I knew this was coming, and if it didn't get press soon, I was going to start clamoring for it. Some of our macho patriots may protest that we should go about our lives as usual and not "let the terrorists win" by refusing to fly on September 11, but, really, who flies on September 11? Can you think of any good reason why we should set or avoid setting flight dates on any certain date, besides the obviousness of recent terrorist attacks? Whether the primary factor for the flight reduction is fear, respect, or money, it is a good call and it makes perfect sense. Not many people will fly that day, so there is no reason to have a regular number of flights.

Besides (and I'm no expert), it has been a year since the hijackings, and there has been very little activity on our soil despite the fact that we apparently "know" that it's coming. I don't know when, how, or even if they're planning it, but I do know that September 11 is just as likely a day as any, and it looks like a big white spot on the Green Monster when compared to the rest of the days on the calendar.

This was a preemptive "Shhh". I don't want to hear complaints about a reduced September 11 flight schedule. Unless, of course, it is directly in response to me.

Tommy sends this link to an article from the Ralph Bristol Show. Ralph Bristol is a radio talk show host (can you guess which one?) and columnist, and this column highlights an argument/question that I have touched upon in the past. I suppose the entire purpose of my previous arguments is that all Americans are liberals by the real definition of the word; "liberals" are really progressive liberals, and "conservatives" are really conservative liberals. By that token, we should all embrace the term "liberalism" and apply it as it should be applied, and apply the terms "conservative" and "progressive" to denote those on opposite sides of the ideological track (within the confines of liberalism). We are all liberals (or libertarians, to use today's term) in that we all stand for life and liberty above all else.

"Conservativism", as the word is typically used in American politics, refers to the conservative side of the liberal (libertarian) philosophy, which is characterized by a certain respect for the established order and a reluctance to accept significant or sudden change. No one is conservative regarding every issue, though; there is always something that a person wishes would change at the snap of his finger, but it doesn't work that way.

"Progressivism", as I am trying to establish the word in similar context, or "liberalism", as the word is typically (wrongly) used in American politics today, refers to the progressive side of the liberal (libertarian) philosophy, which is characterized by a quest for reform and change for the better good of all. Just the same, no one is progressive/liberal regarding every issue because there are many sweeping changes made every day that create major problems that could have been avoided if the change had been incremental.

On a politico-philosophical scale, conservatism sides with capitalism and liberalism sides with socialism and/or communism. (Note: "communism" is not a bad word, but it rightfully carries a negative connotation in a supremely capitalist nation like ours.) Conservatism favors individual liberty and accountability over collective security with the general belief that a nation of free individuals will protect themselves better. Progressivism favors collective security at the expense of liberty and accountability with the general belief that the government knows better than the people it governs.

I can't quite explain the hows and whys of that without going into horrible amounts of detailed explanation, but I can say that the difference between conservatism and progressivism is analagous to the difference between our government protecting our freedom and granting our freedom. One assumes that we are innately free, the other assumes that we are born slaves and must serve to be free (all the while believing that we are free when we really are not).

Thanks Tommy. I hadn't had a good conversation with myself (about this, anyway) in way too long.

I have been told that I am not as funny as I sometimes appear to be, but that I often say weird things that people laugh at before they realize that it was a stupid thing to say. Naturally, however, I have humorous tendencies like any other person, and having half a brain helps to generate laughter, especially when either of my bros is around. But, generally, I say stupid things so quickly that the slower minds find hilarity before inanity, and hence my oddball reputation.

Or do I even have a reputation?

You're actually reading this. I would be amazed, but I am not actually aware of the fact. And there was no point in this post. I hope July was as hot for you as it was for me.

Quickly, go vote on your favorite Austin Powers character! Judging by this poll's result, I either hit the nail on the head with my whited-out review, or too many people who haven't seen Goldmember have voted in this poll. I doubt that the latter would make any more than a 0.1% difference, though.

For what it's worth, the results of the poll (at this point) pretty much line up with my taste, except that Frau Farbissina should be less liked than Number Two. (Also, this poll is incredibly, horribly biased, as it leaves out two of my favorite characters from Goldmember, Nigel Powers and Number Three (whited out, again, for those who may not care to have anything at all spoiled before seeing part three), one of whom could easily be a favorite for many.

"While many mainstream moviegoers may hate it, those that catch onto the joke will probably enjoy what they see on screen." Hook, line, and sinker    I'm caught. That was all that needed to be said to trap me into watching Full Frontal as soon as I can. I have been eying it haphazardly for the last few weeks, hoping that any movie that features both David Duchovny and Julia Roberts has to be good. The fact that Full Frontal is a satire of Hollywood simply makes it sweeter.

No surprise there.

She is right, in essence, though: the proof is in the arrows. The economic downturn began while her husband was in office. Not to mention that the factors that cause an upward or downward shift in our economy always takes quite a few quarters to take effect. (It is impossible that anything the Bush administration had done after January 2001 started the economic downturn. Think of it this way: we have spent about sixteen months trying to combat the woes of our economy to little or no avail. Sixteen months! Now what makes you think that Bush could have started this in just two?)

What created this mess was consumers investing in dot-coms with no real assets combined. Hey! That's why they call it gambling! "Investing" is only a euphemism.

And don't forget Clinton's attempt to level the playing field by throwing the Department of Justice at Microsoft. Here's a parallel story for you: Enron blew up, the economy fell. Well, when the tech sector began to lose stock about three years ago, what significant event triggered it? Duh! Clinton's Justice Department hit Microsoft with several lawsuits and new rules to hinder its business. Microsoft was the Enron of 1999, economically speaking. A brick wall was thrown at Microsoft, and the economy sputtered, and it has grown increasingly unstable since. (In just the last few weeks, the stock market has seen some pretty awesome lifts and drops.)

