 1984 he won eight Grammy Awards in one night. In 1985 he released what has been referred to as the international anthem, "We Are The World". He released his third album, Bad, in 1987 and his fourth album, Dangerous, in 1991. In 1995 he released my personal favorite of all of his works, the two-disc HIStory album which included one compilation disc of his greatest hits, and a second disc with all new music. And late in 2001, he released his sixth and current solo album, Invincible.

Enough of Jackson's discography. He has succeeded on many more levels than just his music. He is well known for his anti-racism rhetoric, and is regarded the world over as not simply a gifted artist, but a humanitarian and an all-around great human being (despite controversial rumors). His forty-year career has seen him sell hundreds of millions of records and raise hundreds of millions of dollars for people around the glove with immeasurable influence. He has earned countless awards and recognitions and is no doubt the world's most prominent African American entertainer.

Michael Jackson is one of the most influential persons ever to live, and he is far from finished.

February 10, 2002 @ 23:25

On January 11, Pierce Brosnan requested to play James Bond just once more. At that time, his contract was set to expire after filming of the current Bond film, dubbed "Bond 20" until its official title is announced in coming weeks. "Bond 20" is scheduled to hit theatres on November 22.

Brosnan wants to do one more film, and rumor has it that he signed the contract that very day. Multiple reports confirm that he will indeed return as James Bond for "Bond 21", but added that "a sixth go at the job would be unlikely given the physical demands".

Of all the men that have played James Bond, Pierce Brosnan is by far the best, in my opinion. He represents James Bond as Ian Fleming created him better than any of the actors; only Sean Connery comes close (even Connery says that Brosnan is the best Bond, but perhaps that's just modesty speaking). Connery was an excellent Bond, but perhaps just a little too suave. Roger Moore was great, but a little too macho. Timothy Dalton wasn't bad, but he wasn't convincing as James Bond after Connery and Moore. And George Lazenby only did one film for good reason.

Being the James Bond nut that I am, I can hardly stand to wait for "Bond 20" to receive an official title, much less for its release in November. I only hope that movies like Blade II, Spiderman, Star Wars II, and Men In Black II live up to my expectations for them. There is no doubt about it in my mind: 2002 is the year of the movie. Never have there been so many great movies released that I have anticipated enjoying as much as the slated titles for this year. It's the perfect opportunity for Big Entertainment to hook me again... I wonder how the year will be for me.

February 10, 2002 @ 18:55

Blog this.

February 10, 2002 @ 17:44

"Is Bush's awesome increase in military spending a reasonable response to the aftermath of September 11, or is he creating a force almost too powerful for its own good?" An absurd question in my opinion, but the The Observer handles it well, asking some of the leading foreign policy experts on both sides of the Atlantic, Just how powerful is the United States? The ten responses presented can not represent us all or even the accurate truth, but they offer valuable insight into the minds of the experts, and at least partial understanding of several sides of the story.

My opinion is as follows:

It is the responsibility of the American federal government to protect its citizens – not from social or economic inequality, but from physical harm and threat. It is the American government's duty to serve to protect from threatening entities, both foreign and domestic, in order to protect the lives, liberty, property, and pursuits of happiness of its nearly 300 million citizens.

To support this point, I provide an excerpt from an article in today's Denver Post, regarding security for the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. These are the words of Air Force Major Ed Thomas, who is part of the NORAD team at the Olympics:

Prior to September 11, NORAD's focus was not on domestic airspace. Who thought that a terrorist would use a passenger airliner as a missile? NORAD's focus was external. We were looking for a strategic nuclear bomber coming over the poles or a cruise missile or an ICBM. Technology had allowed us to focus on our long-range radars to give us considerable warning of any air threat.... We have had requests to intercept potential air threats by the FAA more than 200 times since September 11. That includes everything from deranged passengers to the terrorist who had explosives in his shoes. That's a high number, and the overwhelming majority are benign, but it represents our unwillingness to accept any level of threat.

It is also the American government's duty, above all, to respect and to protect the Constitution. Concerns have been raised since September 11 about what is more important, respecting or protecting the Constitution. My personal opinion should be easily understood: it is far more important to protect first and respect second, because respect for the Constitution means nothing if we let our guard down and lose it altogether. This is not to say that the United States is in any danger of being wiped out; I certainly don't believe that. But by meticulously ensuring that every American action respects the Constitution, we waste valuable time and effort that could be spent doing more important things – like protecting it, or others. (And no, that is not an easy thing to say or to believe in.)

