Another semester is coming to a close. (Yay!) I'm right at the midpoint of my college career, having completed about 60 of the 120 required semester hours. I've decided, following the advice of my political science professor, that I would like to pursue an associate's degree in political science en route to my bachelor's degree in information technology. After I graduate from Macon State college (if I don't decide to transfer before then, and I probably won't), I hope to attend UGA (first choice) for a master's degree in, well, something along the lines of political science or political philosophy. (I hear they have a good philosophy program too...)

Finals should be a breeze, especially in comparison to the amount of work I've had to put in to my classes in the last three weeks. Five projects in six classes plus part-time work is murder on my ability to get things done... Rather than balance it out and accept C's in three different classes, I decided to do everything in my power to finish everything in two out of the three, and I would do whatever I could in the last class with whatever time was left. In the end, it looks like I'll get two A's and a D or F (3.0 or 2.7 average GPA) instead of three C's (2.0), which looks better on my transcript in the end. Even if I failed the class, I can make it up (or perhaps take an incomplete and finish it later). I'm not exactly proud of that, but that's what happens when a college student with a balanced schedule is forced to get a job to balance his budget, thereby disrupting the schedule...

The first final is in Physics tomorrow afternoon at 1:00. I think my grade in the class is borderline A/B right now, and my final exam will pretty much decide my grade in the class. I can survive with a B even if I score a 40 on the exam, so I'm not worried about a bad grade.

Oh, and I have decided to take a maximum of only five classes (maybe only four) in any given semester from here on out. That decision is subject to reconsideration if, say, next semester is a breeze. I just don't want to have to repeat this semester's finale... five projects and four tests in two weeks    not counting finals!

Look what I can do! Thanks Mike.

I like Zell Miller. He actually thinks for himself. He doesn't stick with the collective (the party) for the sake of promoting the party. On the other hand, he votes for what he believes in, for what he supports, and for what his constituents (should have) elected him. He was elected to make decisions when they came to him. He was not elected to be a by-the-book partisan Democrat. (Anyone thinking that he was, of all the Democrats in Congress, is crazy or ignorant.)

Just when you think logic has run its course, significant European leaders denounce the European Union    for the second time this month! (Man, was that sentence heavily laced with bias, or what?!)

I can't figure out which song is echoing louder in my head; the name of the song is "Satellite", but I'm hearing Dave Matthews Band and P.O.D. It's an interesting blend. Only me...

I've spent the last ten hours or so, sparing moments here and there for food, water, and other necessary breaks, working on a research paper for my networking class. The paper must be ten pages long (not counting footnotes, graphs, etc.), typed, and completely and accurately represent our research. The project? As if the otherwise unrelated paragraph above didn't give it away: Satellite Communications. Or, in particular, deploying an international satellite communications network.

It's actually an interesting project, despite the work involved. As a telecommunications firm, we are deploying satellites for international communications    we explain the rest. As far as I know, which is what our group assumed, we are allowed as much creative freedom we would like, as long as our proposals are plausible and factually accurate. We must show that we have knowledge of the various technologies, methodologies, and anything else relevant to the fictitious business, and we must then sell (our knowledge of) the business to our professor.

I'll likely post the paper to the web site in the next week, meaning no further explanation is necessary.

This is why. You know, if the media were able to tell the entire world that we were planning a military attack on Italy, we would have lost World War II, and Hitler would likely have taken over the entire planet. Why don't you just print copies of all of our attack plans? It would be a much more efficient method of ensuring our defeat.

Okay, so we all know that government conspiracies (or at least cover-ups and hidden agendas which can be construed as conspiracies) are plausible and likely continuos occurrences, but I am all in favor of a new law which protects sensitive information from being leaked to the public without the proper consent. In particular, the government should never have to disclose its military strategies to us before they go through with it.

Why don't we just ask Saddam really nicely to sit still in an open field?

While not all tax receipts have been counted yet, analysts predict a shortage of $30 billion to $70 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office's originally estimated $46 billion shortfall in 2002. That means the deficit could top $100 billion this year.

Naturally, the (liberal) media is blaming the shortfall on reduced tax revenues (Bush's tax cut) without even mentioning the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted supporting pointless bureaucratic agencies that the people don't even want! Bush is right: we're already giving more money to the government than we want to, and we're getting too much that we don't want in return. There's an old saying that goes something like, "If you got it for free, you get what you pay for". Well, we're paying through the nose and we're not getting what we want, and the government is the most important financial investment any citizen of any nation should ever make (not counting personal investments, of course)!

I stare at the numbers and facts in disbelief every day. The good guys fight for the tax cut. We get the tax cut. The bad guys fight for more programs. The bad guys get more programs. Less money is used to pay for more programs, and for some reason, it is always blamed on the reduced tax revenue! Why, for once, can't the American people wake up and see that maybe, just maybe, we should re-evaluate some (several) of the functions and agencies for which our money is paying! After all, we are paying for it! We, therefore, are the oversight committee. It is our job to question and to approve of or disapprove of the job that our elected officials are doing for us, and if they can't get the job done, it is our job to have them replaced by someone who will!

Sadly, most Americans don't pay attention to the facts or the numbers. The average American pays attention to politics quite rarely, and only long enough to jump to conclusion about someone. One bad moment, even if it was really a good moment twisted by opposition, can turn millions of voters against the best of all candidates.

More and more, I understand Neal Boortz's plee for a new law limiting citizens' ability to vote. I would not draw the lines in the same way as Boortz, however. I would rather subject citizens to some sort of test    let them prove that they pay attention to politics in the same way that students must prove that they are attending a school in order to receive financial aid then, and only then, should someone be allowed to vote. This would eliminate about 80% of our voters' eligibility, though, which would bring about a strong resentment directed toward those who still could, and people would scream "discrimination" and anything else that a sympathetic ear might use to help them.

Hey, I treat this in the same way that I treat my support for a flat tax rate: get off your ass and earn it! We all have equal opportunity under the law, and it's your job to ensure that you meet your opportunities well.

Okay, here's the deal. I'm not one to question the legitimacy of the allegation of "global warming"    whether or not the earth is growing warmer as a result of our presence is beyond the ability of our minds to comprehend, or at least to prove or disprove. So, naturally, I object to any report that confirms or denies that it is our fault. I am not as quick to question whether or not the earth is actually warming; it may or may not be, or the planet may be going through a warm streak. Either way, I don't think our presence here is a significant factor in the earth's warming. It just doesn't make sense that a single species, as potent and prescient as we may be, can have such a huge affect on an entire planet with little to no command over the physical forces that guide it.

That said, I doubt the reliability of the report that asserts that 2002 is the warmest year in over 1000 years. (a) We haven't exactly been measuring the temperature for 1000 years, and (b) it makes perfect sense that the [governmental] powers that be would like their predictions to at least appear to be accurate, even when they really have no way of proving that the problem exists or that anything can be done about it. (I mean, really, if the earth is warming at an unhealthy rate, what can we do about it? Pointing fingers solves nothing, and obviously, if it's only getting worse, the ever-expanding compendium of environmental legislations isn't doing anything either, except restricting our freedoms.)

So not only is(are) our government(s) imposing ridiculous restrictions on us that are not solving anything, but they are also conjuring up (or neglecting) the past in order to make their claims appear to be reasonable. This reeks of something Orwellian...

This is good! The Democrats have "stolen" the Republican slogan, "Securing America's Future". Wonderful! (a) The slogan never belonged to anyone in the first place (think "freedom of speech"). (b) The more Democrats and Republicans both assert that it is their job to "secure America's future", the more the American people will realize that it is their job to secure their own future. By that logic (and logic rarely prevails), immediately the Republicans would come out on top with perhaps a plurality of support, with about as many people supporting third parties (mostly Libertarians and Independents, but everyone else thrown in there too) as the Democrats. Following that, the Democrats would either need to redefine their agenda to support an individualist nation, or they would be replaced. The Republicans also would have to redefine their agenda in order to combat the new threat that the Libertarian individualists pose of assuming political power (that is, more power than any other faction).

Unfortunately, this is realistic at best, possible at the very least, and not very likely to occur. However, if it does, you heard it here first. Power to the people! Down with collectivism! Down with political parties!

Michigan's state legislature put two new laws into effect which allow law enforcement officials to search property without allowing the property owners to see search warrants and supporting documents    they are no longer public information in the state of Michigan. Not only does this violate Constitutional law, but it also violates statutory law according to my interpretation of the "Freedom of Information Act". Defense lawyer Walter Piszczatowski said it well: "What happened to the Fourth Amendment? We're living in a police state."