You can't blame on Bush what happened while Clinton was running the show. Hitlery and the Democrats are only stealing votes from the people who don't get the news, don't know the facts, and therefore have no reason not to believe them. (This is not to say that all Democrat-voters are stupid. The more intelligent Democrats are simply humanists who believe that some elements of socialism and collectivism are better than our current system. That is understandable, though I don't accept it.)

A rolling computer gathers "cruft." When you spot a class interface that is no longer used by any client, but that nobody dare delete, that's cruft. It is also the word "seperate," added to a spellchecker's private dictionary in a moment of careless haste, and now waiting for a suitably important document. Cruft is the cruel corruption and confusion inevitably wrought by time upon all petty efforts of humankind. There.

Cruft. I like that. Read on for Verity Stob's "new tool that will help you make rapid diagnoses of sick PCs". There are eleven stages, or "forces", of cruft in one of which every PC lies. This particular document was prepared for an average Windows 2000 machine, so Linux, Mac, or other-versions-of-Windows users may find it a little more difficult to figure out whether their PC is at Cruft Force 5 or 7, but tools for other OS's are coming too.

Goldmember is funnier than The Spy Who Shagged Me and International Man of Mystery and easily the funniest movie of the summer. Mike Myers put in the comedic performance of his life, and it earned the film a smashing $73 million for the weekend, the fourth-best weekend ever (behind Spider-Man, Harry Potter, and Star Wars: Episode II). The hilarity of this film was incredible; I have never laughed so much during one movie.

That said, there are reasons why this movie does not receive an A+. Hilarious it may be, but perfect it is not. (Warning: If you do not wish to have this movie spoiled, I suggest that you not highlight the white space below.) Highlight the white space below to read my negative criticisms of the film, beginning with its three most significant weaknesses:

(1) Foxy Cleopatra. Beyonce Knowles was actually excellent with her character as it was written. The problem was that Foxy was much too serious and therefore not funny. Another problem was that, unlike every other spy in the history of movies, Austin didn't get the girl; nobody shagged! Considering that the Austin Powers franchise is mostly a spoof of James Bond, the British superspy/womanizer who gets jiggey with a girl at least once in every film (usually two or three times), Goldmember was seriously lacking. (My explanation: Felicity Shagwell was wrong in The Spy Who Shagged Me; Austin didn't have his mojo all a long, he very clearly lost it at a very bad moment, and he still has not regained it, hence the abstinent atmosphere in Goldmember. Speaking of Felicity, it bugged me that her absence in the film was not addressed in any way.) Though I doubt this is the case, the thought crossed my mind that Beyonce's getting the female part of Austin Powers 3 was politically motivated, and the fact that she and Austin didn't shag was somewhat motivated by the general opinion regarding misegenation. Neither is probably true, but that would explain why no one felt the love in this film.

(2) Goldmember. Though the Dutch (isn't that weird?) villain is not even half as bad, the only other villain in a spy film that was worse (that I can think of) was Eliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies. The third Powers flick was not hurt nearly as badly as the eighteenth Bond movie was, but Goldmember was still incredibly weak as a villain, slightly annoying, and a bit too unfunny (comparatively speaking). Goldmember was really only funny when he was communicating with Dr. Evil, which almost defeats the purpose of creating a new villain. (New characters, at least in this series, are supposed to be hilarious. So far this movie is oh-for-two.)

Finally, it was incredibly annoying that after nearly every clever one-liner, the actor stepped out of character for half of a second to look at the audience to say "I thank you", as if apologizing for a bad joke that we all knew was coming. Then again, that was probably the point, and it was still funny...

Of course, the good greatly outweighed the bad. Mini-Me was probably the funniest character of the movie, and because Mini-Me never talks, Dr. Evil had most of the best lines. The opening credits were awesome (and hysterically funny, but probably only the first time around, so I won't spoil it here). The end was twisted. The musical numbers were hilarious.

Go watch Austin Powers. Don't waste your time on anything else until you've seen it, just so you can have a good laugh and breathe a sigh of "I needed that".

Zach, we were wrong. Mike Myers and director Jay Roach are already discussing ideas for the fourth installment of the Austin Powers series. Smashing, baby! Now if only (not to be rude) Mike Myers would lose a few pounds to get back into shagadelic shape again; that would just be groovy! But whatever. I'm already looking forward to part four, and I don't have any idea what it's going to be about (or if it will even materialize)!

Note to self: Get vibrating sex toy. Pack vibrating sex toy in luggage. Turn on vibrating sex toy before checking luggage. Wait for humiliating or sexually harrassing comments. Sue airline for thousands of dollars. (Sidenote: this really works in the real world, too!)

The woman who was humiliated aboard a Delta plane when she was forced to remove a vibrator from her bag is "seeking...more than $15,000, accusing Delta of negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and gender discrimination". I agree with her; she should definitely have been taken to some private area for inspection of her luggage. The contents of her bag, unless they are a potential threat to the plane or passengers, are no business of anyone else except the bag's owner. Furthermore, if her allegation that "three male staff members made 'obnoxious and sexually harassing comments'", then that alone is enough for (a) the men in question to be fired and (b) the woman to be paid a healthy sum for her humiliation.

Now just try to imagine if she were with a son or daughter or, worse, her parents or grandparents. Perhaps the Delta employees are to blame for breaking rules, or perhaps Delta is to blame for having no rules for such a thing. Either way, Delta is responsible for hiring the employees in the first place, and I think such a rule will be considered in the future.