Conclusion: The government should provide the legislature, executive, and judiciary – lawmakers, military, police, and courts – and policies for their application and operation; (nearly) everything else should be privatized. However, the American government seems to have become a "vast, sweeping, monopolistic corporation with multiple, completely unrelated duties" (Nick Disabato). Well, "outside of its prescribed Constitutional duties, I don't want the government to do anything for me or to me" (Tommy Thompson). The reason for that is simple, I think: if the government simply protects from and stops physical threat, its people free from terror "will proceed to provide for themselves... That has been the basic philosophy on which the United States was built" (George Reisman).

I am an individualist who believes that the only way a society's values can be accurately represented is if people vote for and act on their own self-interests. If we all represent ourselves accurately, then the cumulative result is a society voting for what the society as a whole genuinely wants. If we vote for what we think is right for anyone or everyone else, we not only misrepresent ourselves, but we likely misrepresent everyone else as well, because we have no proof that what we think someone else wants is really what someone else wants. The only way to represent America is to vote and to act for yourself – not with complete disregard to others, but simply by thinking for yourself first. It is the only morally correct choice that can be made, or such is the opinion of the average objectivist.

(Nick Disabato and Tommy Thompson provided their ideas through this web site; George Reisman, economist and author, provided his ideas through an email interview with Larry Elder. Their ideas, either in part or in whole as provided and cited, essentially represent my views as I have presented them here.)

February 9, 2002 @ 12:32

I was meandering through the library yesterday, as I am wont to do as the library is currently my office, when I came across a book: Genetics And Intelligence. The book is part of a "controversial issues" series, in which other book topics include abortion, free speech, gun control, and nationalism and ethnic conflict, to name a few. (Considering these topics were added to the series during or before 1996, that last topic induced me to raise a brow...)

In this book, several controversial questions are asked, and several varying arguments are presented in response to each. Does genetics influence intelligence? Do IQ tests measure intelligence? Is genetics responsible for IQ differences (between races, genders, etc.)? The book puts together twenty-nine essays to illustrate conflicting answers to each of these questions, and believe me when I say that some answers will make the hair on your neck stand on end. A heated debate which sees light in every section argues about intelligence between the races – blacks and whites in particular.

Well, before I spill the beans of this book, I think it's time for a new question. (Don't you?!) Do you think that intelligence is hereditary? Why or why not? Consider how we/you measure intelligence. How accurate is IQ as a measure of intelligence? How accurate are IQ tests?

I have put together a response, but I will not voice my opinion on the matter until you have had sufficient time to offer yours. "Sufficient time" is usually up when (a) I receive enough responses to work with or (b) I can't stand not sharing my opinion anymore!

Oh, and by the way, I did put up your answers to the last question, How do you feel your life has changed since September 11?, but I guess I never really announced it. I also never proofread it, so if there are any errors or strange characters on the page, it's only half my fault.

February 9, 2002 @ 11:19

The Opinion Journal asks, Is Daschle trying to lose his Senate majority? (*cough* plurality *cough*) The opening argument is convincing enough for me (but I've been keeping an eye on this for some months now):

So let's see: Democrats want to run this autumn against what they expect (if not hope) will be a lousy economy, but they just took responsibility for killing the one fiscal policy that could give it a boost. Sure seems counterintuitive to us. Maybe Mr. Daschle believes that if the economy is bad, only Republicans will get the blame. But then he certainly couldn't have done much more than he already has to give the GOP political cover.

Although it will be open for speculation for nearly nine months more, I currently predict a Republican victory in the Congressional midterm elections. Based on polling numbers and other evidence, it seems that the citizens of America – despite "conventional wisdom" – are heavily in favor of George W. Bush and his Republican Party right now. I do not know how the House and Senate lineups will stack up next January, but I think I can reasonably assume that Republicans will emerge with a slightly larger majority in the House, and a hair-thin majority in the Senate. Anything more than that would be a field day for America. Anything less, to quote Charles Barkley, would be uncivilized.

February 8, 2002 @ 09:05

Make that twenty-six. If I continue at this rate, I will only "officially" recognize twenty or so African Americans for my little "black history month" special. I guess that provides incentive enough to go ahead and aim for the more significant ones now, right? Well, whatever. I kinda pick them in the moment, but I usually have a good idea who I will pick next about a day in advance. Also, if you haven't noticed, it seems that I have chosen to keep these mini-biographies as factual as possible, leaving interpretations and opinions out of it (as best I can) so as to provide a spinless representation of whomever I am recognizing. I make no promises, but March may be a good time to go back and put my spin on each character, just to offer a double-dose of black history. Wouldn't that be ironic, coming from me?