But, as with anything controversial, there must be an opposing view strong enough to warrant the laws' passage. "Under previous laws, the records were public, unless a judge ordered them sealed for a specific reason. In federal courts, that remains the case. But now, search warrants in state courts are automatically closed to public view." So the Michigan state court system has merely adopted a policy already practiced by the federal court system, which is a powerful argument. Any argument based on precedent is, by default, stronger than an opposing argument based on principle. But the stronger argument is not necessarily the correct argument, nor does it always prevail, because legal tides turn as often as any others, and if there is anything that can lead to the overturning of a statute in America, it's the allegation that the law contradicts the Constitution.

I think my point of view is pretty clear. I've tried not to lace my story-telling of the facts with my own bias, but I also know that it is impossible to offer any judgment without bias. That said, here's my opinion separate from the facts: Search warrants and supporting documents should not (immediately) be available to the public, but they must be available to the owner of the property. For example, the search warrant that allowed police to search Robert Blake's home last week should not have been available to me (and I don't think it was), but it definitely should have been available to Robert Blake.

Dr. Tate has made one point very clear in my Domestic Issues class (it was obvious anyway, but he makes sure it is brought from the depths of the American judicial system and into conscious thought): our criminal justice system is set up to protect those accused of a crime (not from jail, but from immoral oppression that might lead to cruel or unusual punishment). There may be a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is the fear (when the Constitution was drafted, especially) of an all-too-powerful government oppressing its people and wrongly imprisoning them.

In short, yes    sometimes a criminal is acquitted due to a technicality, loophole, or (worst of all) improper procedure. But this is better than the alternative, which would have police arresting people left and right for much simpler offenses and perhaps without "proof beyond the shadow of a doubt" of the person's guilt. We should worship the Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the Constitution which protect us from police brutality and legal abuse. (And let's not get started with overcrowded prisons for which taxpayers spend billions of dollars each year.)

Another free opinion: As far as I'm concerned, the guilty are guilty, and in the event that damning evidence is obtained illegally, it still proves the guilt of the guilty party, and the guilty should be punished regardless of the illegal acts committed to prove guilt. However, the official(s) who performed the illegal act to prove the guilt is also now a criminal, because the law is the law and he/they still broke it, so he/they should also be punished for their actions. But whatever you do, judges and juries of America, don't just let criminals walk the streets because someone obtained evidence illegally!

I can't wait for a judge to set this precedent: instead of simply dismissing illegally obtained evidence or irrelevant illegalities, the evidence and illegalities will be taken into account and the guilty punished... and you can see where I'm going with this.

I hope the RIAA doesn't make me change my mind. I would hate for my own well-being to come between me and my principles.

Ah, Turner Field. Aisle 110R, Row 5. This is the view from behind Aisle 110, so just imagine it from Row 5, just twenty feet from the field. I'll be able to see the Diamondbacks' nose hairs! I haven't made any "Happy Birthday Chipper" signs yet. I still think I should, simply because I know his cousin so well. Maybe, just maybe, he'd take notice and come over for a word or two. (Though that isn't likely.)

If you're watching the game tonight (on Fox Sports South if you're in my region of the country), I'll be right behind the on-deck circle, and (unless I change) I'll be wearing a navy blue t-shirt. I *might* be holding a sign that says "Happy Birthday Chipper" or something to that effect, but as of right now no such sign exists.

It's good to be going to see the Atlanta Braves again, and the timing could not be better! I've been working so hard for so many weeks now... To be able to catch a Wednesday night baseball game in Atlanta, without worrying about getting up the next morning, a great way to relax and forget about work!

From the Politburo:

As I have interpreted the piece, it seems almost like they're simply trying to paint the prettiest picture possible for any Cubans or for anyone who might sympathize with Cuba or Cubans. I want to say that I sense sarcasm, or at least something less than seriousness, every time something comes out even semi-pro-communist. Still, I don't like it. Don't read it.

"In the face of intolerance and hate, I will not tolerate him. I hate him." Well, that's not what he said, but if you read the words of Jacques Chirac, you'll see that my "translation" is quite close. Chirac cites France's "soul, its cohesion, it's role in Europe" as key reasons not to vote for Le Pen. Perhaps Chirac needs to consider two things: first, that Europe, in all its wonder, might not be on the right path; second, that the fact that the French people are divided between Chirac and Le Pen in the first place already says little for France's "cohesion". That, and if Le Pen indeed wins the election, that would prove, regardless of what Chirac believes or wants to believe, that the majority of French voters disagree with his vision of where France ought to be with relation to foreign and domestic relations.

Le Pen says "his first act would be a referendum on cutting France's ties with the European Union. He would then bring back the franc, restore border controls, deport illegal immigrants, make the French work longer hours, impose discipline in schools, and phase out income tax." Dude, if the French don't want you, come over here!

What's the conspiracy against lemon-flavored candy all of a sudden? (Grammar hounds can pick that sentence apart...) I mean, I can understand ridding the world of Melon Berry Skittles    those things taste like ass. (Er, well, you know what I mean.) The Wildberry mix is better off without the Melon Berry, and I actually quite like the new "white mystery" flavor thrown in there. I recognize the flavor, and I know I could name it if I could put a picture to the berry, but I just can't. My first notion was blackberry, and that might be what it is, but I really don't know...

But lemon? Com'on! Lemon is good! And, really, for a bag labeled "Original Fruit", you would think that the whole point would be to hold the five original fruit flavors, first packaged in 1984. But nooooooo! For the second time this millenium, the Original Fruit mix is being shaken up a bit, and for the second time, lemon is taking the fall. Last time, sour apple was the replacement. And sour apple is fine, really. But it isn't part of the original mix. And, com'on, we've got "Sour Skittles" for that now (but they taste like ass, too). At least this time they're replacing lemon with a good-tasting mystery flavor, but why kill lemon? Lime has been the most disgusting skittle for years now... And green just isn't aesthetically pleasing at all. I'd much rather see lime tossed out of the bag in favor of the new flavor (nice rhyme?).

But what is the new flavor? At first, I thought it was raspberry (and damnit, it still tastes like raspberry to me), but Skittle-wise friends of mine warned that blue raspberry is already a flavor in the Wildberry bag, so it wouldn't be likely for it to be another raspberry flavor. (Besides, once the mystery is solved, there's already a red skittle in the bag. What other color could raspberry take? But then again, there is a red strawberry Skittle in the original mix and a pink strawberry Skittle in the wildberry mix, so we're already down to nine flavors over ten Skittles. They're only hurting themselves.) So then there's the question of why we're still stuck with lime. Obviously, there is no other green fruit to be considered for a Skittle flavor, but there are plenty of yellow-ish ones. Take pineapple, for instance. I don't think it's pineapple, but lots of my peers do. So maybe it is. Whatever. It tastes good.

Unlike those new mint-flavored Skittles. Yuck! I didn't know there were five different flavors of mint, much less five each of peppermint and spearmint! And damn, if they'd just get rid of their Mango Peach and Kiwi Lime flavors, I would be all about some Tropical Skittles! (Idea: make a "master mix" or something, including ten to twelve flavors with the best possible color mix given the amount of overlapping colors... That would be a rainbow worth tasting!)

And, yes, I just wrote 500 words about Skittles.

The situation in France is mind-bogglingly entertaining, yet heart-stoppingly frightening. Nearly every European headline I can find captures the horror of the moment, represented by the popularity of the "right-wing extremist" Jean-Marie Le Pen. The left-wing media across Europe is really letting him have it. This is the most un-biased and objective statement of the facts that I can find, offered by Independent News:

After taking second place in Sunday's first round, with 17.19% of the vote, eliminating the Socialist Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, Mr Le Pen said he would lead the people against the "system" and French "patriots" against "technocratic Europe". In a statement from his headquarters in Saint Cloud, south of Paris, he said: "I appeal to all patriots, sovereignists and true republicans to rally around my candidature to oppose the technocratic Europe of Brussels and create a truly popular force to defend national independence and oppose globalisation."

That's all wonderfully fine with me. One way or another, France has to elect someone. My biggest concern right now is that some left-wing radical, thinking he's doing his country a favor, is going to pop Le Pen before France has a chance to realize its new (potentially better off) future. Instead of actually giving it a chance and hoping for the best, people just want to scream at how awfully horrible anything to the right of left is.

An interesting note: one paper claims that Le Pen's ideology marks the "return of fascism" (to France, or to Europe?). Well, the guy is certainly right wing compared to his French counterparts, but compared to good ol' G.W. Bush, he's Tom Daschle! (Well, maybe not that left.) So, are they calling George Bush a fascist or what?

Hell yes! Despite the obvious bitterness, I'm happy to see that the people of France like the "right-wing extremist" Jean-Marie Le Pen. Le Pen, in a comment with which I fully agree, claims that he is the "candidate of the French people", and Jacques Chirac, the left-wing incumbent, the "candidate of the system". As a huge fan of individual success over the system, can you accept my support for the Le Pen? (More good news: he hopes to guide France out of the European Union, and the people can dig it!)

