For baseball fans like Tony and me, this is encouraging. Thirteen of seventeen "experts" pick the Braves to win their division, and thirteen of seventeen pick the Mariners to win their division. (Naturally, all seventeen pick the Yankees to win. Blah. At least they all also picked the Red Sox to finish second, meaning that my pick for Red Sox to beat the Yankees isn't entirely off. Yet.) Three teams were chosen to win each of the other three divisions by at least one of the seventeen "experts", which makes me feel better    I had a tough time deciding about those divisions too. But, in the end, I made my decisions (based on players, coaching staffs, team finances, personal bias, and even a little bit of wishful thinking):

It is impossible, or seems so to me, to make valid predictions for the winners of the major awards, but it's also a popular thing to do just before the baseball season starts. I make no predictions for the rookie of the year because that is just absurd, but here are my other significant award predictions:

I think that's about all there is to predict about the upcoming season, unless I should also pitch in my guess for how many times 10,000 or more fans pay to see an Expos home game. (I'll say 40-41, or half, which is more than anyone else said.) Oh. And the National League will win the All-Star game, and Ken Griffey will re-claim his Home Run Derby crown.

Mmmm, baseball.

From the story section of the official web site for the movie:

I stopped reading right there. That was enough for me. I literally bounced in my seat and giggled like a boy with a new toy. Funny, I've never enjoyed horror movies or overly bloody films, nor have I enjoyed much of Wesley Snipes's movies in the past, but Blade does something for me. It's a great story and I've really gotten into it. Maybe it's just all the kickass fight scenes!

That's it. I'm going (to try) to watch it tomorrow. I have a break between classes from 4:15 to 8:15, and it starts at the nearest (less comfortable) theatre at 5:10. The good theatre doesn't have their showtimes listed online, but I'm sure it starts at a reasonable time... I'd rather see it there if I could. As if you care to which theatre I go.

Complements of Stephen Den Beste's U.S.S. Clueless web site:

One conjecture is that the vampire legends are actually based on the symptoms of human rabies sufferers. The relationship to bats and wolves was due to the fact that those were the most common sources of infection. At one stage in development of the disease, a human rabies sufferer becomes extremely sensitive to light and finds bright light painful, and will tend to avoid it; this may be the source of the mythical abhorrence of daylight by vampires. And creatures who are afflicted by rabies do tend to bite, which may be where the "bite and drink blood" part of the story came from.

So there you have it. The perception of vampires resulted from twisted logical interpretations of the madness of rabies victims. After watching Blade in preparation for Blade II, which I plan to see sometime this week, this is quite interesting. I think it would be anyway, simply because it explains something that was previously completely a mystery to me. I wonder where Den Beste got his information...

"He's visited six of the world's seven continents at least twice, and would stump across Antarctica if the penguins anted up." Hah! But seriously, Jonathan Atler writes an excellent piece on "private citizen Bill Clinton"    in fact, one of the best I have read. Atler's Newsweek cover story gets right to work, revealing that "the only impeached president of the 20th century will gross about $40 million in his first couple of years out of office". Sickening, right? Well, not so much as the diehard capitalist should think. The man's got a gift, and he's cashing in on it. Any right-winger should support that, even if Bill Clinton brought the closest thing to a socialist nightmare since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society plan in the 1960s.

And this I find to be quite funny... One of his trips to Africa    "the only continent where there former president doesn't charge for his services"    was postponed in late March when the group with whom he was meeting opted to meet President Bush in Mexico instead. (Oh, and they had to pay for that.)

Okay, the article is very long, but very, shall I say, entertaining. For those interested in American politics and the talents and shortcomings of the former president, it is a good read. And I am beginning to understand why Bill Clinton received the largest book deal in history    I mean, heck, I'm going to buy the book. Maybe, if I'm dealt a decent hand and I play my cards right, the tables will turn someday; maybe one day Clinton will be reading my book.

The Counter Revolutionary is dedicated to restoring liberalism. Click the link to find out how. Very good site. Very good ideas. And people try to tell me that I'm not a liberal...

That reminds me. Tony and I were assigned a good assignment for our Domestic Issues class. We are to define what liberalism and conservatism mean to us, and then to research and find what they mean to some sort of political authority. Tony and I both immerse ourselves in political thought, so the amount of information to which we've been exposed would be enough to write a virtually unabridged political dictionary ... if we could remember it all. I have a feeling I will enjoy this assignment, if I get around to it. (I'll probably just dig up some old post on my web site.)

The 2002 baseball season is set to kick off (for most teams) Monday afternoon. I have my own predictions for how the season will turn out, but most of them revolve around the Atlanta Braves. Quickly covering the rest of the leagues, I'll put some imaginary money on the Seattle Mariners, New York Yankees (begrudgingly), Boston Red Sox, and the Minnesota Twins in the American League, and the Atlanta Braves, San Francisco Giants, Houston Astros, and Chicago Cubs in the National League. I'll reference this post in October to see how badly I have predicted this season (I only missed one team last year).

As for the Braves, it seems likely that they will run away with another division title    their eleventh in a row    with potentially stiff competition from the New York Mets. Assuming Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux hold up and Albie Lopez improves dramatically in the starting rotation, the pitching will once again be top-notch; I expect Jason Marquis and Kevin Millwood to be our aces this year, and I expect the bullpen (especially Smoltz) to perform quite well.

The lineup is the best it's been since 1973, easily better than the 1993 Gant-Justice-McGriff combo. Six players in the lineup could hit thirty home runs; four could hit forty; Chipper Jones or Gary Sheffield could hit fifty. Everyone could hit .300, though that isn't likely. In short, though, the Braves have their best lineup in decades. I predict a great season from them, and perhaps they'll meet the Mariners in the World Series...

A visitor to Glenn Reynolds's site offered some interesting comments yesterday:

I had this depressing feeling that we're not to 1941 yet, we're still stuck in in 1937 or so. A regional or global conflagration is over the horizon, but we're still jerking around, trying to placate our enemies.... [Which means we'll either] lose the war, or thousands more Americans    and Israelis    will have to die before we'll try to win.

Interesting thoughts. I'm not sure what to believe, but history tells me that, despite the noble intentions of "peace processes" and what not, it only delays the inevitable and ends up costing us more than it could have. Maybe if we weren't too busy dicking around and trying to appease everyone who wants to bring us under their control... Well, for the sake of the entire globe, maybe it's better for now, but in the long run it's going to destroy us. Sure, the few billions of us now are potentially safer, but down the road... Our descendents will pay for the bad decisions we've made. Such is the nature of life.

But at least the Arab states are on Iraq's side. (Wait, that's a good thing? Hmm...) Reynolds suggests that, as a result of our "you're either for us or against us" policy, we have forced Arab states to publicly admit what many have suspected all along    that they're against us. "Perhaps they should be forced to live with that declaration." Amen.

Browsing the web just now, an idea struck me: Does the constitution protect anonymous free speech? Certainly, Americans have the right to say what they want when we want, but if we refuse to accept the potential consequences of what is said by failing to attach our name, then what? This is an interesting question, one which I have not really thought about before. I'd like your opinion, if you're up for it. Just send me a quick email, and I'll do something with any responses I get, well, sooner or later.

If this bomb is nuclear, maybe that major, catastrophic, overdue earthquake due to the Eastern seaboard of the United States isn't so far off. Well, that's just the first thought that crossed my mind in reaction, anyway. Imagine... a few hundred pounds of explosives at the bottom of the sea would cause enough problems. A nuclear explosion 100 times worse than Hiroshima... man. Europe might feel tidal effects of that.

Note: I have no significant knowledge of plate tectonics or of the ability of a tidal wave to travel across 3000 miles of ocean. The lack of understanding means, as far as I'm concerned, the potential is there, and that warrants concern. Don't you think?

I had no idea someone else had seriously thought about Rice in the White House. I mean, it makes perfect sense that someone has. As if, of hundreds of millions of people in this country, Tony and I could be the only two to imagine Condoleezza Rice running the place... But, seriously, I had no idea that it was this big. (Click the link, Tony. You'll like some of the images.)

On an unrelated note, I'm off to watch Blade. Hopefully, I will have re-emersed myself with the vampire mythology before seeing the movie's sequel on Sunday afternoon. And, after just getting through Training Day, I have to wonder about something I noticed at the Oscars last Sunday. Denzel Washington won the Best Actor Oscar for Training Day; Ethan Hawke won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for Training Day. Well, I think Ethan played the leading role, and Denzel's character was just support. I mean, the movie was called "Training Day", and who was training? Not Denzel    he was the trainer. The movie was about Ethan's day, not Denzel's.