Today's special: Al Sharpton. According to Salon, Sharpton is "a voice of salutary outrage" to blacks, and "a dangerous buffoon" to whites. But what makes his figure so controversial today? Well, Sharpton is one of the most prolific social activists in the country – activism can be controversial enough; throwing "social" into the mix only adds to the hysteria.

Like Jesse Jackson, Sharpton is a strong supporter of Affirmative Action, which has become quite a controversial issue. I think the question about Affirmative Action is not whether or not its socialist goals are socially noble, but whether or not Affirmative Action is really "Negative Action" because it requires discrimination – which is unconsitutional – and class warfare as major promoting factors. Well, I obviously do not have the answers, and my interpretation of what he believes is obviously much different from his own, but he has to know – for all practical purposes – that in order to succeed in a system, one must act by the rules of that system.

Despite the controversy, Al Sharpton is known the world over as on of the world's foremost civil rights leaders (this doesn't surprise me, seeing as how much of the world is much more accepting of socialism than we are). He is also the founder and President of the National Action Network, an organization that fights for progressive, people-based policies against the rising trend of cutting human services and balancing budgets at the expense of the working-class. Sharpton is yet another fighter in the ongoing battle against economic injustice, political inequity, and corporate racism.

All I can say, for now, is this: the pen is mightier than the sword. The words often sound good, Reverend, but your methods don't seem to sit well with America. Everyone is on your side in the battle, but we still don't agree with the way you go about it. And that's the Reverend Al Sharpton, in a nutshell.

February 7, 2002 @ 20:11

Anna, this one's for you, because I know you'd be interested! :-)

How ridiculous is this? Conservatives are trying to rid Fox's prime time lineup of shows like Boston Public, essentially playing the role of the "morality police" as they attempt to censor one more aspect of America. Well, I am somewhat torn around the issue. On one hand, I can understand the motive. On the other, I can not understand how censorship solves the problem, if it is even a problem.

Heh, I like the first line in which the group accuses the Fox network of "systematically violating the nation's indecency rules". Um, excuse me, but what rules are those? You can't make up the rules as we go along, and no one can violate unspoken rules unless they are firmly understood.

Besides, I agree with Fox on this one. Boston Public deals with controversial issues, yes, but they are real issues that children face every day. If a parent doesn't want his or her kid to watch it, the parent should take control and change the channel! Don't refuse millions of Americans the right to see their favorite television program because a few parents might complain. The parents have no good reason to complain; they pay the bills, and they can just as easily change the channel.

February 6, 2002 @ 23:34

Oh yeah. Regarding the story of the three teens who killed the ten-year-old boy's dog – the boy cried wolf. Or, more accurately, the boy was afraid that telling the truth would bring greater harm directly to him than making up the story, and – well, it is understandable of a ten-year-old. Hopefully, people will still see this story as one which proved the existence good will in people's hearts... and utter intolerance for such horrible deeds.

The story certainly brought an emotional response out of me, as it likely did for anyone else who heard about it. But once in a while, the symbollism of a story – such as this one – is more important than the substance, which was proven to be false in this case.

If you wish to know the true details of the story, they are available.

February 6, 2002 @ 23:23

Most of you don't know Lashonda Watts. Honestly, I don't know her all that well. But I do consider her to be one of my closest friends. I see her about twice per year, and I have never been inside her home, yet we have shared so much information via the internet and meetings with friends...

I may or may not have clarified this, so I'll do so now. The people I choose to recognize in this little project are recognized because they are significant or otherwise important to me – not to you, to anyone else, or to everyone else. This means, for instance, that I may recognize close, personal friends of mine who happen to be black, or African American, or whatever term such people of that demographic quality use to describe themselves – even if you have no idea of or care for the person's existence. That's the joy of being an objectivist; I do things for my reasons!

Anyway, Lashonda and I have shared quite a few online conversations (and countless others), most of which I still have in some form or another. She has helped to shape my approach to conversation and debate. She has helped me to see that, despite that what I believe may always be right for me, it may not ever be right for someone else; she has helped me to understand that the answers are not the same for everyone, and that all subjective problems have multiple solutions – sociologically speaking.