Brendan Miniter, assistant editor of the Opinion Journal, chimes in:

Though journalists, advocates and policy makers like to portray the homeless as victims    and many no doubt are    the truth is that a substantial number of them commit serious crimes that go well beyond the "mistakes" that isolate them from their families and land them on the streets in the first place. It may seem impolite to criticize this "defenseless" group. And of course society should help those in need. But there's nothing compassionate about turning a blind eye to those preying on the innocent, weak or naive.

I couldn't agree more. Sure, the majority of them are just looking out for themselves or looking for a little help, but there are the few that would stop at nothing to better their situation by ruining someone else's. With a nothing-to-lose-and-everything-to-gain attitude, it's hard to believe that we can give them the cold shoulder as often as we do. Even if it isn't our responsibility to take care of others' mistakes, it is our responsibility to ensure that our own communities are kept safe by reasonable means. Of course, then comes the issue of what your average citizen thinks is reasonable...

In the name of simplifying the tax code, one Democrat wants to terminate the earned-income tax credit (he calls it a "well-intentioned gimmick"). Well, I'm no fan of the EITC, but unlike programs such as Welfare, it actually encourages work and puts more people into the labor force    it's not just money for nothing, because you have to work to earn it. I can understand why it would be targeted    it creates opportunities for cheating, because it actually rewards low-income workers who declare extra income, while most of our tax mechanisms are designed to catch people who don't declare income    but I think discouraging other popular, less efficient, and more socialist programs would be more practical. Or, hell, go through the heavy auditing process and catch a few more of the bastards that cheat. After all, there has to be a negative incentive to reduce the crime and enforce obedience. Going soft on the poor because of their less fortunate situation would only encourage them to think that they can get away with a little bit more, and a little bit more... And before long, custom becomes law, and my idea of "plebocracy" becomes a reality.

Well, maybe that's a stretch. But exaggeration often helps to get the point across.

Almost three months ago, a Yahoo! News article reported:

MGM and Danjaq, the British company that controls the Bond film license...obtained a cease-and-desist order against New Line Cinema [prohibiting] New Line from calling the latest installment of Mike Myers' shagadelic spy series Austin Powers in Goldmember. Apparently, the 007 folks weren't too keen on the double entendre of Goldmember    a takeoff on the 1964 Bond classic, Goldfinger    and released the legal hounds to force the name change.

My opinion at the time, which hasn't changed at all, was: "MGM set the precedent when they allowed the second installment, The Spy Who Shagged Me, to keep its title, despite the obvious parallel to the 1977 James Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me." I also slapped MGM with my opinion regarding free speech, asserting that any one's legal ability to prohibit the emission of particular sounds is absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention the likelihood that, by suing New Line, they were likely hurting more than helping themselves. (Reasoning: Wouldn't the association of one movie to another, at least in some cases, link the current title to the former title and, hence, create some interest in the former? One would think that MGM would be grateful that New Line's shagadelic Austin Powers is reminding people that James Bond truly is the greatest spy of them all.)

Well, I suppose we can settle for middleground: MGM has finally given Austin Powers a license to poke fun at James Bond, but there is a catch. "New Line will be allowed to use the Austin Powers in Goldmember title, but all future titles that may be construed as parodies of James Bond titles will be subject to MGM's approval." I suppose this is the best of both worlds. MGM is not allowed (though they probably would have been) to prevent New Line from calling a movie whatever it wants to call it, and New Line is not allowed to blatantly cash in on another company's work.

Interestingly, several on the list of potential titles (had no agreement been reached) included references to classic James Bond movies, including "Live and Let Shag" (Live and Let Die), "You Only Shag Thrice" (You Only Live Twice), "Never Say Member Again" (Never Say Never Again, which was a Sony film and is not part of the official James Bond collection), and "License to Shag" (License to Kill).

The official web site for the film launched last Friday.

In other words, cowardly organizations should quit trying to promote themselves by demoting the giant, and instead should try to promote themselves by bettering their products and services. Microsoft is on top because Microsoft's operating system and software applications are very good products, and very well known at that. Competitors should not be trying to find legal loopholes just to make things "more fair" for them.

Which brings us back to the absurd notion of "equality" again. If everything and everyone were equal, reason wouldn't exist because there would never have been any need for it to develop, and experience would mean nothing, because we would all experience roughly the same thing. Face it. All individuals are meant to lead different roles in life. No role is any better or worse than any other, except when measured by our moral and ethical standards. The only ways by which we may justifiably measure those standards is by how they affect our unalienable rights    of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I can think of at least nine companies and one justice department that might be infringing on two of the three of Microsoft's unalienable rights, and thousands more entities infringing upon countless others' rights on a momentary basis. It won't stop until/unless we, as a whole, realize that our lives, liberty, and freedom to pursue happiness are all that really matter to us, and that everything else in the world are merely support for that.

For crying out loud, the answer is simple! Monopoly or not, Microsoft simply develops better products than everyone else. To force any company to lower the quality of its product for any reason is un-American. Period. The government has no justification to intervene in business affairs, except by companies who simply can not compete because they aren't as good.

Hey, like it or not, the Yankees buy World Series championships year after year. The Yankees have won over 25% of all of the World Series games played since the championship series was established in 1903; no other team has even played in that many World Series games. But, as with Microsoft, success brings money, and money brings opportunity. No matter how much I dislike the Yankees, I don't want Major League Baseball to intervene and disallow them to "buy" their championships. Rather, I would like to see them lose, proving that money isn't the absolute ruler of the universe.

I'll be in Atlanta on Wednesday watching the Atlanta Braves beat the Arizona Diamondbacks. (I think Damian Moss can beat Todd Stottlemyre, don't you?) We couldn't have picked a better night to go... It will be Chipper Jones's thirtieth birthday! (Of interesting note: Chipper Jones's first cousin is a very close friend of mine. And while I've dreamed of it, I've never asked of any favors of this friend regarding Chipper, such as autographs and the like. I mean, how rude!)

Anyway, look for me in row five behind the visiting team's on-deck circle. If I can make one in time, I'll try to make a birthday sign for Chipper. Maybe I'll make it from his cousin so he'll take notice of it. That would be neat, to have a chat with Chipper about why I'm holding a sign from his cousin...

As Tony suggests, the media bias in the presidential election in France is powerful    yet subtle. The right-wing candidate, Jean-Marie Le Pen, is referred to (by every news publication I've read so far) as "extreme". The left-wing candidate, on the other hand, is considered "far left" at the very worst, and is generally regarded as simply "the incumbent", without mention of his placement in the political spectrum.

The news media has little room for political bias if it isn't going to be reasonably balanced about it. I mean, I can understand it if it's a problem of questioning a new guy over the already-established president, but why call him extreme? What does he believe that is so extreme? That capitalism isn't all bad? (I know little about French politics and politicians. Feel free to clue me in.)

According to this report, Iran is trying to persuade China to intervene in the Israel/Palestine conflict to stop the "crimes". I'll let you read the article for yourself, but I have a point to make through a rhetorical question: How the hell is the Israel/Palestine conflict any business of Iran's, let alone China's? Well, I'm placing a little more faith in China than others around me might; I don't think China will do anything unexpected, like physically (militarily) intervene. They might, however, be a bit louder when expressing their contempt for Israel or support for, um, whatever it is that they support.

I still haven't figured out how either the Palestinians or Israelis can be right or wrong. Based on all the evidence, peaceful toleration is the only logical solution, while war is the only logical expectation. Why, then, does everyone else seem to think that one side or the other is right, if all they want to do is kill? No version of any religion of which I am aware has ever prescribed the death of any human being in the name of that religion, yet we hear about it every day.

I'd set a personal goal to think of some reasonable means of ending war once and for all, but I don't want to set myself up for unnecessary disappointment. After all, I'm not an idealist; I'm just an optimistic realist. I know what is and isn't possible, but I also know what is and isn't plausible. I aim high, but I understand that average (or worse) is often the result, no matter how hard we try. Still, if we all tried, the world would be a better place. But if we sit back and let violence consume the world, the terrorists will have won.

If we can all agree on one thing, that the fighting over the Holy Land will never stop and is therefore pointless because the land will always be disputed no matter who occupies it, then shouldn't the only logical answer be simply to welcome anyone and everyone to it? Show a little comradery, a little compassion, a little toleration. I don't agree with liberals or conservatives on most issues, but I still welcome them into my home and my conversations every day because I know that they are good people. Just the same, I enjoy conversations with people of various religious and spiritual backgrounds. I don't agree with some of their beliefs, and in fact some of my beliefs would land them in Hell or its equivalent, but I am not their judge. It is not my job to tell them what to believe, where to live, and who to befriend. It is my responsibility to look out for myself foremost, and others when I can, but I have no right to force my ways on anyone.

There is a difference between showing someone the path and pushing them through the door against their will. If they don't see things your way, then you either need to try harder or try something else, but don't resort to force, especially violent force, when you know that that is exactly what every religion preaches against. You only bring yourself down.