News regarding freedom of expression is rarely good news; it seems like we only hear about it when someone is trying to step on or over us to limit our ability to speak or act. Well, not today. For the second time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California has upheld a delightfully controversial decision. (I have agreed with the Ninth Circuit Court both times. The average American disagreed the first time in a wild fit of hypocrisy.)

If you recall, a song called "Barbie Girl", by Danish pop group called Aqua, was released about five years ago. The lyrics were written in the first person: "I'm a blonde bimbo girl in a fantasy world" is the quote that Billboard chooses to use. The song was immediately popular and made a lot of money for Aqua and MCA Records.

Well, surprise, Mattel decided to sue MCA Records "and others who helped produce and market the song" for infringement "on the toymaker's doll patent". In a brilliant, free-speech-supporting move, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision to throw out the lawsuit, essentially telling Mattel, Aqua, and anyone else who was listening that, at least in America, you can say pretty much anything you want to say.

I, for one, would have been mildly upset if Aqua, their record company, and others were forced to pay for accurately representing the image of Barbie in a song. If nothing else, Aqua helped Mattel by reintroducing the Barbie name to millions of people around the world who had outgrown the dolls, not to mention the boys who would never have played with them anyway but happened to find the tune catchy or humorous.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! This reminds me of the time that the RIAA did everything in its power to destroy the ability of consumers to buy more music by preventing them from hearing a glimpse of it for free. Oh, wait, that time is now. (I think of it this way: the industry had a monopoly on what commercial music we could listen to. The Internet simply broke up the monopoly and allowed the music to speak for itself.)

I've spoken too soon. The boys at Box Office Mojo have lowered their rating of Austin Powers in Goldmember from A– to B+. Have no fear, though. Being entirely subjective, but objective within the confines of my own mind, the third Austin Powers flick is keeping its A–, and that's only because I'm on the verge of giving it an A+. Not for the best film in the world, mind you, but for one of the most entertaining film experiences I've ever, um, experienced.

This is hardly a review, but that about sums up why I liked the movie. To review this movie without giving anything away would be damn near impossible, so I'll spare you the ambiguous hints and leave you with this: It was funny. I laughed. I laughed hard. And often. If you see this movie, and you think it sucks, then you suck. Period.

Watch the polls (if there are any opinion polls) regarding this story. If an overwhelming majority of people respond in the woman's favor, this will be proof undeniable of our nation's hypocrisy, and that the words "under God" truly do not belong in our Pledge. Or at least, not in the way that I was taught, which placed "humiliation" on a list of virtues that only the holiest of people experience and accept rightly.

No, not really. I can't back that up.

I am trying very hard to avoid reading reviews of Austin Powers in Goldmember, because so many of the film industry elite are too much "above" the film to rate it fairly, and because I would rather not have the movie spoiled. However, I am quite excited to note that the third Austin Powers movie is the first movie since Spider-Man to receive an A or higher at Box Office Mojo.

However, come to think, the inclusion of the word "Mojo" in the web site's title indicates that there may have been a pro-Austin Powers bias present at the web site's inception. Nevertheless, I am reeling in anticipation. I'll let you know what I think after I see it tonight.

Does anyone else find it somewhat ironic/coincidental/odd that the only Representative to vote not to expell the tried and convicted James Traficant from the U.S. House of Representatives was Gary Condit? (Nevermind that I would also have voted not to expell him.) I think a bit of unnecessary attention could be drawn to that, but thankfully (so far) none has.

Also, President Bush is threatening to veto any bill that "limits the personnel and budgetary powers of the head of a new Department of Homeland Security", reasoning that we should not "weaken the president's ability to protect the American people". Ordinarily (read: In the eight years prior to January 20, 2001), I would presume that this is merely power lust, an attack by the executive to preserve or enhance power over the legislative (or perhaps more simply to enhance power for himself versus power for others).

However, these are not ordinary times. In the White House is a man I trust, and in the chambers of Congress are hundreds of persons who I can not trust as a group to get the right thing(s) done. So I fully back the President's decision to veto such a bill if it comes across his desk, and I oppose any bureaucratic attempt to woo power away from the President.

One would think that James Bond would be shaken, if not a little stirred, by the antics of Austin Powers over the last six years or so. Not so, says 007 himself: Pierce Brosnan gives a "thumbs up to the groovy 1960s spoof of the Bond character created by comedian Mike Myers". Among other reasons, such as that Austin Powers is just plain funny, Brosnan cites that playing James Bond "is a half a breath away from parody anyway". Whether he refers to mimicking an old Sean Connery character or the apocryphal stunts 007 is supposed to pull, we may never know.

Brosnan has more to say about Austin Powers, and quite a bit to say about his upcoming role as James Bond (his fourth 007 film) in Die Another Day. If you want to know to expect Brosnan or someone else as James Bond in another two or three years, click the link.

A man who couldn't control himself is now suing because he's fat. I think he has no good argument, but unfortunately, he'll probably make off with millions from the big four fast food companies (McDonald's, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Wendy's). His argument:

You don't need nicotine or an illegal drug to create an addiction, you're creating a craving. I think we'll find that the fast-food industry has not been totally up front with the consumers.

Likewise, the fast food giants in question should in turn sue the fat man for punitive damages and wrongful, um, something (I'm not down with all the legal lingo yet). The facts are plain: everyone knows that what fast food restaurants serve is about the most unhealthy food on the planet, aside from straight animal fat. It isn't supposed to be healthy; it's supposed to be convenient. Anyone who does not understand that fast food is relatively unhealthy isn't intelligent enough to file a lawsuit. Therefore, this man is full of it. Greed, that is. (Or should I say hunger?)