Not like it matters. They both won Oscars for kickass work on a kickass movie. And girls, don't worry; despite being a stereotypical guy movie, it isn't bloody or scary... just suspenseful. The squemish type should get through this one thinking, "I think I actually liked this one". (I say this based on Claire's reaction to the movie. You know, because she is my standard for everything.)

There is a lot to talk about today. Israeli forces have Arafat trapped, Osama bin Laden is alive and apparently fairly well, and, most interesting to me because it isn't substantive or relevant to today's nwes at all, it has been determined that the World Trade Center towers withstood the impact of the planes well: the fires brought them down.

Also, I had a funny idea in a conversation with Tony yesterday. It seems that the biggest complaint with George W. Bush, as a Republican, is his questionable stance on sexuality and related issues and on censorship. Perhaps it isn't his stance so much as it is John Ashcroft's, but hey, Bush appointed him. So, to compensate for Bush's (insignificant) shortcomings, here was the idea: forget Bush in 2004. Let's see Powell/Rice run for the White House. Okay, so the shock might be too much for many, but I honestly believe that either Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice would be great at either of the top executive jobs in the country. Sure, they're both black, so their campaign would go down in history regardless of the turnout.

But I say they would win.

Same song, different lyric. Or is it same lyric, different song? Either way, it's good to know that they have at least more sense in and around San Diego than in Berkeley. Last week, El Cajun school officials rejected a parent's request to consider separate bathrooms in schools for homosexuals and heterosexuals. (Frighteningly, 52% of the several thousands who have voted in the poll support discrimination.) It seems to me that gays blend it perfectly well with any one else if they choose to. Besides, re-segregation    for no matter what reason    would be a huge step backwards, if not down an entire flight of really steep stairs, into that familiar world of discrimination.

Think about it: what adolescent-age child doesn't accuse someone of being gay at some point or another? Whether as a prank, as an insult, or as an observation, all separate bathrooms would do is further encourage any separated groups to scream discrimination and win any legal battled that ensued. There is especially no room for that anymore. Sorry, dad, but there really isn't any way to prevent your child from being exposed to all that you don't want them to be exposed to, except for putting them on really short leashes and over-protecting the hell out of them, rendering them useless in their future lives without your support.

Let them grow into the world, and let them experience what there is to experience. A child is much better off being exposed to such things with proper guidance and education attached than not being exposed to such things, only to be forced to react perhaps irrationally in the face of it later. Take your pick.

After a short but productive conversation with Kyla (a good friend from high school who I miss very much), an inner conflict has risen in my head. I argued that the racial theme at the Oscars last Sunday was a destructive blow in the everlasting fight to improve race relations in America, but now I'm not so sure. Kyla argues that the so-called theme (which she didn't think was a theme at all) was productive because it light-heartedly called attention to a controversial issue, which is (I am extrapolating now) perhaps the best way to produce positive change.

We did not have time to debate the issue efficiently, but we discussed enough to have me reconsider my previous stance. I suppose, in the end, my biggest concern is that it is still acceptable for the average black American to sling racial terms, jokes, and slurs, but not for the average white American to do the same. As Al said, it seems that one side (need I specify which?) is hell-bent on preventing equality by pointing out, prolonging, and even practicing the inequalities.

Then again, the notion of equality is absurd. Inequalities are natural and good; equality is unnatural and bad. Nature tends toward entropy, or chaos. Things are simply supposed to be different. Patterns may form, but no two objects can ever be exactly alike. That said, why should we ever expect every aspect of life to be absolutely equal. If the laws are adjusted so that the opportunities are fairly distributed, that is all that we can do. For the rest, let nature take its course.

Again, read my essay on equality and inequality for a more philosophical discussion about the nature of all of that.

Tommy sent this in. It tickled my funny bone in just the right way so that I couldn't resist sharing it with you. (I modified it a little.) I hope you laugh.

The moral of the story? Take your pick: Don't talk about people when they aren't there to defend themselves, never verbally assault a woman, and go easy on the sex jokes.

I'll say it again: ex post facto!

Don't forget to meet you-know-who at you-know-where at you-know-what-time for you-know-what. (Simple reminder for simple something. Ignore if it doesn't pertain to you. Thanks.)

Can you say ex post facto? I'm guessing that many of us will hear about it if this slavery reparations case gets very far. From the article: "The lawsuit does not seek a specific dollar amount, but estimates slaves performed as much as $40 million worth of unpaid labor between 1790 and 1860. The current value of that labor could be as high as $1.4 trillion."

To my knowledge, the slave trade was not officially abolished until at least after the Civil War. (Friendly reminder: Lincoln's Gettysburg Address did not free any slaves. Lincoln did not free any slaves.) This means that the corporations who supposedly committed these acts, regardless of the inhumanity perceived of them today, can not be punished because the laws prohibiting their practice did not take effect until after the said time period in which the questionable acts took place. And according to our Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3), "No...ex post facto law shall be passed".

For the uninformed, an ex post facto law is a law which acts retroactively. In other words, an act that was not criminal when it took place may be deemed criminal and the actor may be tried. This is illegal because every specific law on the books in this country is set up to give the advantage to the accused (which comes with advantages and disadvantages).

Come to think of it, there is no clarification in the Constitution that an ex post facto law refers only to criminal laws. Yet, for many years, it has been common for laws to be passed that are retroactive in nature, such as for allocating a certain amount of funds per month for a project retroactive to six months ago, thus shelling out six months worth of missed payments all at once... for example. Hmm, seeing that the Constitution says no ex post facto laws, how are non-criminal ex post facto laws justified?

Al had this to say in response to my blabbering about racism at the Oscars:

I think I have been trying to say this for a while now. The argument presented in your first paragraph is precisely the counterargument I use against affirmative action. Certainly, affirmative action was a necessary evil at its inception, just as the women's rights movement was necessary at one time. But there comes a time for everything when enough is enough; the job has been done, the reformation is complete, so call back the reform!

One of the biggest problems with American policies today is that they don't come with expiration dates. Law after law is established and sits on the books, which is precisely why, until recently, it was still illegal in Massachusetts for a man to drive a car on a road if there are any horses present. The law stated that the car must be pulled to the side of the road and fully disassembled until the horse(s) moved on. Ridiculous? Well give the law an expiration date! It isn't that difficult; just make it the last line of the bill.

Take, for instance, last year's tax cut bill. George Bush signed into law some tax cuts that will save Americans about two trillion dollars over the next ten years. At that point, the law expires and will be up for reconsideration. If the law is decided in ten years to have been a good idea, maybe similar measures will be taken again so that good times may endure. If not, well it expired, so the law is history. (By that time, of course, Democrats will be preaching that tax cuts were their idea to begin with.)

I'm getting off the subject. I agree with you, Al. Stressing equality while practicing inequality    we have a word for that: hypocrisy! For more on this subject, feel free to read my essay, The Political Ideal: Equality or Inequality?. In it I cite Aristotle, Isaiah Berlin, and John Locke to illustrate that inequality is natural and good, and equality is unnatural and bad. Pretty much. If you've never read it, read it. It isn't that long.

I noticed a theme during the presentation of the Academy Awards Sunday night. I chose to keep quiet about it until now for various reasons. (first, I hadn't had the time, and second, no one else had commented on it.)

When Halle Berry won the award for best actress in a leading role, it was instantly a racial matter. My first reaction to her racial comments were that "she must know something I don't". Well, she did. She knew that know black woman had ever won the award. Still, that wasn't much of an excuse to behave in the manner that she did – in fact, it was a pretty poor excuse.

Of course, that wasn't all. Host Whoopi Goldberg was slinging Chris Rock-quality comments all night. I was laughing half of the time, but the other half I was wondering why it's okay for Whoopi but not for Ted Danson to joke about race. I've concluded on more than one occasion that blacks' willingness to keep the racism alive... wait, that's it. They keep it alive by focusing so much energy on it.

I've had a couple of conversations about this already. The consensus seems to agree with this: actors like Denzel Washington, Will Smith, and Halle Berry aren't traditionally regarded as simply black, nor are other white actors regarded as simply white. In fact, most aren't regarded in racial terms at all. At least, not until someone brings race to the conscious mind. People like Whoopi Goldberg, Martin Lawrence, and Chris Rock seem to like doing that. (And of course there are white actors who do it too, but I can't think of any good examples.)