(Though certain conservative friends of mine would disagree, the sociological aspects of human life and politics should be considered, even if you disagree with them. Someone once said, "If you do not understand your opponent's argument, then you do not fully understand your own". The idea is quite simple: accept alternatives insofar as they allow you to recognize and represent your truths better – which may occasionally surprise you.)

Lashonda, I don't know if you still visit my site regularly, but if you do, know that you're a great friend to have, and know that I wish you well in all of your endeavors. I rarely think in terms of race, of black and white, but this damn "black history month" makes it damn-near-impossible. But, that being the case, and the statistics being what they are, and you being an African American, I will say this now and only now, and probably never again: you are the greatest black American that I have ever known, even if I don't know you as well as I could or should. You have a sound mind and a good heart, and I know that you are using it to (near?) its full potential.

Oh, and, uhh... When are you going to come see the house? I've lived here for five months already!

February 6, 2002 @ 19:11

Make that twenty-seven or so. I didn't think I would miss a day so early in the month, but as we all know, things have a tendency to happen. As it happens, I found myself busy enough with the priorities of necessity that my web project didn't make yesterday's list, so one potential name is scratched from an imaginary list, and we are left with twenty-seven brilliant or otherwise significant African Americans for this web site to recognize "officially" during this "black history month".

I saw a very clever cartoon in today's Macon Telegraph. I can not find a graphic of the image online, so a simple description based on my memory of the image will necessarily suffice. The title/caption suggested declaring every month "black history month", and there were twelve panels – like a page out of a comic book. Each panel represented one of the months and listed significant historical facts regarding black history for its respective month... As you might guess, I laughed. Hard.

I also laughed – hard – at nickd.org's winter lament, from which I would excerpt a hilarious passage in a flagrant attempt to send you to his site... but he has already updated his site for today. But never fear, today's remarks are just as appealing:

In order to understand my attitude towards sex (which does seem to run contrary to the entire rest of the world's), we need to lay down a solid definition of exactly what I think sex signifies.

You can only imagine where he may have gone from there, unless you click somewhere in the vicinity of here, in which case you may actually figure out where he went from there. I will say one thing: I feel and think exactly the same way about sex as Nick does (insofar as I may interpret Nick's feelings and thoughts regarding sex from words on a web page), if that provides any ulterior motive for you to click the link.

(Of course, Nick's words are so lucid and meticulous; I may just have to post his thoughts on the idea at some other point in time anyway. I may even alter them slightly – ascribing proper credit, naturally – to better represent my feelings and thoughts on the subject in a way that I might write them... generalizing some details, clarifying others.)

February 5, 2002 @ 01:29

It's been almost six years, and the truth about the July 1996 tragedy of TWA Flight 800 is still virtually unknown. Well, there finally seems to be news regarding the truth about what really happened to that ill-fated flight:

When TWA Flight 800 went down off Long Island, there was suspicion that it was a U.S. military missile that destroyed it. Doubters said that it was not possible that hundreds of service personnel would remain silent. But now a Navy man claiming to have been aboard a U.S. submarine directly below tells of seeing what sounds like a missile come up out of the water.

Continue with the article to read about the cover-up, the denial, and the perceived absurdity of the military shooting down a passenger liner. It could never happen, they say. But apparently it did. It's scary enough that our armed forces can mistakenly bring down a passenger liner. It is scarier still that they can cover it up so well, if the facts of this account are true.

February 5, 2002 @ 01:05

So there it is. One year. Even if you count the twenty-five hours off, by Tony's calculation, 1:00am on February 5 certainly marks the end of a wonderful first year with Clarissa Ragsdale – first of many, that is.

If anyone is wondering, I only saw her briefly yesterday (February 4) on our actualy anniversary. Monday and Wednesday are my busiest days of the week, despite four hours of "free" time between 4:15 and 8:15 in the afternoon. We spoke for a few moments at 4:15 before she went to work and I came home to do homework. (Well, Zach came over first, which was a treat since I never see him any more, but he left after about twenty minutes.)

Because of my unfortunate condition this last weekend, any celebration of our first year will have to wait until the first anniversary of our first Saturday spent together – that's this weekend. Thanks to anyone and everyone who has supported us. And thank you, Claire, for being a part of my life, and for allowing me to be a part of yours! I love you!

And guess what! We're one!