This fat man is essentially suing his ability to choose    his own freedom    for allowing him to make the choices that plumped him up. The fast food chains are not to blame; I eat fast food one to four times per week, and I'm still in good shape (not great, but good). Why? Self-discipline. I was taught responsibility, so I was responsible enough to run around the block once in a while to prevent layers of fat from adding up. This man would be better off suing himself or joining a health clinic. Either way, the fast food giants should sue him in return for all the negative publicity his case is generating.

There is something inherently wrong with the idea of a "sin tax" on junk food (so I like O'Reilly's biased label of the idea). There is also something inherently wrong with the definition of obesity. Let me explain.

Because of the obesity "epidemic" that is rampaging through America, many are worried that a tax on junk foods should be established. Others are asserting that obesity will soon be the "number one killer in this country" (how that is determined, I may never know). Still, there is a problem with calling just anyone obese: according to the definition of obesity by federal health standards, Sylvester Stallone is obese, but one look at Sly will certainly warrant dissenting opinion. You see, the definition of obesity does not consider body fat (as it should), but merely one's weight. The problem is that muscle is about twenty times denser, and therefore heavier, than fat. So a solidly muscular person will likely meet the criteria to be considered obese, when in fact such a person is likely in better shape than 99% of the population.

I like Bill O'Reilly's labeling of this potential tax as a "sin tax". It gives the impression that those in support of such a tax believe that there is something morally wrong with the ability to choose what, when, and how much to eat. Last I checked, this country stood for freedom, and yes, that even extends to what, when, and how much we choose to eat. No government of ours should ever have the authority to tell us what we can or can not eat, or what will be taxed extra if we decide to eat it. I absolutely refuse to pay for the freedom which it is my government's inherent responsibility to protect. It is not the government's responsibility to grant freedom or to take freedom away (directly or indirectly through these suggested taxes), but to protect freedom.

Besides, if this tax were to pose a serious threat to our dining freedom, who decides what is junk food and what isn't? It has been proven in many studies that any diet can be healthy if the work ethic is sound. The food, while some are obviously healthier than others, has little to do with the obesity epidemic. The problem behind obesity is the inability to stop eating. That has nothing to do with what you eat...

Fact: meat will "beef" you up quicker than just about any other food or food product, but it is certainly not junk food. This "sin tax" is just an attempted ploy from our favorite government to milk us for more money, just so they can throw it at something else that doesn't need it. They don't honestly have our best interests in mind; they are only interested in lining their pockets with power. And if they can use an argument for health to trick us into supporting their cause, then even more power they will have.

Socialist nightmare, here we come.

Pass this to all of your right-wing and anti-socialist friends. Let's rock the vote this November and prove to America just how like to take our freedom.

After reading a short biography (like a paragraph or two) on Wesley Snipes a few months back, I have slowly grown to like him and his movies more and more. (Blade II helped.) That statement is merely an introduction to his next potential project, Godforsaken, in which he plays a hit man who discovers he has leukemia and puts a contract out on himself.

If only cigarette smokers would do the same thing...

I intend not to be cold or rude, but insensitive and honest. Death by natural causes is not tragedy. That is all.

According to Drudge,

Riiiiiight (in my Dr. Evil voice). There are few movies funnier these days than Mike Myers's portrayal of one of the world's greatest British spies. (Hey, at least Austin Powers is honest and forward with his womanizing tendencies.) That our President can enjoy such comedy is only proof that the man in the White House has character. (Of course, the quality of Bush's character, in your humble opinion, depends on how you like your British spies    mysteriously charming and debonair [a la James Bond] or straight up with a twist [Powers].)

By the way, I made an over-the-top prediction that Goldmember would gross at or around $65 million this weekend; nothing else should break $20 million. Let's see how close I come!

Preferential Discrimination? It seems to me that this might be unfair to men. And because the goal of any political party is to assume some sort of political control over something (or to win elections to public office, which is essentially what I said), this can be said to be an attempt to help women take over the world. Well, like I said, an attempt.

Checking my overwhelmingly cluttered emailbox, I have just received a notice that Macon State's main entrance will be closed until mid-September. Meanwhile, school is scheduled to begin in mid-August. For people who tend to avoid the main entrance anyway (like me), this is going to be one hell of an inconvenience. For those going to school now, like Tony, maybe there is an easier alternative that doesn't involve going the way I like to go. For the sake of not jinxing myself, I will not delineate the way I like to go.

Macon State College offers a degree program consistent with my academic aspirations (as of high school graduation). Other than that, Macon State College needs a lot of work. And smarter people in the administration wing.

I am not a fan of mob movies; most of them are pointlessly violent with little-to-no plot coherence. I am not a huge Tom Hanks fan, though he is an incredible actor and I have enjoyed most of his work, though none of his movies are on my must-have list, and indeed only one of them is in my collection (Cast Away). Furthermore, I have no interest in films that attempt to glorify evil deeds; I was sincerely hoping that the goal of Road to Perdition was not to glorify a mobster's road to eternal damnation, which is the literal definition of "perdition".

Despite these facts working against it, I enjoyed Road to Perdition immensely and I would suggest it for just about anyone. The movie oozes machismo from almost every scene, yet there is plenty of emotion to go around. Some viewers will identify with Mike Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and scream for murder; others will feel for young Mike Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin) and look for a happy ending. And despite the struggles of our hero and his sone, many will identify best with the boss John Rooney (Paul Newman); it's his city, so it's his responsibility.