Available this morning is Tunku Varadarajan's article about the racial them at the Academy Awards. Certainly, it is a more scholarly presentation of similar thoughts that I have presented here. Check it out.

Never underestimate the power of the Internet. I have learned that no information is unattainable if one knows how to look for it. When checking for sources of the quotation days ago, I only knew the words, and I could only find links to several uncited instances of the quotation in question. So all I had to go on, really, was what Anna told me she had heard from Tony.

Claire, having a bazillion Johnny Carson tapes from his "Tonight Show" days, recognized the quote from one of the shows. Putting keywords together with "Tonight Show" made putting a name to the quote much more easy. Oh, wait, did you want to know who said that?

Research is incredibly difficult if you don't know enough about a given topic to go on. Any high school or college student knows that...

If we, as Americans in general, don't mind paying billions of dollars in tax money to the families of September 11 victims for damages that we did not incur – reparations, if you will – why do we complain so much about paying for the damages incurred throughout our nation's history? Why do we balk at Jesse Jackson's demand for reparations? It's really no different.

His requests are no less harmful to this country than the idea that Americans owe our victims something; blacks have no doubt been victims of white elitism for many decades, but we refuse to pay blacks because it's based on discrimination. Well, I'm no Oxford scholar, but I know how to read a dictionary, and doing anything to or for any group of people because of some common trait among them is discrimination.

Besides, anyone who would reduce their loved ones to a dollar amount for appeasement... Well, that's another debate in itself. What is that saying?!

Hypothetical situation: Suppose a terrorist attack (on the Superbowl, for instance) takes out 70,000 Americans in one blow. Are we going to offer $1.5 million per victim for those families, too? That's over $100 billion, or about 5% the amount of money our government is spending per year these days! That is a huge amount of cash to be redistributed to such a tiny percentage of our population.

Hypothetical question: Where does it stop? When does reason prevail?

With only sixty supporters in the Senate, the Senate couldn't muster a veto override, but with sucker-punch tactics like this, I would much rather have the bill signed and thrown to the Supreme Court to decide its fate. You see, I am hugely in favor of anyone's freedom of speech superceding the necessity of limiting the power of the financial elite. But when they so flagrantly flaunt their money in this way – the exact reason why the bill exists in the first place – I am all in favor, especially if it limits their political "free speech". If they are going to rely on money to try to buy their way into office, they should not be allowed to run.

A billionaire media mogul has given the Democratic National Committee $7 million, believed to be the single largest donation ever to a political party. The DNC also recently received a $5 million check...that would otherwise have held the record. "I hope that my contribution will inspire Democrats that are much richer than me to step up to the plate higher than me," said...the $7 million donor. "I will be very happy to be fifth in line." Word of the seven-figure checks comes as President Bush prepares to sign a ban on such unlimited "soft money" contributions to political parties.

Like any other government process, a candidacy has rules. Someone just needs to change them. Remember, money can't buy everything. If you're in jail, you can't bribe yourself out of it. So why can politicians bribe their ways into public office? That isn't what the First Congress considered to be free speech; more like plutocracy, to which they were vehemently opposed.

I'm tired of the lie that money means so much to anyone. No one really cares for money; they only care for what they can get with the money. No one hesitates to spend money for something they want because they don't really care for the money, but only its purpose. Money is simply a medium for exchange and part of a very a complicated system. Unfortunately, as part of a system, most goods or services have somewhat fixed prices; remember that price does not equal value, and that the system is far too complex to question why anything costs what it does. The system should be respected for its own sake, and for our own.

So when anyone find loopholes in the system or abuses the system in some otherway, the system (or whatever allows the abuse) should be revised to prevent it. In this case, politicians and the financial elite are abusing the system by throwing billions of dollars away on partisan politics. Let me tell you something: spending money on a campaign does not help the economy, and it also ensures that the two major parties will always hold a diopoly on the political affairs in this country.

The offense against campaign finance reform will sound something like this: limiting soft money contributions directly reduces the freedom of "speech" for anyone who wishes to show support for a political campaign. My defense of campaign finance reform will sound something like this: the limits of free speech already imposed on smaller parties are much worse than anything this bill could do now or that a bill ten times worse could do later; The Republicans' and Democrats' duopoly violates the "antitrust laws" of politics, and prevents smaller parties from participating in national elections.

No! No! No! No!

This makes room for more links without having to scroll miles down the page. Not that any of you use this site as a web portal or anything, but I do. This web site is my one-click ticket to just about anywhere I want to go. Someday I'll actually think to link to my Amazon.com wish list or some of my favorite downloads sites, but until then, I'm just making room.

This has been a rough week:

Monday. Five major homework assignments due in Multimedia. I had done them all in class and uploaded them appropriately, because I thought the instructor checked them off as we did them. But no... He checks them all at once, and because each assignment adds to the previous, I saved it all in one file, so each of my periodic uploads overwrote the previous, meaning he does not have the first four of my homeworks. I still haven't redone them, because he didn't explain that he doesn't check the homework until after the drop date.

Tuesday. Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone must be read and completed notes must be turned in. Because this was not announced until the previous week, I am far from finished. But I am working as fast as I can considering the amount of work I have had in five of my six classes this week. I'm getting closer. Because of this assignment alone, I skipped Physics, Multimedia, Domestic Issues (this class), and Database Monday and Tuesday; I only attended my night classes because I had tests in each.

Wednesday. Flowcharts for Multimedia project are due. I had no idea; I thought he said next Wednesday. Either way, I'll get them to him next time the class meets.

Tests. I had tests in Networking (Monday), Advanced Web Development (Tuesday), and Physics (Wednesday). I should have made A's in all three, and especially on the IT tests before the Physics test, but my A on my Physics test defies that logic. (Actually, the Web Development grade will be curved, because he believes that raw scores mean little toward grades; the average student he encounters is a high-B-quality student, and so he curves his grades around that. My 84 was the second-highest score, so it looks like I'll have a 95 or so.) Networking is actually my favorite class, and I know the stuff very well; severe sleep deprivation (and being unusually unaccustomed to it this semester) caused several mental mistakes. Upon viewing the mistakes, I was dumbfounded. Why the hell did I pick that answer!? That's wrong! And the Physics test... Physics is easily the most demanding class I am taking because it does not involve computers or politics; it's strictly taking notes, memorizing formulas and defnitions, and applying it all for tests. However, I seem to have a knack for the mathematical stuff (I always have, I guess), and I might actually pull an A in there. Go me.

Work. Oh yeah. I worked from 9:00am to 6:00pm Saturday, not counting an hour's break for lunch, after staying up until 6:00am Friday night trying to read the book before realizing that I had to work that morning. You try to shelve books – bending down and over and up and kneeling and squatting and lifting and pushing and pulling – for nine hours on two hours of sleep. I read all day Sunday. I worked from 9:00-10:30 Monday morning before skipping classes to read until my night class at 8:15. I worked from 9:00-12:00 Tuesday morning before skipping classes until going back to work from 3:45-5:15 and then to my night class at 6:00. Being Tuesday night and being absolutely worn out, I relaxed when I got home and waited on "24" to come on at 9:00. I read when it was over and went to bed around 1:00 or so. I woke up this morning, went to work from 9:00-10:30, went to school (test, lab, class), came home, ate an early dinner, and here I am.

Speaking of "24", I have my first complaint. (Stop reading right now if you do not want anything spoiled.) At the very end of the hour, after the safe house was proven not to be so safe, Teri and Kim Bauer were on the run from The Bad Guy™. Teri (mom) pulled the car off onto a side road, The Bad Guy kept going, she stopped to take a look.

Danger, Will Robinson! Teri Bauer's life is in danger. Her daughter's life is in danger. She's pissed, she's scared, and her husband is dealing with superintelligent assassins who want him and his family dead, among others. And Teri is smart. There is no way in hell that she would have stopped to check just then. If the guy drove by, she and her daughter would be dead in moments. But she stopped to check it out...