Although I would rather not, I am beginning to place more faith in the popular adage, "It's all downhill from here". Another sign illuminates the path toward socialist hell: robot cameras are being implemented in order to prevent crimes before they happen. It looks like Tom Cruise's latest project, Minority Report, isn't science fiction after all. Well, at least this isn't hitting the States any time soon.

But it doesn't matter anyway. It is a natural process for civilizations, in seeking greater order and control, to tend toward totalitarianism. Capitalism and freedom are always given up in favor of security, and when the err of the peoples' ways is realized, revolution takes care of business.

George Lucas recognizes this trend, and he shares his understanding of it through his Star Wars mega-franchise. Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi laments, "It is my experience that Senators focus only on pleasing those who fund their campaigns ... and they are by no means scared of forgetting the niceties of democracies in order to get those funds". Lucas goes on to share his thoughts on what makes a good person go bad, what turns a democracy into an authoritarian regime:

I especially enjoy the political commentary comparing Lucas's fictional universe to our own. And, aside from that, I like referring to the to Star Wars trilogies as the Luke Trilogy and Anakin Trilogy. Clever... Well, at least now Anakin's constant contempt for figuring out the ways and means of politics is falling into place. Obi-Wan knows the importance of political engagement, while Anakin would rather settle things by force. It should be no wonder, then, that Anakin is destined to take matters into his own hands.

For more on Anakin's political education, or lack thereof, pick up Alan Dean Foster's Star Wars: The Approaching Storm. Combined with Greg Bear's Rogue Planet, Foster's book helps to form what I would call Episode 1.5, bridging the gap between The Phantom Menace and the Attack of the Clones. For any Star Wars fan, it's worth the read, though I can't say the same about Bear's book, as I haven't read it. By my knowledge, Rogue Planet depicts Anakin Skywalker as a twelve-year-old boy in the early stages of his Jedi training. The Approaching Storm follows Anakin (at about age eighteen as he nears Jedi Knighthood), Obi-Wan, and another Jedi and Padawan on their last mission before the start of the Attack of the Clones.

So I personally don't mind the Backstreet Boys or N'Sync    I've liked about a dozen of each band's songs    but I can recognize characteristics of the boybands that drive people absolutely mad (in the bad way). But, no matter how badly you hate our boybands, just be thankful that they're nothing like this.

The Godless Capitalist does a good job justifying and criticizing anonymity:

There is a difference between people who claim anonymity to make trouble and people who claim anonymity to avoid trouble. In the former category I would place spammers, trolls, and internet vandals. In the latter I would put holders of unpopular opinions. I don't think I'm deluding myself about the backlash that I would face if those in charge of my academic destiny could trace my name to my opinions. In this case anonymity is protection against character assassination.

An alternative point of view is available:

As long as he and others are afraid to put their names and reputations on the line, they're empowering their orthodox opponents. They are also seriously limiting their own impact outside [their own audience].

The web site also points out the difference between anonymity and pseudonymity, the difference between calling oneself something like the "Unabomber" and "Eric Blair", respectively, for example. Interesting thoughts. I'm too tired to opine, so I'll just reflect theirs for now.

Perry's latest post over at the Libertarian Samizdata is so shrewd that I just had to put it here:

Although it doesn't surprise me at all, I laugh when I read headlines regarding Republicans and Democrats. Maybe I'm selectively catching particular headlines, but it seems that every one I read depicts the Democrats as playing voting games, while Republicans are actually trying to get things done. Actually, now that I think about it, it seems to me like that's how Democrats and Republicans differ lately when dealing with the issues. The Republicans actually try to get things done, while the Democrats sling words around in an effort to either promote themselves or demote the Republicans   . Two of today's Fox News headlines include "Democrats Turn To Rural Areas For Votes" and "Dems Boost To Seek Registered Voters"; nothing substantive going on there. Meanwhile, on the Republican side of things, George Bush and friends are telling the Middle East to "choose peace" and are blocking terror funds, among other things.

Republican agenda: get stuff done. Democratic agenda: block Republican agenda. Can't the Democrats come up with something independent of the Republican agenda? I give bonus points if it's actually beneficial!

Now that the Harvard Crimson web site has recovered from the initial effects of linkage from the Drudge Report (if that's what caused the downtime), I may link you to the Natalie Portman letter of which I spoke earlier. Interestingly, Natalie Portman asked the Washington Post not to mention her family name in their article regarding her letter to the Crimsom, but it's printed plainly on the Crimson web site. If she wants to keep it a secret, she should use "Portman" in every instance. Either way, it should not cause any problem, except that millions of Natalie Portman fans around the globe now are that much closer to stalking her...

System of a Down, a band I had previously chosen to ignore, released a very catchy song with a very powerful message last August. I spent several weeks trying to figure out that message, but I was satisfied with the song's sound regardless of its meaning. However, I couldn't resist its spiritual connotations, and so I attempted to interpret it anyway. For starters, here are the lyrics (not counting repetition) to "Chop Suey!":

My original interpretation of the song was derived strictly from the lyrics. I determined that, insofar as I could tell, the speaker was questioning the powers that be for allowing angels to deserve to die. I couldn't decide if it was a question of ending an otherwise eternal life, or ending the life of an angel of high calibur (in comparison with a saint as compared to other humans). I never cared much to interpret the song's opening, but I decided (somewhat on a whim) that it was meant to question the listener's motives for, well, everything    why one lives life from moment and performs these actions as opposed to the alternatives. The last line, I think, is meant to point out that we are all, by our nature, somewhat superficial.

As for the lines regarding "my self-righteous suicide", I had decided that altruism must be involved somehow. The speaker is giving his own life, by all measures by his own reasoning, justifiably. The speaker does not understand why suicide should be punishable by eternal damnation in all cases when suicide may potentially be the best solution for some situations.

Just today, however, I have discovered something that I probably already should have known. However, upon searching the Internet for critiques, I found that I was not alone in my previous lack of knowledge. It turns out that two of the lyrics in the song are directly quoted passages from the King James version of the Bible:

Each quotation represents words of Jesus Christ shortly before the Crucifixion. Adding the Son of God (according to the Christian faith) to the mix, one derives a new wealth of meaning from the song. No longer is it generally a question of the death of an angel, but now it is a song representing Jesus Christ. Still, what does it mean? Is it a question of the law of God, which strictly forbids suicide, despite that Jesus willingly committed to his death? If that is the case, there is still the argument that Jesus was not only a man, but a God and a man (however that works). Either way, being the Son of God, he is naturally excluded from that rule.

Well, my conclusion is this. The song has two parts. The first part is, as I suggested previously, questioning our faith, our actions, our thoughts. The second part is an interpretation of some of Jesus Christ's final moments, perhaps questioning Christ's perfection as he comes to terms with his own end. I have decided that this is a band's creative way of questioning whether Jesus Christ himself truly trusted what he preached. After all, if he was not truly the Son of God, he would likely have been quite fearful of death, having no real idea about what it might entail.

Just a thought.

Oh, and by the way, if you haven't picked up the album, I strongly suggest that you do. Sure, sure, it's hard and heavy, loud and crazy, but it's musical and it's damn good! Besides, these guys are not only lyrical geniuses, but they also incorporate musical styles from all over the world    they are by far the most eclectic band to whom I have ever listened. You should learn to love them.

Okay, so I haven't been taking the "new and improved" airport security force very seriously at all, but there comes a time when someone has to ask if it's all their fault. I mean, there is no excuse for incompetent workers and lazy moments, and the airlines (or airports when appropriate) should be held responsible for that, but when someone loses a woman, can you really blame the airlines?

Well, we'll see how it pans out. Joe Dabney is suing American Airlines for $10 million for losing his wife, a 70-year-old Alzheimer's patient, citing "gross negligence and incompetence". She hasn't been seen since December 5. Well, while I'm on my responsibility and accountability soapbox, is it plausible that Mr. Dabney should be held responsible and accountable? I mean, hell, it's his wife! How is the airline supposed to know that one particular woman is incapable of flying without their assistance?

Of course, given the sequence of events in this story, I can understand how American Airlines might have assumed partial responsibility voluntarily (though somewhat necessarily as well), but that still does not absolve Mr. Dabney. She's still his wife. Whether an attendant was assigned to watch them or not, he should have made sure of it before he left her alone, even for such a short amount of time.

I won't deny the tragedy of the situation; I'm sure it's a devastating loss, and I hope that Mrs. Dabney is still alive somewhere, perhaps in a retirement home after being found wandering through a busy airport. I hope that there is some better ending to this story than simply reading that Dabney has lost his case and his wife (or worse still, that funds are being allocated anyway because the judge or jury feels sorry for him).