This is only director Sam Mendes's second film, but both have been breathtakingly brilliant. His first film, American Beauty, won several awards and was nominated for several more back in 1999; Road to Perdition, if it were left to me, would follow suit. The characters are very well developed, the story is coherent and captivating, the on-screen presentation is simply amazing, and Thomas Newman's musical score is perfect. (The score is occasionally reminiscent of Newman's work for American Beauty and is powerfully emotional; it's greatness can hardly be questioned in my mind, for I can still hear a few of my favorite musical moments from the film lingering in my head.)

Considering my ambivalence going into the theatre, I would not be surprised to find my A– rating jump to A+. It will definitely be on my list of nominees for my personal "Best Picture" award for 2002, and Tom Hanks and Paul Newman will both certainly be considered for their performances as well. The writers deserve most of the credit, however, for it is they who blurred the line between good and evil with a story of murder and theft. To add weight to my (subjectively) positive marks, this is the best I've ever seen Tom Hanks or Paul Newman, and it's easily the best mob movie since The Godfather (in fact, after one sitting, I prefer Road to Perdition).

When the curtains finally fell over the films final scene, only one question was left unanswered: who really deserves perdition? I suppose that's open for interpretation.

In the last two weeks, my life has swayed from relaxed and highly enjoyable to strenuous and tiring and back again. It began on the weekend of July 6 when I went to the Atlanta Braves game (and caught a home run!). I did not go back to work after that Saturday afternoon until the following Thursday because of the All-Star break; being a baseball fan, I took it upon myself to arrange a few days off to watch baseball and get a few other things done, and so I did. However, that Thursday began a six-day streak of eight-hour days at the library (excluding Sunday, on which the library is closed)    easily my longest work-week ever. I had very little time to prepare for my second five-day weekend (this weekend), and in fact was forced to make many of my final preparations on my lunch breaks last Tuesday and Wednesday. But it was worth it.

On Thursday we visited Borders, the only of the big three bookstore chains that I had never experienced (it was great, too!), and tried their caramel/mocha freeze (which was also great). After perusing their shelves for a couple of hours, we raced acrossed Athens to get to the other theatre (not the one next to Borders) and saw Road to Perdition, which I will review/discuss later. After that, we went back toward Borders to get Claire some soft serve ice cream from TCBY Yogurt! (I wonder if they know that "yogurt" is accounted for twice in that title), and so we naturally went back to Borders for another hour or so.

On Friday, we went to the mall and I spent about $100 on various items of clothing. Mom had given me $120 for and only for that purpose, so Claire and I hunted for good deals and good looks for yours truly. I came away satisfied, and she occasionally commented on something that she didn't like. Overall, though, I got what I wanted and what she wanted me to have, for obvious reasons. Aside from clothing, I also bought a CD (Meat Loaf's VH1 Storytellers) and DVD (Major League II) heavily discounted; if I don't like the Meat Loaf CD, I can sell it to Media Play for more than I paid for it. But I figured, "All three of the songs I know I like are on here, so if the live band is good enough, it'll be worth a couple bucks". So I bought it. Claire proceeded to disguise the words "impulse buyer!" with one of those heavy, made-for-hidden-comments coughs. I got her back, though.

Saturday was our most eventful day. We started out with the intention of getting cool treats before checking out Athens's Barnes & Noble (so I could compare it to Macon's), but because neither of us were thinking, we ended up getting my treat first, which meant that heading back over to TCBY Yogurt! to get Claire's put us back in the Borders parking lot, so guess where we went again. This visit was short and sweet, though, because our main event for the day was Stone Mountain. (Sidenote: Claire has lived in Georgia for less than six years and has been five times; I have lived in Georgia for twenty years and have been once, two days ago.) There were several highlights, most of them the typical, expected highlights for a trip to such a place, but the most particularly special highlight of my first and only trip to Stone Mountain was the applause that the southern crowd gave Robert E. Lee when he surrendered his Confederate Army (in the laser show). I felt proud to be a southerner for the first time in a long time, and my confidence in the general population rose several notches. It proved to me that, given proper suggestion, circumstances around the country (and indeed around the world) can chance, just as I have always believed. (Sidenote: let's not confuse me with any ordinary idealist; I do not believe myself to be an idealist. I understand the possibilities; that's all. I never said anything was going to happen, nor did I suggest that my goals or dreams involved such.)

I finally saw the Barnes & Noble Sunday afternoon, and I also visited Best Buy to pick up the two Austin Powers movies at $10 apiece (it's a weekly special; go get yours now!). We later visited Borders again because we happened to be in the neighborhood. Other than that, nothing much happened yesterday or today. Sunday was our day to relax, and on Monday I continued to relax while Claire went to school.

It was horrible for my long weekend to come to an end, but there will be others... and this one was very well spent. Among the many things I learned, a few stick out: (1) perhaps most importantly, I learned my way around Athens; (2) I learned the names of several books and authors that I now want by perusing through the shelves at Borders; (3) I learned that I'm not as lactose intolerant as I thought I was, but it's still annoying; and (4) I learned that even the best of times can get better!

Finally, some federal action that I saw coming: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield says that leaks of government secrets represent a "damaging lack of professionalism we continue to see on a daily basis". He also reaffirms my belief that "it costs the lives of Americans".

Hopefully, we're going to see one of those controversial, free speech-clarifying laws that explains exactly why the news media should be held accountable not only for making mistakes (which it gets away with by placing corrections to front page articles on page 24 of section D, essentially preventing most people ever from knowing), but printing things that they obviously shouldn't be printed, like government secrets that they lack clearance to even know about. (Maybe we'll get a couple of new Yogi Berra-quality lines whose literal meanings are paradoxical, such as "Speech isn't free when you pay for it" or "Commerical speech isn't free".

The news media, which pays money to have its voice heard (not simply speaking up) and makes money by speaking (because we pay for what they say), should not be permitted to share government secrets without authorization from the government, which does not include sneaky men in black suits offering juicy information on condition of anonymity.