About thirty steps from the car, we hear Kimberly scream as the car, which was stopped too close to the edge of a steep hill, slides off the edge, bounces once, and by the time mom gets to the edge to see – boom! Car explodes into a giant fireball. Instead of acting the part of smart, rational mom, who she had been for the last several episodes, she stood there and looked stupified before fainting. At the end of the hour, she had risen and walked away from the site; she bumped her head when she feel to her knees and slumped over and now can not remember who she is. After a kind passer-by picks her up, Kim climbs up the ravine from where she had been tossed out of her open window just before the car exploded. (Luck? Irony? Or must the show go on?)

And, of course, the bad guy has just turned around and is on his way back toward the area as the episode comes to a close. My prediction for next week, without seeing the previews (I never watch them), is that Kim wanders around looking for mom and finds Mr. Bad Guy instead.

I'm loving this show. I am going to buy the DVD set for this season when it's released.

The ones that didn't mind or even liked my opinions, aside from you, generally kept quiet. We were thus left with a storm of bigotry flying in my direction, and so the best and only hope for them learning anything from anyone else left the group. They are left to build on common knowledge, which means shit. You can't learn from what you already know; you have to experience something different. But they throw different out as wrong every time.

So screw them.

(I spoke of severing ties last month. These are my first words since, and my last, on the matter. )

At least three Fox News articles pissed me off when I read them. First, it seems that ranting online is punishable. Remember that freedom of speech thing that people have been talking about for the last 210 years or so? Things like this are why we keep talking about it. Second, our (least) favorite anti-conservatives are taking shots at the President again. What the hell? For a nation of people of all walks of life that preaches so loudly about unity, these morons certainly know how to make hypocrites of themselves. Want to be a hypocrite? Advocate national unity and equality and then verbally attack the one man in the entire country who is supposed to represent each and every one of us (even if you didn't vote for him – that's how the system works). Finally, someone seems optimistic that cloture is approaching and that campaign finance reform will soon be signed into law. Well, I'm not so sure how they expect to get sixty of the one hundred Senators to support cloture, let alone the bill itself, but if it passes, it is another reason why the issue of freedom of speech is still heavily debated in America.

Politicians are so damn dirty. I'm beginning to think more and more that I should be one one day, just to prove that I can be what they can't be – successful and clean. The problem? The guys in office now are supposedly guarding the doors. But as I like to say when someone tells me that, "but we hold the keys". They're nothing without the support of their constituencies, so I'm nothing until I can gain some support. Anyone want to contribute? You've got eighteen years to figure out how to vote... and anyone my age having kids right about now can groom their kids to vote for me too.

If I have any potential of being elected to anything by 2020, I'll be just as surprised as you.

So why do they hate us? They hate us for the same reason Homer Simpson hates Ned Flanders. Now, now, I know a lot of people would be upset to be told that the United States is Ned Flanders and not Homer, but just bear with me here.... Ned Flanders, especially in the early episodes, was shown as a man who, because of his honesty and work ethic, always managed to have a nicer house, an easy to manage family, a wife with a higher butt, washboard abs, and generally a better overall life than Homer. Ned was always willing to help Homer at any instance, whether that be some cash, the loan of a power sander, or the invite to a BBQ. [Meanwhile, Homer] resents the living hell out of Flanders.

This is just classic. Remember, however, that this interpretation represents the common American perception that "they" resent us, when for all we know it could be rather common that they simply misunderstand us without any feelings of resentment at all. In fact, they may be just as tolerant of us as we are of them (that may not being saying much for everyone...); a few bad apples can easily distort perception. (This disclaimer is intended to point out that we mean not to judge "their" character, but only to draw some sort of parallel, whether accurate or not, for the sake of understanding and perhaps a little laugh.)

Comparing post-September 11 attitudes to the Simpsons is genius. And the advertisement on the side of the page is clever too: "I'm better than you. Give me money." Hah. This guy's got a gift...

Defenestrate. Look it up. :) (See nickd.org.)

It is becoming routine that nickd.org should be temporarily shut down as the closing of any given semester (quarter?) approaches. Nick shuts down his site for several weeks while he completes final projects, studies for finals, and makes ends meet, and by the time it is all over, nickd.org is back but not looking a whole lot like nickd.org any more. And by the time it happens again, you have finally grown used to the nickd.org that didn't look like nickd.org looking like that, and it happens again. Such is the nature of routines.

Reading the Drudged headline – "Teens Turn 9/11 Into Slang Bonanza" – of this article concerns me, but in a way that probably wouldn't be immediately obvious to most. No, the fact that children and adolescents are using terms and phrases like "terrorist", "jihad", "ground zero", and "Your mama, Osama" to apply to various negative aspects of their daily lives does not concern me. People have always done that. Negatively connoted slang has always derived from negatively connoted terms. (Just think of how many times you have heard the word "holocaust" outside of its intended meaning.

After any event significant in America or to Americans, there lies the potential for terms associated with the event to be extracted and later used as slang. I know that it is still rather common to hear someone use Hitler's name far out of the context of World War II, and there are probably scores of other slang tersm that are probably so deeply embedded into our everyday speech that we do not realize their true origin.

My concern regarding this new slang is not with our freedom of speech. My concern is with how speech will be limited as a result. I highly doubt that anyone will be legally discouraged from using the terms "jihad", "burqa", or "Osama", but they will be persuaded in so many other ways – by parents, teachers, and many other elders and peers who only want to make the world sound better than it really is.

I understand that some people can take offense to some of those terms, but if the kids mean nothing by it, don't punish them for saying what they may not understand. Instead, educate them. Explain to them why they shouldn't use certain terms in certain ways. The result would likely be that they will not continue to misuse the words later in life, or at least not without some accompanying fit of irrationality (such as rage). In any event, at least neither ignorance nor improperly educating parents or teachers could be to blame for it.

Comparing this to classically offensive terms that identify racial differences, I can guess that some of today's new terror slang will eventually be decided to be more offensive than the rest, and the use of such slang will be avoided in most conversation. I don't really know why. Why people can find offense in such silly words – from people who should obviously not be taken seriously if they use them in that manner – is beyond my comprehension. And to extend the list of unacceptable slang terms... an indirect means of limiting free speech.

It makes no sense to me that non-partisan decisions can be made on partisan grounds; "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy [Democrat] told Republicans last week...that he would force judicial nominees that Democrats don't like to move to the back of the line." Leahy claims that the Democrats would like to move first on the "non-ideological and well-qualified of President Bush's nominees". Taken at face value, there is nothing wrong with that statement. But just as anything to the left of a conservative may seem extreme, so too does anything to the right of a liberal. In other words, any nominee more conservative than Leahy will seem like a bad choice; the nominee may not actually be a conservative, but being more conservative than Leahy means Leahy will think of him as conservative. By "non-ideological", Leahy means to say that he is looking for someone closer to his view of the middle, which is likely much further left than the average conservative would like.

So, you see, Senate Democrats are playing partisan politics with judicial nominees, and that's not good. We don't need obstruction to get in the way of our court system. A Democratic president will be elected again and then the tables will be turned, assuming that the Republicans get a majority in the Senate, and we don't need the obstructionist game to be played every time the process cycles.

It is my view that, especially when dealing with the judiciary, the Senate should drop ideology completely and confirm the best-qualified judges. A solid foundation in constitional law, reasonable experience in public affairs, and a mostly clean background should be all that are necessary to qualify any nominee; the rest should be a comparison of qualifications. Ideology should never enter the debate.

On a related note, I have good news! Robert Putnam establishes in Bowling Alone, a result of what must have been years of studying and documenting hard data, that political parties in America are on the decline. They have more than twice as much money as they did twenty years ago, but we the people identify with them less and less. Their efforts have become less personal and more commercial. Door-to-door greetings by supporters and town-to-town appearances by candidates no longer dominate campaigns; instead, campaigns are run by thousands of professionals who's job is to effectively market a product. As a result, citizens are drawn further away and allow themselves to consider alternative points of view. (It's the Democrats' fault. They're the ones who always preach against "plutocracy" and redistributing wealth, yet look at their practice. They would never dream of making it fair for third parties and independents.)

The party structure is weakening, and I hope the trend continues!

I have to admit that the last time I mentioned the European Union, I didn't much know what I was talking about. And I still am not familiar with the politics of the organization or with its operations in Europe or how it affects the rest of the world. I am sure, however, that former Prime Minister Thatcher's claim that Britain should pull out of the EU will make more than a few headlines and turn more than a few heads.

Well... Good. Britain is finally taking action and choosing to be sovereign again, or at least choosing to be less socialist than before. Or, well, I suppose that's jumping to conclusion, since a former Prime Minister really has little direct effect on the decision-making processes regarding national affairs...