A couple weeks ago, Edward Boyd reasoned that

The Palestinians could have accomplished much more much sooner toward the formation of a state if there had been an Islamic version of Martin Luther King to guide their "liberation" movement. Even with the barbarity of their actions, the Palestinians seem to have the majority of non-US world opinion on their side. If the intifada had been a series of marches, sit-ins, strikes, arm-in-arm blockades of roads, etc.    instead of a bunch of suicide bombers killing civilians    the Palestinians would have had their state, and the world community would have forced Israel back to the pre-1967 borders long ago.

Today, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a similar argument:

Mahatma Gandhi fought for the independence of India without resorting to terrorism. So too did the peoples of Eastern Europe in their struggle to bring down the Berlin Wall. And Martin Luther King's campaign for equal rights for all Americans eschewed all violence, much less terrorism. If the deprivation of rights is indeed the root cause of terrorism, why did all these people pursue their cause without resorting to terror? Put simply, because they were democrats, not terrorists. They believed in the sanctity of each human life, were committed to the ideals of liberty, and championed the values of democracy.

The difference, then, as both Boyd and Netanyahu suggest, is that the Gandhi and King did not think themselves to be any better than anyone else; they only thought themselves to be equals. Gandhi and King (similarly to the American Republican Party) promoted equal opportunity for all without promoting unnecessry inequality for a special few, while the Palestinians (similarly to the American Democratic Party, following the analogy) instead demand their equality by promoting favoritism and elitism, and demanding the destruction of Israelites.

And if this is still a religious thing, then the Jews still have the upper hand, because they're only reacting to a beligerent, Islamic force, who thinks that they are acting out God's will, when in reality (if that isn't an oxymoron) God's will would be peace among all of His children, Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.

(I exclude other religions because they do not believe in the same God. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all directly related, sharing many stories, heroes, and ideals. For any mothers who may be wondering, that's why I am not exactly sure of my religion right now. But, I can promise you that it is some blend of those three, with perhaps a hint of Deism. It is particularly difficult for me to claim any particular spiritual beliefs without objective knowledge of the truth, but as Immanuel Kant wrote, that is one of the problems of religion and philosophy; we simply can not know all of the answers.)

The essential difference, though, between the Palestinians and the peaceful revolutionaries of the past is the belief in the Golden Rule. All major religions have the Golden Rule in common. While it is written in many different ways in the various scriptures, the message that we should treat others with the same respect and kindness with which we would like to be treated is written clearly. The Palestinians clearly do not hold this belief, unless they actually want war and death to afflict their people, in which case they would be as good as terrorists.

Glenn Reynolds added these comments regarding Natalie Portman's letter:

In much the same way, Democrats (and probably Republicans too, though I can't think of any brilliant examples) constantly appeal to the masses with such emotional terms as "racism" and emotional subjects as environmental hazards, Social Security, and such. Without using facts to back up any of their claims, Democrats weave a web of deception    perhaps not actually lies because they only mean to deceive, which is probably worse    that essentially threatens many Americans to "Vote Democrat or else!". People unfortunately do not pay enough attention to understand the rights, wrongs, and in-betweens of American politics. The great majority of us only listen long enough to hear which argument sounds better without focusing any effort on whether or not the argument has any truth to it.

Democrats appeal to emotion. Republicans appeal to reason. Who would you rather have rule the country? A nurturer who serves to keep everything cozy, warm, and equal, regardless of whether or not it means wrongfully taking away from someone who might have actually earned more than the average person by working harder; or a rationalist who serves to preserve peace and equal opportunity by enforcing responsibility and accountability? Of course, the world may never know which is truly better, since we constantly exist in a hybrid state of both.

Maybe it's time we all started to take Natalie Portman a little more seriously. I had no idea that she attended Harvard, that she was born in Jerusalem, and that she immigrated to the United States only in 1988 (I thought she was American)    the eyes may deceive, but she speaks for herself.

And she speaks quite eloquently, at that. This week, she wrote a letter to the editor of the Harvard Crimson, the school's newspaper, in response to an April 11 essay, written by Harvard Law student Faisal Chaudhry, which characterized the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as "Israel's racist colonial occupation" in which "white Israeli soldiers destroy refugee camps of the brown people they have dispossessed for decades".

As I said, Natalie speaks for herself, and so does her response. Unfortunately, I can not access the Harvard Crimson web site right now, or I would send you directly to her letter. The best I can do is quote what the Washington Post quoted:

Yesterday, Chaudhry accused the Crimson of publishing Natalie's letter because of her celebrity. (Not only is that a direct slap to Natalie's face, but it is an absolutely ridiculous claim. First, HELLO! She goes to Harvard too, dumbass; she obviously isn't as dim-witted as you think she is. Second, I bet thousands on campus will agree that Natalie just refuted your letter back to the stone age.) Essentially, by not accepting Natalie's point of view as exactly that, just another point of view, Chaudhry has helped to prove Natalie's point, that Chaudhry is merely employing "childish tactics".

Chaudhry should sit in with my political science class and learn a little better how to handle oneself in (political) conversation. Most importantly, she should learn that perception, whether accurate or correct or not, is reality in that it represents someone's view of reality. But enough of that... Natalie, you rule.

In case you haven't heard by now, banks in the northeastern United States are on terror alert after the FBI warned of a "credible threat". As you may be aware, April 20 was Adolf Hitler's birthday, and also the date (or very near the date) of such recent tragedies as Waco, the World Trade Center bombinb, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and the Columbine shooting. Needless to say, April 20 doesn't have an exceptional track record in the United States.

Watching The Big Story with John Gibson this afternoon, I heard every good reason why we should believe that the threat is credible, but Gibson's guest shocked me with one of his statements. When Gibson asked if we should close banks for tomorrow, the guest replied with a staunch "no", because if we closed the banks, "the terrorists will have won". He justified this by claiming that their goal is to bring down the American financial system.

Counterargument: Close the banks! What's more important to you: American lives or keeping the banks up and running? I have a feeling that damaging our economy is only part of al Qaeda's goal    I'm sure they would love it if our great nation would just disappear, by any means. That said, what would be a greater terrorist victory: blowing up closed, empty banks, causing little more than structural damage and really not hurting the economy at all; or blowing up busy, full banks, taking significant numbers of civilians with them, and potentially bringing financial transactions to a hault in some areas?

Call a holiday. Close the banks. I can think of a few thousand bank workers who might appreciate not having to put up with even the thought of being terrorized tomorrow. Of course, we can't set the precedent that we take every major threat seriously, but nor can we allow a credible threat, especially on a day like April 20, to be realized two minutes too late.

To any traffic patrol persons who may read this: this does not reflect my opinion. This is one of those funny jokes that's making it around email circles. Enjoy.

I can imagine several colorful turns that exchange could take next, but like whoever wrote the story, I think it's best that they're left to the imagination. In any event, there's one more thing some of us would like to say, but would never dream of actually saying, to the "evil" cop writing the ticket. (Nevermind that there would be no problem has the speeder had respect for traffic laws in the first place.)

Once again, American Congressional bureaucratic nonsense is interfering in what should be stately affairs. Daschle's Democrats, with the help of two Republicans and one liberal Independent, successfully derailed an Alaskan-sponsored bill which would have allowed drilling for oil on Alaskan soil. Question: Who the hell does anyone from any of the other forty-nine states think they are, telling Alaskans what they can and can not do with their own oil? Question: With skyrocketing gas prices, what the hell is Congress thinking? Do they want us to pay arms and legs for gasoline? What's so wrong with a little self-sufficiency?

I suppose, though, we can look at the bright side. In a few decades, the Middle East will be running out of oil as we start to conservatively tap our Alaskan supply. A potential downside to that is that, well, the oil-needy might find it to be something worth fighting for.

Before it was nuisance. Now I simply hate Tom Daschle as a politician. He lies straight-faced to the press to get his way, which only takes money out of the pockets (he plans to nix Bush's tax cut) of the people funding the economy and into his "big business", the biggest business of them all, the federal government. Daschle's argument?

Democrats say the package of tax cuts, which expires at the end of 2010, is largely to blame for the loss of what had been huge projected budget surpluses.

YES! And that's a good thing, because budget surpluses are overtaxation! We don't want the government to take any more government than it needs. An ideal tax system would take exactly what is necessary    nothing more, nothing less    to fund the programs and functions of government desired by the people. Remember, this is a people's government, and no matter how much politicians think they know about how to run the government, it is still our government to be run the way we want it to be ran! The more faith that American citizens place in Daschle's "let us tax you more because Big Government needs more control" idea, the closer our wonderful system becomes a socialist republic governed by the will of the elite rather than by ordinary citizens like you and me. Is that what you want?

And, in order to achieve his goal, Daschle slings out thinly disguised threats (which are sadly enough due to an increasing lack of public knowledge regarding government affairs), such as this one:

[Democrats] also contend that its huge costs in its second decade would consume money needed to shore up Social Security and Medicare.