The news media should be held accountable for using such sources and punished for it; they know that it isn't fair to Americans or even morally right, but they think that because they aren't actually committing the crime, that they're in the clear. Have you ever heard of something called the accomplice? If you accept stolen goods or information and you know it's stolen, you're party to the crime; you're a criminal! And if you actually provide any of the means necessary to allow the exchange to take place, you have directly committed a crime, which is even worse!

I only bring this up because it seems, under current law, that only the officials who leaked the information are eligible for punishment; Rumsfield says that he would "dearly like to find" the officials who are sharing classified information with the press, saying that "they ought to be imprisoned. And if we find out who they are, they will be imprisoned."

I say you shouldn't have to stop there. Arrest the co-conspirators at the newspapers, and the leaks will stop much sooner.

So Rachel and I were minding our business as usual, trying to look like we were shelving books when really we were just trying to pass the time before lunch, when in walks a patron through the emergency door that is always should always be locked from the outside. Naturally, I am in my usual zoned-out, barely-there mental state when this happens, so when Rachel asks Lucy, "Shouldn't the bolt on the emergency door be latched to its frame?", neither Lucy nor I thought anything of it.

"No, it's supposed to be like that", Lucy replied, thinking she knew what Rachel meant, having no idea that the woman passing her desk had just come in the out door that doesn't open with an alarm sounding (mostly because no alarm had sounded).

"Well, then why did she just come through it?", Rachel had to know. Suddenly, as if one of those lightbulbs pinged beside our heads, Lucy and I both caught on to what Rachel was implying. Frenzied conversation and stares at the patron in question brought a worried and surprised look to her face, and we rushed over to the emergency door that had been unlocked for only God knows how long. It's a good thing that cleaning out libraries of their book supply isn't ordinary, or that no book thieves were aware of this little problem of ours, or we would have had about $200,000-worth fewer books.

As it happens, though, the door was fixed within the hour, and a new rule has been established: anyone seen or rumored to be seen entering through any door not clearly marked with official public library insignia will be shot with tranquilizer darts on sight. Of course, there is a problem in that we are fresh out of tranquilizer darts at the libraryb, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.

If Nick had experienced and then written about this, you would laugh more. The reasons behind this are the same reasons why I will never write best-selling novels. The world will be a better place for that. (Sidenote: anyone who feels that my writing style lacks that kick that makes good fiction writers good fiction writers should not confuse me with good writers. I'm just writing plain, simple stories here, and it's nonfiction and therefore to the point, at that.)

"Internet portals in China, including Yahoo!'s Chinese-language site, have signed a voluntary pledge to purge the Web of content that China's communist government deems subversive." In other words, the Internet Society of China is censoring the Internet so that it will be more difficult to access content on the Internet that is, for instance, anti-China or anti-communist.

I see nothing wrong with this. The Chinese government has every right to exercise its powers in the manners that it sees fit, just as our government has those same rights. America stands for freedom of expression, liberty, and capitalism (sort of), and China stands for limited freedom of expression and communism. In America, you can say anything you want, as long as you do not cross certain lines (obscenity, threats, etc.), whereas in China, you can also say what you want, but can be punished for something as minor as an opinion favorable of capitalism. That is bad based on American-biased standards, and perhaps the average Chinese citizen thinks it is bad too, but that doesn't matter since the Chinese government is in control.

China should have the right to respect and uphold its values within its borders in any way that they see fit, just as we should have the right to respect and uphold ours within our borders. (Think of it this way: we don't communism, but we don't have the right to simply take out communist nations.)

The keyword of this article is toleration.

I struck through the pointless part of the quotation above because naming any particular web portal without mention of any others is a bit on the asinine side; it seems to me like there is a bit of media bias against Yahoo!, and someone is hoping for this to hurt Yahoo!'s reputation. Gee, I wonder why this could be... Could it be because Yahoo! News is one of the quickest and most reliable sources of news on the Internet? Yeah, I can see how someone's business interests could interfere with an article that has absolutely nothing to do with that...

Remember the Concorde crash in July 2000, the one that grounded the Concorde fleets of Air France and British Airways for more than a year? Much discussion about the safety of those planes was generated after that crash, and I had never heard any explanation for why the plane had gone down so quickly after takeoff, or whether it was even the plane's fault. That the world's entire fleet of Concordes was grounded suggested that it was.

However, according to this piece of news, it wasn't: "a stray strip of metal on the runway punctured a tire, propelling bits of rubber into the fuel tank and starting a fire", leading to the first Concorde crash in the plane's commercial flight history. That issue has been (hopefully) resolved. Engineers have designed new tires that, if they were to explode, would explode into smaller, lighter bits that would not puncture as easily. Engineers have also installed fuel-tank liners designed to prevent fuel-tank leaks in the event that the surface of the plane is ruptured.

You may have already known about this, but I didn't, so I'm saying something about it so that you will feel safe on a Concorde, if you ever happen to fly Air France or British Airways.

John Kasprowicz has an interesting story to tell. He holds (or held?) a federal job    meaning your and my tax dollars pay his salary    as geologist at Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago, and he and six others have filed a lawsuit against their employer for allowing them to do nothing at work for several years. Yes, you read that right. John Kasprowicz was making $95,000 per year to get nothing done, and he complained about it; I applaud him.

The problem, according to their lawsuit, is that "they were white men, and that supervisors, eager to promote minorities, froze them out in an effort to make them go away". They "were transferred to a newly formed division at Argonne, which he said turned out to be a bureaucratic limbo" in which they would be given little if any significant work.