Michael Lasseter has finally received his sentence. On November 16, if you recall, Lasseter was on his way to catch a plane at Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta when he realized that he left a camera bag back at baggage check, so he had to retrieve it. Having already waited in the horribly lines once and not wanting to wait again and miss his plane, he ran past security guards and down the up-escalator, resulting in the shutting down of the airport for roughly four hours. He could have been imprisoned for two years and fined $2000. Instead, a slap on the wrist: Michael Lasseter must serve five weekends in prison and is banned from attending any UGA football games in the 2002 season. (Aww...)

Lasseter has also settled a civil lawsuit with AirTran Airways, which originally had sought damages of at least $75,000. Lasseter has not paid up to the Federal Aviation Commission yet; he is expected to appeal a $3,300 fine for allegedly violating U.S. safety rules. (Violating U.S. safety rules?! With fines for rules like that, it's a wonder that more of us aren't aware that this nation's current path is leading to socialism...)

I found this days-old news via David's journal, which is hosted a domain with the fortunate name BushTit.com. Hmm, interesting.

Kevin Kelly has written an excellent article in the New York Times regarding digital piracy and the culture of the copy.

In this new supersaturated online universe of infinite free digital duplication, the axis of value has flipped. In the industrial age, copies often were more valuable than the original.... But now, in a brave new world of abundant and free copies, the order has inverted. Copies are so ubiquitous, so cheap (free, in fact) that the only things truly valuable are those which cannot be copied... for instance: trust, immediacy, personalization.

Kelly asserts that "music copydom" has or will have three phases. perfection ("perfect duplication made the modern world and made modern music"), freeness ("costless duplication made Napster possible and a music revolution thinkable"), and liquidity ("the ability to make music do what you want, when you want" [InstaPundit). Liquidity "is the real consumer benefit here, and I think that record companies still don't get that".

Finally, I lift a paragraph from Kelly's article to illustrate the difference between realistic optimism and irrational idealism, an illustration mostly aimed at Tony. The difference is that, when one is realistically optimistic, he or she knows that the potential, hoped-for outcome is possible and plausible; it would simply take a lot of work. When one is irrationally ideallistic, he or she can provide no realistic suggestions for accomplishing such a task. When someone knows how to get something done and potentially has the means to get it done or even simply initiate the process, it doesn't matter how implausible it may seem. It's likeliness isn't what I'm going for; its potential given the right results to persuasion is what I'm going for.

If this third power of the digital copy [liquidity] were to play out in full, the world would be full of people messing around with sound and music much as they dabble in taking snapshots and shaping Web pages. The typical skepticism toward a scenario of ubiquitous creation and recreation of music is that it is always easier to read than to write, to listen than to play, to see than to make. That is true. Yet 10 years ago, anyone claiming that ordinary people would flock to expensive computers to take time from watching TV in order to create three billion or more Web pages -- well, that person would have been laughed out of the room as idealistic, utopian. People just aren't that creative or willing to take time to create, went the argument. Yet, against all odds, three billion Web pages exist. The growth of the Web is probably the largest creative spell that civilization has witnessed. Music could experience a similarly exuberant, irrational flowering of the amateur spirit.

And, as recent concerns have suggested, "The arrival of perfect, free, and liquid copies of music means that new economic models of making music will be forced upon musicians." But later he asserts that "in the end, the future of music is simple: more choices." So I would rather suggest that new economic models will also be forced upon, if not only upon, the record labels and companies. As consumers and the musicians themselves lean toward independence and more available choices, the record companies' role will necessarily be reconsidered.

Time put up an interesting articles about the Gores, in which Karen Tumulty asks, what happens if Tipper doesn't win Albert's old Senate seat? Would their hopes for vindication after his loss in 2000 be destroyed? Well, whatever.

I think a much better question, regarding a possibility not even broached by Tumulty, would have been this: What if she wins, and then Albert is elected President in 2004? Does the junior Senator of Tennessee sleep in the White House? Imagine the potential that would have for Washington, both good and bad. Wait—is there a law preventing that? There certainly shouldn't be, but the fact that no one has mentioned any consideration of it makes me wonder... why not?!

I found Amy Harmon's New York Times article via Tim O'Reilly's O'Reilly Network article, which I found via Glenn Reynolds's Instapundit web site. I like Harmon's ideas. As O'Reilly similarly opined, her article is one of the more balanced pieces regarding digital piracy that I've seen. And while I agree with the industry that the ability to acquire, replicate, and share digital copies of digital audio, sound, and other software is inherently bad and infringes on the rights of those repsonsible for creating said works, "what [the industry] is asking for is not technologically feasible: no one has yet invented practical copy protection that could not be cracked."

The question should not be whether or not copying and sharing commercial products amongst consumers freely is right or wrong; there should be no question about the wrongness of the act. But society has grown comfortable with its freedom and ability to do that, and the industry is suddenly taking drastic measures to halt it. I say drastic because, as explained above, the methods available now for curing the problem are not feasible. No method of copy protection is uncrackable, and while a few may be willing to make a sacrifice for moral good, the millions of us won't, and the industry can not afford to lose much business from millions of its customers ... at least not without raising prices above the semi-ridiculous current levels.

Of course, being mostly a libertarian and a product of the Information Age, I have to wonder why anyone even teases themselves with the thought that copying anything can be prevented, short of some sort of totalitarian system to control it. This is a time and place when all citizens are supposedly equally allowed the information available to society, and to hold information back because of one's social or economic situation would be wrong. Now, obviously, music and movies and software are not just information, so this isn't exactly an argument that could be used to defend free-for-all file-sharing, but the argument compares to the issue and raises interesting points about man's freedom to do what he pleases with his own property. (It's also a very liberal argument. Go me.)

If I had the time, I might try to write much more on the topic, but important homework (and a significant amount of it) prevents that. Perhaps Mr. Reynolds would like to write a column pointing out why copy protection may and may not be feasible. He certainly seems to understand the political nature of industry and society better than I do.

And don't forget to wear green today.

Upon learning that Tipper Gore may run for Senate, Glenn Reynolds suggested that perhaps he should throw his hat into the ring. Nah, Glenn, you shouldn't throw your hat into that ring. The voters of Georgia and elsewhere wouldn't be able to show their support. On the other hand, if you are elected, that sets your first term to expire in 2008, just in time for another office that will be opening up... I'd vote for you, but there are a handful of Republicans who could get the nomination after Bush that might get in your way!

The chips are falling into place, and some where in the Middle East, some one's being dealt a bad hand. I heard on the radio this morning that several troops from Robins Air Force Base were deployed to the Middle East for undisclosable reasons, but essentially because the war on terrorism is going to continue. Also this morning, it has been decided that Russia will continue to support the American-led coalition in the war on terrorism if the United States unilaterally attacks Iraq, although Russia does not support such an attack.

Usually, at this stage in the game, it only takes on nation to agree begrudgingly to continue their support for all or most of the rest of them to fall into line. It isn't that they are sheep, but most of the nations in question must stand together on such important issues as war. They must share similar goals, even if they disagree with some of the methods, and support each other to ensure the shortest path to success. In no way do I suggest that the path to success will be short (though it could be), but it can be lengthened by Eurasian countries who do not think America should attack Iraq.

I am confident in my country's ability to fight for its causes. Our ability to fight for what we believe has been one of our strongest weapons, not only in physical war but also in political battles. America is known, at least by Americans, as a nation of millions who will stand together for its common goals – to protect itself, its constitution, and its people – and overcome difficult battles. We fought tyranny in the American Revolutionary war and won against extremely long odds. We fought tyranny, though tyranny that was not directly imposed on us, in World War II, and we helped our coalition of allies to pull through and defeat our enemies.

It is the American way to fight, but only when it is deemed most necessary. America doesn't stir up trouble for no good reason, and I think history shows that pretty well. (Of course, there are always examples to the contrary, and I wouldn't mind hearing what you have to say about that.) The war on terror and terrorism will continue, and I am in support of taking Saddam Hussein down. (I can understand his threats. If a nation with the track record as good as the United States' was coming after me, I would try to deter them also.)