Liar! The only reason why our budget continues to mushroom is that every time a tax cut (good) is passed, which should be accompanied by spending cuts (good; such as ridding the budget of programs or function no longer needed or that the government can not efficiently handle), power-hungry Democrats who only want more money-wielding power (with which to add more control over us to their job descriptions) instead cut small but necessary functions in order to make the tax cuts seem like the problem. They would never consider actually cutting what we don't need, because that would mean admitting that the Republicans are right, and it would mean honestly serving their respective constiuencies, and (sadly) Democrats no longer believe in that. As they become increasingly more socialist, they would much rather emit disguised threats, such as threatening to cut Social Security or Medicare (which they would, in turn, blame on "insufficient funds" as a result of the "Republicans' tax cut"), and steal voters who do not actually pay attention to the real issues and vote based only on these scare tactics.

Whether you agree with me or not, you owe it to yourself and to the rest of the country know why you are voting the way you vote    get the facts, not just the talking points    and to actually understand how the facts affect you (or how they affect everyone, if you prefer).

"Uncle Tom" Daschle says, "Keep in mind, every single dollar of this tax cut will be taken from the Social Security trust fund". He is literally threatening us! First of all, there is no such thing as a "Social Security trust fund". This country has one budget, and certainly someone keeps tabs on how much money goes into and comes out of Social Security, but the money is allocated from the budget every year regardless of any tax cut. Some government programs make profits, others do not. The Postal Service costs the federal government several billion dollars every year, but it endures because other profitable government programs fund the necessary service. At worst, the same happens with Social Security. Social Security will not disappear unless Congress passes a law to get rid of it, which will never be necessary, and only would serve to piss off millions of Americans for no good reason.

Truth. Toleration. Love. Determination. Tom Daschle is not telling us the truth. Tom Daschle does not tolerate any dissenting opinion from his own. Tom Daschle certainly does not love us; he loves his country, his family, his friends, and himself most of all, but his quest to improve himself so ambitiously is proof enough that he cares little for us. A man of his power without truth, love, and toleration is a very dangerous man.

I used to believe that I could trust Tom Daschle to do what is best for the country, even if it meant a little self-sacrifice. I am now convinced that I was wrong. I don't trust Tom Daschle. For anything. He's a weasel. He can't control the party he leads (because he's so damn wrong all the time. And his opinion changes like the wind; he won't stick to any conviction if it goes against public opinion, ever.

No, I did not fall over the edge of the earth. No, I did not crawl under a rock and die. No, I have not been locked into my basement (or anyone else's, for that matter). In fact, my days are passing by about as normally as usual, except that for the first time in over six months, I have been without Internet access at home for nearly thirty-six hours. Cox Communications has done very well, so I won't complain...much. But I haven't been able to check email, download anything, or just peruse the Internet as I normally would for the last couple of days, so I'm a bit antsy.

If they don't have it fixed by the morning, all Hell will break lose.

I'm not concerned about all hell breaking loose, but that a part of Hell will break loose, making it harder to detect.

George Carlin (not quoted exactly)

Arnold King, speaking only for himself, explains pretty well why the average American should be on the side of Israel, as opposed to Palestine, right about now:

Recognizing the rights of all nations and peoples to exist on this planet, it is therefore the moral obligation of America, if America is to be involved or even to have an opinion, to support any peaceful alternative over the destruction of an entire state (which would be no better than the Nazis' persecution of the Jews in the 1930s).

Speaking of Jews, Claire struck an interesting idea. Religion plays an important role in all aspects of life for billions of people around the world. I try only to let religion affect my supernatural ideas (how we were created, how life works, etc.), but there are others who consciously or subconsciously let their religious values guide their every day lives, jobs, interactions, and so on. That said, imagine the powerful influence God would have over anyone trying to destroy his "chosen" people (after all, the Jews, according to the Jews, are his chosen people    well, if they're right, wouldn't destroying them effectively destroy anyone else who allowed it to happen?). Assuming we had some way of knowing, that would be some powerful motivation.

It's the Republicans' fault that the Democrats don't even want to consider a Republican idea. Er... What the hell? But that's what Tom Daschle said:

Senate Majority Plurality Leader Tom Daschle told President Bush this week that [the Senate does not] have 51 votes for their own budget resolution but [doesn't] want to vote for a Republican alternative. An hour earlier, Democrats held their own news conference to say that no decision has been made on the budget, but any legislative gridlock is the fault of Republicans.

Another Democrat says, "We're kind of like a bicycle built for two.... We're all in the same vehicle, it's just that we're in the front pedaling uphill, and they are in the backseat with the brakes on." Yeah. Says you. Maybe they don't feel that way. Maybe I don't feel that way. Maybe your constituents think the Republicans can better handle the budget than Democrats can. Have you checked the polls recently? Last I checked, American voters preferred 60-40 that Republicans should handle economic matters.

Who's the obstructionist party now, Tommy boy? (Hmm. In the true spirit of a baseball fan, I'm going to start calling a balk on Daschle every time he cheats, and demand that a Republican baserunner is allowed to advance one base. Eventually, Republicans will score about twenty thousand runs before the Democrats even throw a pitch, and by that time the game will be beyond their reach and the umpires (the people) will have called the game.)

Upon typing this subtitle, I have realized that Star Wars: Episode II couldn't have better timing if Lucas had consciously planned it. Unless, of course, Lucas did plan it. I mean, it's entirely possible and possible that he owns the entire world due to the insane amounts of cash the Star Wars franchise generates for him. Maybe he decided that the months of and around May 16, 2002, would be a good time for cloning to breakout like never before as the hippest controversial issue of the day. There's nothing better than good ad placement, right? And talk about fighting the good fight... Destroy the clones!

But the argument, which compares gun control to cloning, is this:

Is "therapeutic cloning" the same sort of issue? Isn't it entirely possible that the millions of Americans who are waiting for a cure based on this technology will become, in essence, single-issue voters? This is something that the pols, who are currently only reading the "top line" of the polls, need to consider very carefully before they vote to completely ban the procedure.

Amen to that.

So, from what I can tell, we paid $30 million in slavery reparations because the IRS screwed up? Well, the reason doesn't surprise me    every government agency screws up far more than it should    but $30 million in erroneous funds?

A growing number of black taxpayers are being misled by scams falsely claiming that, for a fee, they can get tax credits or refunds as reparations for slavery. But the scams are seen as legit when the checks actually materialize.

Yeah, um, problem! I don't remember any taxpayers agreeing to volunteer their hard-earned, taken-away dollars for the cause. What's the deal here? I don't know much about the way any majority of people thinks, but I know that people get really pissed off when their money isn't handled properly. You just don't mess with people's money without pissing them off.

First the INS, now the IRS. So we're two-for-two in the last two months in proving that government agencies are allotted far too much money to do a haphazard job. Time to start rolling back... Give the money back to the people!

I laughed uncontrollably for several seconds when I read Drudge's headline, that Disney is in Deep, Deep Pooh-Pooh, with a clever entry-point image of Winnie the Pooh above it. I giggled slightly less enthusiastically when I read one take on the issue, that this is "Enron all over again". My face finally straightened as I read Finke's allegations against Disney and the New York Post. Either way, go Finke! Power to the people! Down with censorship!

On the menu for later tonight (or perhaps later this week, but hopefully tonight): I plan to dissect those QuizYourFriends.com quizzes you took and post some sort of summary based on the results. I plan to include the easiest questions and the most difficult questions, as well as the people that know me best versus those who know the best.

To go along with that little presentation, I'll have to clarify answers to a few of the questions, especially the one regarding my spiritual philosophy. (That question was almost unfair; I mean, unless you actually talked to me about it, you had no idea what the answer was.) So look forward to that.

In all ways, Arafat is losing. He can't keep up the terrorism, but he can't win without it. (He can't win with it, either.) If he had refused to condem the Palestinians' terrorist actions, which is what some were anticipating, it would have reflected badly, not to mention the bad effects (or lack thereof) if he failed to meet with Colin Powell.

Either way, it seems as though Arafat's days in power are numbered, and they're smaller than he thought. Hopefully, the Middle East conflict can be resolved quickly and relatively painlessly. I'd hate for another Middle East war to erupt, and I'd hate more for outsiders (the United States, for instance) to find reason to enter it. The last thing I need to deal with in my life is World War III. (I mean that sarcastically. Hopefully, if World War III becomes in issue in my life, it is not the last thing I deal with. I would hope to get past it.)

As it turns out, our President wasn't waving at Stevie Wonder; he was waving at Kelsey Grammar, the emcee for the evening. (I wonder if Leno, Letterman, or O'Brien will apologize.) Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet, so I guess we're even. (His exact words, that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet", were taken horribly out of context.)

Although maybe not in every situation, I agree with Warner. The Constitution should be adhered to in nearly all situations, especially when concerning domestic policy. But in the situations suggested in the article, there are times when I think security should come prior to following all of the rules. There are some cases when the rules of the Constitution should be bent, other times broken.