February 5, 2002 @ 00:50

Robert Bartley, economic genius, addresses the trick question, "What stimulates the economy, deficits or surpluses?" The answer, of course, is neither. Tax cuts do:

February 5, 2002 @ 00:17

I have read and heard of disturbing acts of terrorism throughout my life, but never has something disgusted me in this way. In Calgary, Alberta, a ten-year-old boy was terrorized by three teenagers who eventually hung the young boy's dog by its leash, while the boy could only scream and watch. (Does anyone else think it fair to classify the perpetrators as terrorists? Perhaps the teenagers had no intention of coercing any society or government, but they certainly terrorized an innocent ten-year-old boy.)

If one good side to this story can be seen, it is the generous response. Vigilance and resolve are not reserved only for Americans:

That's right, Mrs. Barney. Thousands of us. No, millions of us.

Tell me, someone, does this sound like fair punishment to you? Assuming that the perpetrators are apprehended, leash them to trees with steel cables and feed them food and water in little bowls on the ground for one month. Let them each experience something similar to the life they took away – let them bathe in the rain and defecate by a tree for thirty days – and see if they think it was all worth it.

Or, hell, I wouldn't be terribly upset to have these young punks eliminated from the gene pool, as Neal Boortz calls it, but I would never advocate such. I'm just saying... I wouldn't be terribly upset.

February 4, 2002 @ 23:34

Larry Elder is without a doubt the most prominent politically conservative black man in America (not counting government officials). For that reason alone, he is one of the most influential black men in the country. In a time when it isn't popular for a black man to be a conservative, especially in an urban center like Los Angeles, he is also quite a brave man!

He may or may not go down in history as one of the best remembered African Americans, but he certainly deserves credit for what he has done. He has stood in the face of adversity and written highly controversial books, not to mention keeping up a successful radio show for many years. I admit that I know very little about his personal background, but I read his columns regularly, and I would suggest that you do the same – at least once.

This week, Elder challenges the notion that "deficit spending is a potent recession cure when administered properly". First, there isn't much of a challenge there. Look in any history or economics book to find the answer: increasing deficit spending requires higher taxes, meaning the general public has less money, meaning they're less confident about spending, meaning the recession is prolonged – assuming, of course, the absence of lurking variables. History supports that the best cure for a recession is reduced spending combined with tax cuts, which is exactly what Democrats don't want to see.

George Reisman, author of the well received Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, also supports my ideas on the subject:

An essential requirement to a sound economy is balanced budgets with small government. We want government limited to protecting life and property. The government should be attacking terrorists, providing police protection against common criminals, and that should be essentially it, and the people in an environment free from terror will proceed to provide for themselves economically. That has been the basic philosophy on which the United States was built.

In other words, reduce government size to better its efficiency. Pass more tax cuts for the rich (and tax hikes for the some of the poor) to gradually bring us to a flat income tax – the fairest and most equal of all tax plans, no matter what anyone says. Then, with a small government dedicated to protecting its citizens' life, liberty, and property by its military, police, and courts, the people will take control of their own lives...

Of course, it's all theory, but personal responsibility sounds much better than being bound by a collectivist state. I would at least like to feel a sense of independence, even if I am bound in many ways by the social contract into which I was born.

February 4, 2002 @ 18:32

Ah, campaign finance reform. An important issue, yet not one about which the public is too greatfully concerned. In various polls, campaign finance reform is repeatedly ranked as being of the lowest priority of the choices (usually ten to twelve of them, including the economy, terrorism, etc.). And sure, when compared to issues like that, it isn't as important. That doesn't mean the issue is unimportant though. Campaign finance reform is certainly needed – however, identifying a problem is only step one. I barely have any ideas on which to begin even attempting to propose a solution to the campaign finance issue, but I can see clearly enough to recognize that there is a problem.

One one hand, Americans are responsible for electing the officials into office that best represent them, and Americans are free to donate money to whomever they please for whatever they please because, well, that's our freedom of speech for us – Americans should be allowed, under the current system, to contribute any number of dollars to any candidate, campaign, or party. On the other hand, it has become evident that campaign contributions are being used essentially to buy elections; often the candidate with the most money wins because, well, money can be a very powerful thing. I wish it weren't so, but the average American can easily be persuaded by a relatively small amount of cash.