This is my interpretation of the "prophecy" regarding Fox Mulder and his and Dana's son, William:

So the obvious answer is to keep Mulder alive, not kill him and the child, as Scully was told in the last episode. Upon Doggett's awakening, he was compelled by voices heard in his dream to tell Scully not to believe "them", so this makes even more sense. Do not believe the evil lying man who tells you to kill them both. Keeping them both alive will obviously prevent the evolution revolution, so this man holding William hostage has ulterior motives, a hidden agenda.

Because there can only be a movie if Mulder stays alive, the only other plausible option is that William is killed. Because William can not become the rebel leader if he's dead (or if Mulder is alive, or especially if both conditions are met), the rebellion fails, for now, and humanity is saved. Scully is heartbroken, but relieved to reunite with Mulder. Both leave the X-Files and the FBI. There is movie potential, although I have no idea what such a movie would entail.

Clearly, the best option is for both Mulder and William to survive. This makes the most sense for the reasons mentioned above and because it is X-Files tradition for the good guys to overcome all odds. Critical good-guy characters are never killed off of the X-Files. If any major characters die between now and May 19, I would expect them to be from the following list: Deputy Director Alvin Kersh, Assistant Director Brad Follmer, Assistant Director Walter Skinner. Follmer is the least likely to die, in my opinion, because he is not deeply involved with anything. Kersh is probably most likely to die, because there have been hints of his involvement in horrible things for years. Skinner is in between; he's been caught in the middle for years, but in the end his conscience has always dominated, and he has mostly served Mulder's and Scully's best interests.

Al Gore is making his comeback, but will it be enough to land him in the White House? First he has to defeat a formiddable selection of candidates for the Democratic nomination. Of course, no Democrat's early start for a run at the presidency would be complete without a little Bush-bashing. Despite that I don't much like Gore, I would much prefer him over Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, or Dick Gephardt. Gore is intelligent and an experienced executive, and despite being half socialist, he isn't that bad of a guy. He just has a few flaws that need to be ironed out. Still, I could live with him as president if a majority of my fellow countryman's electors decided that he were the best choice...

Gore's smart. His criticisms of Bush are smart. I disagree, but there isn't much I can say that a partisan Democrat wouldn't be able to turn around, even if illogically. His criticisms aren't vague, but they're not specific enough to allow effective rebuking. He's playing a good hand... I hope he gets the Democratic nomination again in 2004. He should be much easier to defeat the second time around, unless Glenn Reynolds's predictions below come back to haunt.

"Bush is going to let the air out of the American war effort, let al Qaeda and the Saudis off the hook, and become a one-termer like his father if he keeps this up."

This Fox News article is right on the money:

A new nuclear flap erupted last weekend. The Pentagon leaked that the U.S. would possibly use nuclear weapons against "axis of evil" states – Iran, Iraq and North Korea – and two wretched henchmen of theirs, Syria and Libya. Most nuclear flaps, like the weapons themselves, generate enormous heat. This flap is also badly damaging as the leak is poorly timed and the plan is poorly conceived.

Let's be frank. Most Americans are probably in favor of the all options on the table attitude that our government employs regarding self-defense. Most Americans are probably content knowing (assuming would be better) that the Pentagon would consider the use of nuclear weapons in a dire situation. But to tell the world such a thing is not healthy for any country's foreign policy.

In other words, I support the policy, but I don't support blatantly advertising that we will use nuclear weapons if forced to. Nevermind the fact that they are very weak nuclear weapons. Even mentioning their usage is a bad idea.

Glenn Reynolds brings up a scary idea: The INS would be responsible for administering any national ID card system should one be implemented, when just this week they approved flight school applications for some of the September 11 hijackers. There are two obvious problems with this: (1) the approval notice is incredibly late; (2) the terrorists should have received notices with a resounding "NO". Of course, it doesn't matter practically, because the hijackers died on that terrible day in September, but the ramifications of this occurrence are slightly less than tolerable. I like the way George Bush handled it today.

And Gore is out? New Zogby poll results show that roughly 80% of Americans believe that another terrorist attack on American soil is likely in the near future, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton are the most popular choices for the Democratic nomination for President in 2004, and 60% would vote for Bush regardless of the Democratic choice. Encouraging: most Americans favor taking out Saddam Hussein, favor changing foreign policy toward the Middle East, and oppose the use of strategic nuclear weapons ... and most Americans approve of George Bush's presidency so far. Discouraging: Al Gore's popularity is quickly slipping, and second in line with no close runners up is Hillary Clinton.

Maybe I'm just an evil capitalist, but I side with Microsoft. Everytime something bad happens to Microsoft, the stock market tanks. Remember the stock market mini-crash in the last couple of years? Do you remember what started it? The sudden drop of tech-stocks. Do you know what started that? The (Reno) Justice Department going after Microsoft. In fact, over the last few years of the Clinton administration, the Department of Justice repeatedly attacked Microsoft for this and that, and the stock market repeatedly staggered in sync with Gates' hair's graying.

Besides, what right does Sun have to demand that Microsoft include Sun's software in releases of Micorosft's operating system? Last I checked, the various elements of freedom of speech would allow a company to act in its own best interests (while not stepping outside the boundaries of the law), and it would seem to me to be in Microsoft's best interests to bundle Microsoft products with Microsoft products. Why should Microsoft Windows be forced to ship with Sun Java? If the user wants to use a Sun product, the user should acquire the product from Sun or other acceptable vendor, and Microsoft should certainly not be forced to blatantly contribute to another company's product sales.

This is like telling Burger King that it has to include McDonalds fries with every sale of a kid's meal (except that Burger King obviously holds no monopoly, and McDonalds is obviously a much better equipped business competitor).

I say it makes no sense. If I should be allowed my freedom of speech, my freedom to purchase what I want, and my freedom not to have unwanted things forced upon me, then Microsoft should have the freedom to decide what it ships with its own products. I mean, it's not like Burger King is required to include fries with its value meals; it's just what they do. Give Microsoft a break.

Just six weeks ago, director Robert Altman called George W. Bush "an embarrassment" and claimed that every time he sees "an American flag flying, it's a joke". So, one would think that I would dislike the guy, right?

Then he goes and says something like this – and totally redeems himself! Well, for a few seconds anyway. The headline reads, "Titanic Worst Movie Ever". Yay, Robert! I have complained about Titanic for years. It was pointlessly long, I knew exactly what was going to happen in nearly every approaching moment, and after all that talk, Rose let go anyway (well, I did enjoy seeing Leo sink to the bottom of the Atlantic)! Titanic was an overly simple, long, and mediocre movie that was made into much more simply because it was about love. It is certainly not deserving of its spot on top of the top-grossing films list, but there it sits nonetheless, because hundreds of thousands of screaming girls and parents wanted something to watch in a down-year for the movie industry.

"Titanic I thought was the most dreadful piece of work I've ever seen in my entire life." Robert Altman said that fairly well, and I agree. It was dreadful. Not that it was a bad movie, but I dreaded it before I watched it, I dreaded it while I watched it, and I dread it now, despite that I know I will never see it again. Ever. (I hope God/Satan/whoever/whatever doesn't turn that statement against me.) Yes, that's right; I've only seen it once. While the sheep were out spending ten dollars apiece on movie tickets, popcorn, and drinks, I eventually caught the movie on an otherwise insignificant afternoon in 1999. It was everything I expected it to be, including dreadful.

Then Robert Altman returns to his hateful, hated form: "Another film that I think is equally bad was American Beauty". Hmm. No. Bad Robert. Bad, bad Robert. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion, as am I, as are you.

George Will offers the the best defense against campaign finance reform that I've read, but it still convinces me only that this bill is bad. That I have known from the start. What I don't understand is why no one addresses the fact that some form of constitutional campaign finance reform is still likely inevitable and most likely best.

I am an advocate of political free speech, and I am against limiting it, but if laws were in place which limited negative ads for the past two hundred years, could you imagine the outcry if they were suddenly legalized for the sake of free speech? With the shoe on the other foot, you would have ever corrupt(able) politician in the country begging for mercy after one election cycle. Every embarrassing moment from their closely watched lives would be revealed for the first time in a few short months or years, and they would have no way to deal with it. Of course, this is all hypothetical, but the thought still has a practical application – consideration of the opposite argument is the only way to ensure that an objective decision is being made.

This is probably the coolest web site I have ever found (through Dave): Oracle of Bacon! If you have never heard of the long-running joke about the six degrees of Kevin Bacon, this web site will fill in the details for you. The Oracle of Bacon uses the International Movie Database to connect actors who have been in any movie with anyone else in steps to Kevin Bacon. What's better, though, is that the web site also allows you to connect any person to any other using its Star Links search.