For example, if there is a nuclear threat in downtown [insert large city here], screw searching and seizure protocol; diffuse the situation!

Of course, the concern that, "if the Constitution could be overlooked in times of danger, then it could be overlooked any time" is legitimate, and naturally there would need to be proper justification. My stance on this does not simply mean that we should be able to stomp all over the Constitution any time a dangerous situation arises. However, there are certainly extenuating circumstances when bypassing some rules, regulations, or clauses might be necessary.

Abraham Lincoln did it in the Civil War, and he is remembered as (arguably) the greatest president we have ever had. Let's not be closed-minded to the utility of such action. In other words, watch for heavily biased lines that vilify Warner's opinion, like this one: "'The Constitution is a 'luxury' we can't afford, says a guy who should never hold higher office."

Clarification: bias isn't bad; it's perfectly natural. But train yourself to see through it so that you may develop your own opinion, rather than simply be led to believe someone else's.

See, this just sounds bad. Liberals are plotting an election-year strategy with the slogan "Reclaiming America", as if they ever had ever claimed America in the first place. (When used in that sense, to claim something means to assert a legal right to it. As if any political faction ever had claim of the United States! The audacity!) If all goes well, this will blow up in their collective face.

This, and House minority leader Dick Gephardt is claiming that there is "no collaboration, no communication, no inclusiveness" from the President, but he fails to mention that he and the President had lunch together two hours previous. Besides, last I checked, the people favored the President by quite a significant margin, and the difference in his approval rating and Congress's is quite a gap. Also, recent polls show that the people prefer Republican policy of late over Democrat policy, suggesting that, hmm, maybe the Democrats are refusing to communicate? I mean, obviously, if things are getting done and it isn't getting done their way, but it's getting done the right way, doesn't that mean that the President is right?

Hey, Gephardt: that means work like a team. Your President is your leader, regardless of how powerful you think you are. Don't sweat the small stuff, and act like an American Congressman should. (And that goes for the rest of you, too, Mrs. McKinney.)

And back to my original thought: this is all Americans' America, not just politicians' America. Liberals don't get to claim it for themselves, the greedy bastards.

Ideas are constantly born and reborn, without direction or motivation, except that with which we drive them. An ideas purpose is only as good as it has been defined, and this one is no different. I hope my initial declaration of my Neo-Progressive creed is acceptable as a precursor to much more. I hope that my notion of Neo-Progressivism, as defined in a simple Instant Messenger conversation with Tony, may prove to be useful. If even one person likes the idea, then that is enough for me.

The primary notion of Neo-Progressivism as I have defined it is that the American people    you (maybe), me, and all other citizens of this country    run the government; the government does not run us. The government's primary role is to protect our lives and liberty, not grant them to us. Never were our lives or liberty in the possession of our government to be granted to us. We have certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are above any government's power to control.

Another key notion is to restore the definition of "Liberalism" to its Lockean roots, which is represented nearly exactly by Libertarianism. Liberalism and socialism once clashed, but socialist ideas have been increasingly infused into American politics over the last century, and now our great nation is on the verge of becoming a socialist republic.

Now for some kind of disclaimer. I do not wish to lead any political faction. I do not wish for my ideas to be represented by or fall directly into line with any political faction. What I advocate most for American politics is:

There are four principal values which I hold above all others which serve as the pillars my philosophy: Truth, Toleration, Love, and Determination. With those nailed down, life can be a piece of cake for anyone.

I'm on Traficant's side. I think someone has it in for him, and I think Gephardt is an idiot. He certainly should have known not to say something like that before the case has even been appealed. But, then, we know where his chips lie. Gephardt is no fan of Traficant because Traficant stands for true Democratic values. Gephardt stands for Socialist Democratic values.

I'm on Trafican't side. Gephardt should resign for "being an impotent leader and for having screwed up the party". I actually believe that Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson are more to blame than is "Little" Dick Gephardt, but Gephardt could have done much better. For starters, he could promote liberalism instead of socialism, as a liberal should.

(Any parents concerned about the vulgarity of the subtitle of this post should understand that I am not a fan of censorship, especially for something as simple as a word that everyone hears on a nearly daily basis. Censoring that is simply ridiculous.)

If there were any Congressman (or woman, in this case) in the United States who had to allege that Bush knew about the attacks before September 11, it would be Cynthia McKinney. Let me clarify a small detail: as a citizen of the state of Georgia, I didn't elect her, I don't claim her, I don't like her. She doesn't have a very good track record, either. If she is re-elected this fall, I will be absolutely astonished ... and I will have lost hope in mankind, or at least I will plan my escape route from Georgia.

An email has been passing around recently with an image of Martin Luther King Jr being labeled as a domestic terrorist, based on the USA Patriot Act of 2001. Here is the text of the message:

The USA Patriot Act creates a federal crime of "domestic terrorism" that broadly extends to "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws" if they "appear to be intended...to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion", and if they "occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States". If this bill were enacted in the 1960s, riots incited by pro-segregation protesters would have been grounds enough for the federal government to arrest Martin Luther King Jr and his fellow revolutionaries as domestic terrorists. Outraged? You can contact your congresspersons, protest, research, learn, talk about it, and fight to take back our government and rights!

Today I received an insightful email with some interesting thoughts on the matter. They were too good to let go to waste, so I share them with you:

Thanks for sharing your point of view. Now who says Glenn Reynolds gets the best reader email?

As reported by Billboard's Ray Waddell, the Eagles are back!

The group is working on its first studio album of all new material since 1979's The Long Run. Principal member Don Henley told Billboard, "We're diligently working on it every day. If I had to speculate, I'd say it will come out early next year." No label is yet attached to the project, but Henley says, "We might go independent    it would be a combination of the Internet and certain superstore chains."

Yes! Power to the artists! Power to the people! Power to the Internet! They are also planning a U.S. summer tour from May 31 to July 20. A particular sister of mine should try to catch them when they hit Portland... and send me a t-shirt.

In an ongoing email conversation that I am having with an old friend of mine, Todd had this to say:

It's so funny because I used to be so left wing. But now that I understand politics, I'm a little closer to the center. I am still a liberal, but a moderate liberal.

Hey, man; I hear ya. I used to be so right wing simply because of the political influences around me (Air Force Base, Tony, etc.), but now that I understand it a bit better, I find myself much closer to the center. I'm certainly a conservative, but I don't shrug off typical liberal arguments as meaningless as my conservative peers would. Rather, being one who wishes to understand all sides in order to better understand myself, I would rather accept their perception as real (whether I agree with them or not, their feelings and thoughts exist) than to disregard it as irrational. As a result, I have noticed myself tolerating the liberal position on some issues, the conservative position on others...

I suppose it is about that time again to take Prenhall's "Political Horizon" PoliSim, a nine-item test that identifies which parties with whom one lines up on nine particular issues. Every time I take this test, it takes me about half an hour because I carefully read each idea before selecting that which best represents my own. Here is how it has me pegged:

As always, it makes perfect sense to me. I'm mostly a Libertarian with a strong respect for the Constitution and our founding fathers' original intent (After all, they are the geniuses and warriors who fought against incredible odds to secure these lands from a tyrannical king.), and I disagree with the Democratic Party at nearly every turn. I believe that there is more Republican in me than this test shows, because their positions were similar to the Libertarian and Constitutional positions on a couple of questions. (I suppose this proves, though, that I am a conservative.) Either way, I am quite impressed with myself that I chose either of the major parties' positions only once, especially considering how often I question the efficiency of America's two-party system    they hold a virtual diopoly over American politics, and that is bad for America.

That said, anyone who still doesn't believe that I am not a Republican should ask themselves why I did not choose their position eight out of nine times. And, for the sake of keeping my independent status perfectly clear: I will not consider being a part of any political party (such as the Libertarian Party) until I agree with them 100% of the time. I will not label myself as something I am not.

Anyone who wishes to share grievances with these results may feel free to do so. Unfortunately, however, I may not direct you to the PoliSim because it is not free. Buy their text book and maybe they'll let you see it.

Drawn by the force to a Hollywood Boulevard corner in downtown Los Angeles, a handful of avid Star Wars fans have lined up to wait more than a month for the first tickets to the new Lucas Film mega-flick, Star Wars: Episode 2 - Attack of the Clones. The Grauman's Chinese Theatre there is "like Mecca" to Star Wars fans, where George Lucas had the original premiere back in 1977.

When I read that information, I decided that they had to devise a system for placement in line when the tickets are first made available, and their system is exactly what I envisioned:

Participants earn time on the line. The amount of time spent waiting determines their position in the actual ticket line when tickets are sold.... But it's more than just movie tickets. Members of the group are required to donate [at] least $50 for the Starlight Children's Foundation, a nonprofit organization working with seriously ill children and their families. When...The Phantom Menace premiered in 1999, a line of 150 people collected about $25,000 for the charity.