So imagine the votes that be indirectly bought with extremely large sums of money. Of course, I don't believe that large numbers of votes are directly "bought", but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they were. Hell, half of the country votes either Democrat because Democrats keep them income-tax-free or Republican because Republicans advocate tax cuts that would decrease their share of the tax burden and increase the share of those who do not pay their "fair share". Okay, so that was a mouthful...

But I do have a point. And here it is: Candidates should be elected or not as a result of the substance of their campaign, their stances on various issues, and not as a result of how much money they have.

I believe an answer, though probably not the best one, would be to develop provisions for financially regulated campaigns completely provided for by the government. Of course, this would either require a comprehensive law or constitutional amendment, but with the right provisions, it could be a wonderful thing for America. Every political party (or candidate, or whatever) would be granted an equal amount of campaign funds to use as they saw fit. Some sort of provision would need to be included to help decide exactly how third parties would enter the mix; perhaps the year-before election or some other special election or poll can be used to decide who can and can not officially run for office.

As you can see, such a measure would be much more complex than I can detail here, and I obviously do not have all of the answers. Nor should you expect me to have them. But at least my suggestion is better than the current campaign finance reform bill in Congress, which, among other things, would outlaw campaign-funded advertisements during the three-month interval before Election Day. That clause alone is a violation of First Amendment rights.

I am not like most conservatives on this issue. Most think campaign finance reform is a waste of time; things are fine as they are. Well of course conservatives think that way – business is largely on their side (of course, unions are mostly on the liberals' side, so it almost evens out). I don't care so much to keep things as they are because the guys I like more would win. I care so much to make things right and fair for America without shortchanging anyone. And as it currently stands, no third party has a significant national voice because they can't afford campaigns like the Republicans and Democrats can. And I wouldn't dare suggest that any third party is better than either of the other two, but their varying perspectives on various issues should be better heard and received by the general public.

The way I have made this argument, it would be easy for anyone to argue that this, that, and the other contribute to this an that, and the issue really isn't campaign finance. Well, like I said, I'm no expert, but everyone knows that money and sex are two of the world's greatest corruptors, and the fact that money dominates America's campaigns, and thus heavily influences America's elections...

Conclusion. Campaign finance reform is a very controversial issue no matter how you look at it. Money has too much influence over campaigns and elections, but the federal government can not legally touch anyone's first amendment rights for any reason. The issue needs serious thought, serious consideration. The current bill is, in my opinion, far from the best answer, but at least it's a step toward action.

I know I'll get responses to this. I anticipate them, and I expect them to help me to better formulate my own arguments regarding the issue. Email is welcome!

February 4, 2002 @ 13:08

Cultural experiment of the day, brought to you by Tommy through me: How well do you know your beer? Match the bottles to their labels! I got three right off the bat, then five more by process of elimination, before giving up on the last four. Those four... I had never even heard of them. I suppose eight out of ten is pretty good though, especially for someone who never drinks any kind of beer – just Smirnoff Ice, the occasional Zima, and a rare sip of mother's wine.

Then again, maybe it's a bad thing that I can match eight beer labels to their respective bottles, while I can't even remember my physics well enough to make A's on my tests. The human mind is a vast resevoir of useless information; people never cease to amaze me with the useless crap that they know, such as the number of ridges around the side of a dime (118).

Yep, it's a problem.

February 4, 2002 @ 09:00

Interesting theory. I made the point that "liberals" should call themselves progressives because, by definition, a liberal is most closely related to a libertarian, and because political leftists essentially practice progressive politics – pushing for greater government involvement for the greater common good. This is a theory I just picked up on: Leftists call themselves liberals (or progressives) because the terms like communist, then socialist, then democratic socialist lost their luster with the failures of country after country who followed those philosophies.

February 4, 2002 @ 00:54

Peggy Noonan coins the "Bush Doctrine" in an excellent review/interpretation of Bush's State of the Union address:

The president was blunt in unveiling what will perhaps be known as the Bush Doctrine. And that is that the United States will no longer hope for the best in the world and respond only after being attacked; we will, instead, admit and act on the facts of the WMD era and actively search out our would-be killers wherever they are and whoever supports them and shut them down..."

Noonan also has a humorous side (which can always be appreciated in politics, something the average American avoids due to its apparent tendency to bore. That's ashame, too, because people really need to be involved in their own political affairs. How else can their representatives truly represent them?):

In the old days elite opinion held that Mr. Bush was a scripted trust-fund dullard whose rise was greased by luck and birth. Those were the days. Those of us who stood with Mr. Bush then were a small and hardy band of criticized