I warn you: it's addictive, and it isn't even a game, really. Just a stupid little search engine for finding links from one actor to another through common movie projects. (Oh, and if you must know, some are separated from Kevin Bacon by degrees of seven, eight, nine... even up to eleven, I believe. Good luck finding those!)

I am now going to quote nickd exactly – a whole paragraph! – because his words nearly exactly describe me as well.

I can tell you with immense confidence and aplomb that I don't know everyone. I don't even know lots of people. To give me this distinction is unwarranted in my opinion, considering I go to hardly any parties, I've walked inside a frat literally once, and I largely try to keep a tight circle of a few friends. I find keeping a few very tight relationships more rewarding, and I consider myself happier in that regard, than if I spread myself out like a net and try to know absolutely everyone. Because of this, I don't consider myself a "social" person in the sense that I don't attempt to see as many new faces and meet as many people as I possibly can. To stretch myself out that thin just doesn't work for me; sure, it works for some people, but I can't see how it'd be feasible given the way I work.

Mind you, this is in no way meant to delineate that I am antisocial. I think I am quite the contrary, in fact. I am very sociable, and I am very comfortable in social settings (though not on a dance floor), and I even make new acquaintances on regular occasions. However, I do not ambitiously search for new friends, nor do I even find myself drawing closer to anyone. If it happens, it happens, but never consciously or intentional.

I think I possess the typical techie personality with an outgoing twist – I keep mostly to myself, but I also keep a few friends close and I have no qualms about making new friends. You see, I have it backwards in contrast to most people; I trust first and only distrust when given proper reason. This is a more rewarding attitude for me, because I know that I won't screw anyone over (at least not intentionally and not without some feeling similar to guilt). And if I get screwed over, I at least know that's one less person with whom I should bother, thus simplifying my life immensely (which is probably why my tight circle of friends is so tiny).

In fact, I can count my circle of friends on one hand: Claire, Zach, Mike, Anna, and Tony. I pretty much list them in order by degree of seriousness of the information I share with them. Adam gets honorable mention because I only know him through school in the last seven months or so, but he's probably heard as much about me as anyone else has (except Claire) in the last few months, and he's the first computer-geek friend (like me!) that I've made, really. I say that knowing that Mike probably knows more about computers than I do, or at least he used to (so I would assume he still does). So perhaps I should say that Adam is the first reasonably close friend I've made through a common interest in computers.

Is that personal enough for you? I think it's been a while since I have written anything quite like this. It feels good.

Glenn Reynolds should not have to deal with this type of bashing for exactly the reasons he specified. Every individual has every right to his or her own bias, because it takes years to develop that bias and, damnit, that's how opinions are made! Objectivity doesn't rule out bias, and bias doesn't rule out objectivity. According to the definition, bias stems from prejudice and impartiality. Well, I'll argue that one does not need to judge the same facts ad nauseum – once you've judged them the first time, I see no problem with deferring to your previous judgments which will certainly lead to future impartiality and therefore develop bias. Case closed.

As Reynolds suggests, no web logger is going to have an unslanted, unbiased report to offer. In fact, you probably won't find that anywhere. But what you can find, if you look around in many different places, is a wide array of viewpoints that cumulatively represent something very close to an unbiased and objective opinion – because it's what every body thinks!

Fair and balanced only goes so far as what you choose to read. Sure, a network news organization should attempt to find qualified reporters that do not share the same biases, but is it possible to be perfectly balanced for all bias? Heck no! Besides, as Americans, we should all feel the same bias toward American patriotism, for the simple reason that we live here. It isn't fair and balanced, but who wants to hear the anti-American side of things?

One one hand, you have actor Alec Baldwin comparing the 2000 election debacle in Florida to the September 11 attacks on America. On the other, you have the Environmental Protection Agency using bad data and technique to provide faulty statistics which they use to force extremely expensive and pointless laws on the American public. I would say that the second is clearly worse, because millions of Americans support the EPA's claims and everyone has to pay for it, while only a few even listen to the deranged Baldwin speak so ignorantly.

Baldwin tried to remind us of that "other disaster [the election] that we faced...[one which] has done as much damage to our country as any terrorist attack could do.... I know that's a harsh thing to say, perhaps, but I believe that what happened in 2000 did as much damage to the pillars of democracy as terrorists did to the pillars of commerce in New York City."

First, Alec, your ignorance and the public's blind support of similar attitudes is far more damaging to the "pillars of democracy" than an election being carried out as the Constitution explicitly states it should be. Since when, Mr. Baldwin, should we ignore the rules of the Constitution for the sake of counting the votes your way? Are you even familiar with the correct procedure for electing a United States president? Have you thoroughly read the information provided about the 2000 Election?

Besides, had the recount continued Al Gore's way, Bush still would have won! Do yourself a favor, Mr. Baldwin, and let the 2000 Election go! It can not be changed, and continuous dwelling on the unchangeable past is entirely unhealthy. Also be sure to read the text of the court case, Bush v. Gore, to familiarize yourself with exactly how and why the chips fell as they did. Perhaps then, and only then, may you actually comprehend the legality of the election of 2000. Still, I doubt your bickering would end.

Baldwin was also pushing the idea that the war is really a masked effort to secure Republican votes in the 2002 elections. Alec, war has never been a partisan issue and never will be. Defending this country will always be pro-American, not pro-Republican or pro-Democrat. However, when a group speaks out against any American war effort for any reason, they are going to lose votes. This is no fault of the President or of the Republicans, but only of the idiot Democratic officials who chose to speak out against an American war on terrorism.

(Let me remind visitors that I am not a Republican by any stretch of the imagination.)

The EPA's problems are much more directly wrong the Baldwin's. After all, we can not legally punish Baldwin for supporting a cause regarding an issue about which he has little knowledge; I believe ignorance should be punished more heavily when exploited in such a manner, but we can not legally do anything about it. However, faulty and likely fraudulent dealings of the EPA have cost Americans exponentially more than Enron's collapse has.

Steven Milloy of Junk Science explains that the studies and statistics are based on secret data and bad statistical technique. You see, before any results of any experiment can be trusted, it is vitally important that independent studies and experiments come to the same conclusions. However, the EPA vehemently refuses to allow other scientists access to their experiment data, essentially disallowing proof for their claims. Yet they continue to call for hugely expensive laws to be passed.

I can not explain this nearly as eloquently as Steven Milloy can, but if you can grasp the previous paragraph, you should understand the gist of his message. However, reading the full article (it's not very long) will further explain just how the EPA essentially lies to us and then forces us to pay through the nose.

It's not that I distrust the EPA, but if they refuse indepedent or outside access to their data or experiments, how can we simply trust that their results are absolutely correct? Are we supposed to blindly believe in their cause as if the EPA were on par with God? Or, since the EPA is merely a human organization, should we force the EPA to release its hidden information so that their results may be supported or not, and so that laws pushed by the EPA are known for their true worth to humanity.

I apologize if this seems rushed. It's my first night back from days in Disney World. I have much to do, but laziness still seems appropriate. After all, Spring Break isn't over until Monday morning!

Although we left without visiting Disney/MGM Studios, the Animal Kingdom, Universal Studios, or Islands of Adventure, we're not upset. We plan to return in a few years to experience all of the parks over a week or more to make sure that we know what's what about Disney World. The drive was pleasant enough. We drove 380 miles in a little over five hours (not counting two stops), even despite three significant traffic jams. Traffic was flowing smoothly and fast, and I simply kept up. We got home at about 5:00pm, and after helping Claire with her luggage and what not, I zipped home and was unpacked and ready to relax by 5:30.

In conclusion, those oversized puppets were way too happy to see me, but at least they provided entertainment for their wandering guests! It was a wonderful vacation, and Claire and I are already planning our next visit to the area this summer (her parents were already taking us to Blizzard Beach, and we're thinking about adding a couple of days to it). And we're going to have the tune from the Splash Mountain ride in our heads for years...

Here is the recap of the trip:

I couldn't resist. Check this out!

I take nickd's side; sweet wine is better than dry wine. Dry wine sucks. White or red, whatever. I can dig either as long as neither is dry. I suppose I prefer red over white, but only because of desirable health effects I have only read and heard about. I assume that they're true. Oh, and Nick, good line. I stole it and converted it to sentence case. Thanks.