Kasprowicz says:

They stick you in a place where you're going to waste away, and sooner or later you leave. This was the process they used to eliminate us.... They started out with good intentions, trying to redress an imbalance, but now if you're a white male, your chances of promotion are virtually nil. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Well, if their biggest problem is being paid lots of money to do nothing (why couldn't they bring in a book or a television and VCR?), I'd say the only thing between them and homely happiness is the boredom that would eventually drive them crazy, which may be what is driving this lawsuit. That, and the lawsuit will probably allow them to pocket a lot more money, and maybe even resume their careers afterward: "The seven employees claiming discrimination are seeking back pay, promotions, and $300,000 each in damages."

Idea. Instead of making "deep cuts" in each state's budget, why not feed federal money to them? Of course, our cut-nothing, spend-all Democratic Party in Washington would never go for that, but it is an idea. Of course, having little experience in the field, I can produce such an idea without much thought to the repercussions that I can not consider...

It is rare that a reader sends comments relevent to something I have posted here. It is rarer that I think such comments should be read by you, the general audience. It is even rarer, then, that such comments be as elegantly, clearly, or powerfully written as those that you are hopefully about to read.

The following was submitted by T.A. DiLascio, an "amateur expert" on these matters. Like me, he is deeply involved in politics, though his expertise extends also into economics and military sciences. He is brilliant, and I expect that he will one day produce valuable analyses and opinions regarding politics and/or economics, and those who pay attention will likely come across it.

Today, he responds to my outburst against the American media, who I alleged were aiding the enemy by disclosing American military strategy over worldy public channels    their newspapers. DiLascio goes in to much greater detail:

When I last commented on this days ago, I did not necessarily wish to attach political bias to the argument, because I personally feel a certain anti-war sentiment that has little to do with my political leanings. (The fact is that I lean more to the right than to the left, and most of you know this, hence why I could not have used that argument.) However, there is certainly a political bias against a right-wing president, and there is certainly an overwhelming anti-war-on-terrorism bias among the liberals and collectivists of America, who almost entirely make up the left (anti-Bush) wing of American politics. Leftists generally feel that we need to play nice and earn the friendship (healthy diplomatic relations) with nations like Iraq. Rightists generally think that, if we allow any slack now, we'll face harsh consequences for it later, and I agree: we must put our foot in the door now and stop what we can while we can. Most importantly, we need to issue the message that the United States will not stand for terrorist violence or, more vehemently, that we will not tolerate attacks on American citizens.

American leftists would rather kiss Saddam's ass than kick it, and I think they have a moral responsibility to do what the people want, which is support the president's plan to protect America, which includes leveling an Iraqi government that obviously is up to no good. (I wouldn't be surprised, actually, if Iraq had forged an alliance with China... and that would be bad.)

A new teen queen is making a major play for space among school-locker pinups, but unlike Britney, Christina and Jessica, this one writes her own songs, plays her own guitar and wouldn't be caught dead dating a boy-band member or crafting any Madonna/whore images of herself.

New York Post writer Corey Levitan hits Britney & Co. pretty hard, but he's right. Avril Lavigne's album is much better than anything put out by Britney or Christina (though I happen to like Jessica Simpson's first album), and the fact that Avril is actually a musician makes it sweeter. I downloaded her album off of the internet (oh no! say it isn't so!) last week, and I plan to purchase the CD at [my weekly visit to] Best Buy on Tuesday.

I just thought I'd let the boys know that there was a new pop princess on the scene, and this one is actually musically talented. (We know where most of the others' talents lie.) And even better, as far as sales are concerned, than being talented, her album sounds good too.

This is less political and more congenial. The Israeli people just mean well, as long as you're not out to destroy them or their way of life. When dealing with the obvious decision of what to do with the bodies of suicide bombers, Health Ministry spokesman Ido Hadari says, "It's hard for me even to say it, but the terrorist is still entitled to be treated as a human body". (See the L.A. Times story; requires free registration.)

Despite the horrible acts these men have committed, the Israelis are torn between burying the bodies or holding them, "perhaps for years", so that relatives may claim them. The Israeli's are treating murderous enemies better than the groups growing them are treating Israeli civilians.

I'm not even sure America would do that. After all, we've been passing around a severed head for several days. (Ugh, I can't find a link!)

On June 21, perhaps the best side-by-side movie matchup of the year was unleashed when Disney released Lilo & Stitch and Dreamworks put out Minority Report. What do they have in common, besides their release date? Well, they both can qualify as science fiction, and both movies focus on the path of escape of a known criminal. That, and their box office numbers have been virtually identical day after day since their release, with a steady but slight advantage to Disney putting Lilo & Stitch ahead be a few million up to this point. The similarities end there.

Minority Report puts Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg together for the first time in many years (in fact it may be their first major project together), and the film creates a welcome disturbance in a sea of sequels and, well, mediocre flicks. Minority Report is smart, intriguing, controversial, and most importantly, entertaining to watch! The screen was loaded with eye candy for most of its 142 minute length. The story was complicated and dark, keeping me virtually on the edge of my seat. I had no idea how it was going to turn out, but overall it was a very satisfying trip to the theatre. This is easily one of the better movies of the year, and I may yet boost its grade to an A+, if repeated viewings warrant such.

Lilo & Stitch, on the other hand, was more or less what I would expect from Disney, and slightly disappointing after viewing highly entertaining, yet highly misleading, trailers. The trailers depicted a cutely annoying creature invading other Disney movies    a parody, which would have been absolutely hysterical, and probably would have brought twice as many people in to see it. What I actually saw in the theatre was a sci-fi chaser, much like Minority Report except that Cruise stayed on his own planet, that tried to mimick Star Wars a little too much and not well enough. It wasn't what I was expecting, and it didn't greatly accomplish what I think it was intended to accomplish. However, being a fan of science fiction and sci-fi humor, I enjoyed the story quite a bit, and therefore the movie earns a B– for me. It doesn't come close to the Disney "classics" of my childhood (Aladdin, The Lion King), but it was good.