Problems might arise when regular movie-goers show up on May 16 and accuse those claiming their places in "The Line" of cutting, but I suppose that they've already thought of that as well. They'll probably all stay the night for the last few days.

And, of course, they're already talking about a line in 2005 for Episode III.

To curb further confusion, please understand that my "three major passions in life" of which I wrote yesterday are meant to be interpreted as inanimate or abstract, and therefore isolated from certain other passions in life. Thank Tommy for this invaluable observation: "Does Claire know that she doesn't rate in the top three?"

If my generalized statements are unclear, let me disambiguate them a bit more: of course Claire ranks higher than simple things and ideas. I may offer arguments of principles and values to justify one thing or another which may suggest otherwise, but regardless of the doctrines in which I believe, there are two fundamental ideas that I believe in more than any others: love and truth. (Maybe that's because I'm [mostly] an objectivist.)

I apologize for any confusion. Thanks for the sarcastic comments. :-)

It's only been a week, and already the New York Yankees and Cleveland Indians are on top of their respective divisions, and the Seattle Mariners and Oakland Athletics are tied for the lead in the American League West    no surprises there. In the National League, however, things are a different. The Giants are the only undefeated team in baseball (no surprise there) atop the West. But in the Central, the Pittsburgh Pirates are riding high with a 5-1 record; my team, the Astros, are just behind them. In the East, the Braves are in first, surprisingly tied with the Montreal Expos.

Aside from Ken Griffey Jr's injury, there isn't a whole lot to be upset about in baseball right now. All the teams I care about (except Baltimore) are winning, and all the teams I care little for (except the Yankees) are losing.

I know most of my visitors don't care about baseball in the way that I do, but that isn't going to stop me from offering baseball commentary from time to time. After all, this is my web site for my commentary regarding subjects of my choosing. I have three major passions in life    computers, politics, and baseball (in no particular order)    and I plan to discuss them any time the mood strikes. Hopefully, other minor passions will come back as well; I really enjoy discussing philosophy and any random thing that I'm studying at the moment, so be prepared for just about anything.

Progressive income taxe rates are unfair. Regressive income taxe rates would be more unfair. A flat income tax rate would be perfect. But, Of course, life isn't always fair, and America's federal income tax rates are an excellent example of this unfairness.

In 1999, the wealthiest 1% of the population, earning $293,415, earned about 19% of the nation's taxable income; they paid about 35% of our nation's income taxes. How is that fair? The wealthiest 5% paid about 55%. For crying out loud, people! Fewer than eight million taxpayers, of 300 million people in the country, are paying more than half of the income taxes! The less wealthy half of the tax-paying population is paying less than 4% of the nation's income taxes. How is that fair?

Taking into account that it's getting worse and that these numbers are based on tax-season three years ago, how bad it is now can only be guessed, and how bad it's going to be can only be feared. Taking it back ten years to 1989, the top 5% paid about 44% while the bottom half paid under 6%. The top tax rate paid by high earners in 1989 was 31%; now, 38.6%; in 2009, God only knows. There is hope, though. The highest tax rate dropped from 39.1% in 2001 to 38.6% in 2002.

Now let's look at every significant federal tax rate on the Small Business Taxes & Management web site. First, we see that the corporate income tax rates make absolute no sense, bouncing up and down and back again several times. Further down, we see that individual income tax rates range from 10% (for total income under $12,000) to some number between 35% and 38.6%, depending on how far into the highest bracket one's income is. How is that fair?

Now I know the arguments both for and against the progressive income tax rate and a flat income tax rate, and I respect both sides; I just happen to have my own opinion on the matter. And here it is: the income tax rates in America should be significant reduced to a single flat rate    say around 10%    so that every American will be able to contribute his/her fair share to the nation's functions, as opposed to the wealthiest few paying to be abused. To make up the difference in income tax revenues, the federal budget could be reduced significantly. Consider it the largest and most sweeping reform in United States history. Each and every agency, order, act, and statute would be carefully considered for its worth, and those deemed unnecessary would be canned.

Okay, so such sweeping change would obviously require gradual steps; laying off hundreds of thousands of government jobs all at once would be economically catastrophic. However, setting up a waning period while the to-be-replaced functions of government are privatized would act to counterbalance such an effect, and even put accountability back in the workplace. And, naturally, this would be a step toward ridding this country of income taxes altogether.

Only a truly great nation could overcome the overwhelmingly unfair burden of the progressive income tax rates facing our citizens. And I am quickly losing confidence in the greatness of this nation. Sure, we're good, but we're becoming like the rest. We're leaning further left year after year.

As a moderate (in nearly everything), I can understand that the in-betweens are often the best answers, and America has survived fairly well on a capitalist system with few communist/socialist elements. I don't know where I should go with that, since it is a separate thought, so I'll stop.

Lead singer of the band Creed, Scott Stapp, has a problem with O'Reilly's special, Corruption of the American Child. Tonight, he'll enter the No Spin Zone to explain.

Oh, you know I won't miss this. My favorite personality in music meeting my favorite personality on television... talking politics? Hell yeah! (My dad and I agreed that Bill O'Reilly's Corruption special was a bit, shall we say, Ashcroft-esque; we didn't like much of it. From what I've heard from Tony, he feels similarly about it.

And my dog is snoring.

I can remember last October when it was popular to add "-istan" to just about any location to give it a Middle Eastern touch (usually with a negative connotation, unfortunately but understandably). My personal favorites were "Alabamistan", for that mean redneck region that no one seems to like, and "Ashcanistan", for what was to become of the Taliban if they fought too hard. Now I can add a third one to the list? Tommy writes:

Did you see [former Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin] Netanyahu on "Face the Nation" Sunday? He referred to "Palestine" as "Arafatistan". I didn't hear the rest of his comment for laughing so hard...

Thanks to the Internet, you can read the full transcript of yesterday's Face The Nation. Below is Netanyahu's statement including the reference to "Arafatistan". Netanyahu has been dubbed the spokesman for the Israeli government of late.

One thing that President Bush has said, and he's absolutely right, the fact that terrorists deliberately attack and murder civilians and then deliberately hide behind civilians doesn't give them immunity, not in Afghanistan and not in Arafatistan.

Just before (CBS's Chief Washington Correspondent) Bob Schieffer's interview with Netanyahu, Schieffer had a few words with President Bush's National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. Rice's purpose was to explain why Israel needs to halt its current military operation. All things considered, it was an interesting show. At least it was fair and balanced, showing both sides, and showing no clear bias to either...

Citizens of Sudan are calling for Osama bin Laden to avenge Israel's continued attack on Palestine, so at least we know that the average American will now support an attack on Sudan. Meanwhile, oil prices are soaring and Saddam is to blame, but we already knew that the average American supports an attack on his sorry ass.

For years, I have been taught that the best defense is a good offense; I have been taught never to hesitate when an opportunity strikes. And yet, here were are, a nation of citizens eager to seize an opportunity, and we've got diplomats and bureaucrats bickering over saving two lives here and twelve lives there, which is likely costing several thousands of lives down the road. The Middle East needs direct attention, and apparently stern words are not enough.

And Saddam just can't wait to fight a war against the United States with a unified Arab state on his side. Unless something unplausibly nice happens sometime soon, this situation should only get worse.

A bill that would have allowed minority benefits to disadvantaged white males in Maryland, which passed the Maryland House by a 125-12 vote, was voted down in Maryland Senate committee by a 10-1 vote, likely killing the issue    for this year, at least. Under Maryland law, socially disadvantaged individuals are or have been subject to racial, ethnic, or cultural bias beyond their control. The proposed change, according to state Senator Clarence Blount, would have let "people in the majority use something meant for the minority", making a "mockery" of current law.

Never once did it cross his mind that, perhaps, we are each individually a minority of equal size, weight, and clout    we are each individual human beings, regardless of skin color. Blount continues to say that the Minority Business Preference program "should not be watered down"; besides, all a white male will already be "welcomed anywhere" because of his "prized" place.

I wonder why this article doesn't tell us if this man is black or white or of some other ethnicity.

The bill's sponsor, Barry Glassman, seems to have it right, claiming that it simply redefines socially disadvantaged so that it doesn't refer exclusively to non-white people (racial discrimination!), but takes into account geography and lack of access to credit and educational opportunities.

So Glassman, by creating a bill that would effectively rid the state of one piece of discriminatory legislation, has turned a swarm of Maryland "liberals" (progressives) into conservatives    men who respect the currently established laws and want no sudden changes. "Liberals" (progressives), over the last several decades, have promoted change to enhance social progress, as long as they were in control of the change, because they think that that's how to make things better. But here they act the opposite part, for once in their recent history, and it's still the wrong decision.

That's it. I'm convinced. Democrats don't know how to fix this country, but they sure as hell know how to make it worse. It's time for a new era: Libertarians versus Republ