It is time that I said my (temporary) good-bye. Disney World is calling me. Claire is calling me. In about twelve hours, we will just be hitting the road. I expect that it will be a seven-hour drive, so I wish not to waste any time. We both want to catch a couple of television shows tomorrow night before exploring everything possible in the days following. It will be my first trip to Disney World, for what that's worth.

Spring break is a good idea. I'm glad it's standard.

Oh, and everyone should watch for the new book Shakedown, a biography of sorts of Jesse Jackson. His supporters are vehemently opposed to the book, so you know it hits him hard. If it hits him hard and is factually sound, then Jackson has something to worry about (and the world will be a better place). I hold no expectations, but my hopes are up. Good night!

Tom Daschle exhibited ignorance, greed, and hypocrisy this morning on Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow. Tom Daschle said that Congress should know all of the details of America's anti-terrorism effort before supplying the funds, when (as Constitutional and statutory law explicitly states) the legislative branch should necessarily be in the know only when a national war has been declared. Tony Snow danced in and around some of Daschle's remarks, and it is clear to me that Daschle is aware of the executive's ability to hold back the information (for various reasons such as national security). He wants to increase the power of the legislative branch, of Congress, and of himself. (Perhaps this is ideological as well, for the average liberal Democrat may actually believe that extending government and its powers is the best way to ensure domestic security.) Essentially, though, it is an argument for greater legislative power, and because Daschle is the highest ranking legislative official, I call it power-hunger or greed.

And hypocrisy (heh). Tom Daschle said, "...I'm not afraid, necessarily, of anything at this point. What I am afraid of is...", and he goes on to tell us generally of what he is afraid. Whoa! How can you not be afraid of anything but be afraid of something! Hypocrite. I mean, geez, he could have at least put something in between the two sentences, but he said them right together! He is reaching; he is pandering... He doesn't know what the people want; he only knows that he wants to be the one to give it to them. He is not playing by his political conscience. He is playing for personal advancement and power.

Then Daschle opines that catching Osama bin Laden is how success in our anti-terrorism effort should be measured. Problem. If bin Laden dies and they burn the body and we don't know he's gone until enough time has passed (say forty years) that we know he can no longer be alive, how do we measure success then? Solution. We measure success by the future. I don't know if Tom Daschle is familiar with the terms cost/benefit analysis (or a particular part of such analysis, a feasibility study) or intangible benefits, but when I look at this situation, I can see how to measure success in those terms. The project is feasible because the benefits outweigh the costs. There are a load of tangible costs, or costs which can be explicitly identified and marked off the list (supplies, transport, manpower, maintenance, reparations). There aren't near as many tangible benefits (catching bin Laden, for instance). However, there are many intangible benefits, those which can not be directly identified or measured, that easily make the project feasible and worthwhile. For instance, the anti-terrorism effort has certainly reduced the potential and potential magnitude of some terrorist attacks in the future. While this can not be measured, it is certainly a benefit. And there is no way that Daschle can argue against the fact that that and similar benefits are not worth the cost of the project. He just wants more power.

And Dr. Tate wonders why I don't like Tom Daschle...

It's been almost six months since September 11, and almost one month since I last wrote anything specifically regarding September 11, but a new article in Time magazine warrants it. When reports of a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon missing from the Russians' stockpile met rumors that al-Qaeda had smuggled a nuclear weapon into New York City shortly after September 11, a mild panic hit those few American officials in the know. Considering that "detonated in lower Manhattan, a 10-kiloton bomb would kill some 100,000 civilians and irradiate 700,000 more, flattening everything in a half-mile diameter", officials had good reason to be on edge.

Still, after months of fighting back and calmness and confidence returning to the American public, many officials still believe that the worse is yet to come. "The government is so certain of another attack that it has assigned 100 civilian government officials to 24-hour rotations in underground bunkers, in a program that became known last week as the "shadow government," ready to take the reins if the next megaterror target turns out to be Washington."

The article is several pages long and is a good read. Despite that it points out that another attack is nearly inevitable, it is somewhat comforting to know that no matter what they do, they can not destroy our American values or system. Terrorism may claim hundreds, thousands, or millions more American lives in coming years, but America will still stand proudly and loudly. My biggest concern is not whether or not all of my family and friends or I will survive – I have no way of controlling what damage an unforeseeable attack can do. My biggest concern is whether or not America's reaction to terrorism will be another push toward socialism, as American's reaction to depression was in the 1930s.

It's become almost cliché to say, "if [argument], then the terrorists have won", so perhaps we should try to clarify exactly where we draw the line. Under what circumstances can it be decided that "the terrorists have won"? My idea: if American values are forcefully altered (quite possible) or if America is physically destroyed (quite impossible, or so I think), then "the terrorists have won". The latter is pretty self-explanatory, but the former is subject to interpretation. To what extent may American values be compromised before it is decided that "the terrorists have won"?

Well, I would like to think that America's core values are liberty, democracy, individualism, and enterprise (among others), but I could be wrong. In fact, my reasoning may be wrong in several places in the above paragraphs, but I would still like to receive your thoughts on the matter:

Oh yeah. Claire and I are staying here. Ain't it nice? I suppose I should start considering what I'm going to take with me, since I leave in less than forty-eight hours.

It is almost superfluously necessary that, every year at this time, I will find my way to leave the state to enjoy a few hours away from home with the people I love (be it friends and Claire or just Claire), most likely somewhere in Florida at reasonable expense. Last year, the trip was to Tony's beach house in Mexico Beach. (Read about the trip beginning here.) The house seems made to sleep four, but six can squeeze in and still be reasonably comfortable. We had seven, and I ended up sleeping in four different places on four different nights, because I was the nice one that let anyone else sleep where they wanted. The weather was chillfully cool; I think it the highs were in the low 60s for most of the week, reaching into the 70s only on our last day of the trip. Combine sixty-degree weather with not much clothing, water, and wind, and you've got one cold trip to the beach!

We went back in the summer, and it was much nicer. Only six people went, and we stayed for six days instead of four, and it was hot! (The story begins here.) It was better than the first trip, but I still enjoyed them both. It's always great to have a quiet beach location to visit for little to no expense, and it's good to know that I have friends that are willing to share such a place, but this year I wanted something different. It wasn't because of Tony or anyone else that was going, although eight people would mean at least two having to find a place to sleep every night, not to mention the amount of baggage required for eight people for a full week, and we were barely comfortable with six and slightly uncomfortable with seven. Either way, I wanted to take this Spring Break and relax, spend some time with Claire, and maybe catch up on school work. But that wasn't in the cards.

Claire has wanted us to go to Disney World for months, and she had playfully suggested it several times, but this Spring Break is probably the best chance we're going to have. She seriously suggested it some time in January, and I seriously considered it for some time after that. Although it would require spending a lot more money than going to Tony's beach house would (let me again remind you that money is not a significant concern in my life – it is only as significant as its ability to reduce the gap between me and what I want), I decided that several days relaxing at home plus a few days on vacation with Claire would be much more enjoyable than a week at a beach house with little-to-no privacy – and no internet, for that matter (except through Tony's laptop)! The biggest reason, though, is that I just wanted something different. And so the plans were made; Claire and I will spend Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights in Orlando about two miles from the main gate.

Working at a library, I have obtained the three best books about Disney World and Orlando, and another book on Florida with an excellent road map. I haven't looked at any of them seriously yet (but Claire has), and I have not even made a list of things that I should take with me. I have, however, compared weather forecasts for Mexico Beach and Orlando, and I have discovered that, at least for the first few days, Tony and the crew are going to be dealing with the same cold, windy weather as last year (according to this forecast). Warm, sunny skies may prevail by the end of the week, but that's several days away. I hope they can enjoy their stay at the beach despite that; I couldn't. So I was happy to read that Kissimmee and Orlando are expected to feel a little warmer while Claire and I are there.

No matter, though. We are all thrilled to be out of school, and I know that we will all enjoy our respective trips to Florida. I just have to wonder what Jennifer feels like being the only girl in the group at Tony's (or did Melissa go too?)...

Hell freakin' yeah! Mel Gibson wants to make Bill O'Reilly's book into a movie! No, not The O'Reilly Factor or The No Spin Zone, but his other book, Those Who Trespass, which was written long before either of his two nonfiction books, and which I ordered several weeks ago (I already own the other two).

Those Who Trespass is described as "a novel of murder and television".