I like Morgan Freeman, but Ben Affleck isn't one of my favorites. However, Ben's beginning to grow on me, and performances like the one he delivered in The Sum of All Fears is helping that. In fact, the line from the trailers that kept me from seeing the movie when it was new was not even in the movie; the one line that made Affleck's character seem unrealistic was scrapped!

What to say... The movie was put together very well, and Morgan Freeman delivered an outstanding performance as usual. James Cromwell was an excellent (and seemingly realistic) President of the United States. And as I have previously outlanded, Afflect portrayed CIA Agent Jack Ryan, previously played by Alec Baldwin and Harrison Ford, very well.

Detractors will probably point fingers at the unlikelihood that the Russians would qualify as a realistic enemy in today's age, but I say that's exactly why they are the enemy in this work of fiction. Others will suggest that the tragic events of last September will make the events of this movie look silly and grossly inaccurate and unplausible in contrast; keep in mind that the book was written long before September 11, and the idea was to bring to light the threat of a nuclear explosion on American soil. Before security was stepped up, it was a very real danger.

Little plot tweaks here and there would have made this movie much better, though I'm hardly the one to suggest how it should be tweaked. It was apparent to me after sitting through the entire movie that it was meant for a general audience, not for the war-movie-goers. If you're looking for an intense, ultra-realistic war-and-foreign-relations movie, this isn't it. However, it is very entertaining for what it is, and I believe it accomplishes many great things as a movie.

How vague. I've written better reviews, but I can't hit it between the eyes or put it on a pedestal without turning this music down, and I'm not going to do that. Just take my opinion and ignore it, since you won't remember it a week from now anyway. Good movie, better than average, but not great. Matt Damon's techno-thriller was better.

Once again, America, how does your foot taste in your mouth? I'm talking about the American mass media, particularly the New York Times in this case, which has once again printed an article which will surely be read by millions around the world. The subject matter? How to create a deadly virus from your very own home! That's just what America needs: to tell terrorists (they're an extreme minority, but they're definitely reading) exactly where to find instructions on how to do exactly what we're afraid they want to do.

If we're not telling Saddam what our plan is to oust him this time ("He'll never know we're coming! Er, unless he reads any of the fifty biggest papers in the country. What are the chances?"). No, this time, we're telling terrorists where they need to look if they want a way to get at America's civilians. Good job!

A man died and was granted eternal bliss in heaven, but wasn't quite sure what to do when he got to the pearly gates. When St. Peter asked him where he would like to be, he guiltily responded, "You see, I never thought much of the whole church thing. I was more of believer in my own way. So I'm not really familiar with what you're asking me to choose from, here."

St. Peter just smiled and said, "Come with me. I'll show you around, and you can pick a spot", and through the pearly gates they went, down beautiful heavenly streets surrounded with beautiful heavenly scenery.

They first came to two hugely enormous doors, and St. Peter effortlessly pushed them open to reveal a loud, seemingly entertaining, extremely huge party. "Those are the Catholics", he said. A few moments later, they were at another set of hugely enormous doors, on the other side of which was an even louder and bigger party. "Those are the Jews." Continuing down the road, St. Peter showed all the popular party spots: the Buddhists, the Muslims, and many other strange groups of which the bewildered man had no prior knowledge.

"Shhhh!", St. Peter suddenly said, tip-toeing past one of the huge doors, and the man did the same. After a few careful moments of making no sound, their walk continued towards another door.

"Wait", said the man, "Who was in there?"

"Oh", said St. Peter. "Those are the Baptists. They don't know anyone else is here."

But seriously, this morning I was listening to Neal Boortz comment on his most hateful and nastiest emails, which seemed mostly to come from Christians who will not tolerate any of Boortz's points of view that even slightly oppose any Christian idea. And it occurred to me, well, he's right. Despite America's roots, people are usually fairly intolerant when it comes to religion. That depends on the setting, of course, but once the conversation is started, there is no open mind. You're wrong or I'm wrong, or she's wrong and he's wrong, or everyone's wrong except the person who believes... There is no tolerance.

What does that say for religion? How can everyone be so sure? And since religion is mostly founded on morality, what does that say for anyone who purports to do harm in the name of [insert religious figures here]?

Either way, I thought a little humor was in order. And Neal, at least all Christians do is threaten you. Some lesser civilized people send walking, talking bombs.

I never thought I would say this, but it looks like, for a day at least, you can (gulp) count on the New York Post for balanced coverage. Deborah Orin snuck in an article that essentially debunked Democrats' (mainly Tom Daschle's) claim that George Bush and Republicans are too cozy with big business:

There's a distinct whiff of hypocrisy about the Democratic bid    with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle heading the charge    to paint Bush & Co. as too "cozy" with big business to really crack down on crooked CEOs. It smells of hypocrisy because Daschle is pretty cozy with big business himself, since it's a major source of his family income.

That's how it starts. You know how to get to the rest.

The record industry is pleading for an end to free music, citing a few drawbacks: "less new music, fewer new artists, less choice, thousands less jobs". I fail to see how any of that is a bad thing; it's not like we need more jobs in the entertainment industry. Also, I've caught John Kennedy, President and CEO of Universal Music International, in a lie. He claims that no albums have sold five million copies in America after 2000, but I count at least four. An outright lie to woo support for a greedy cause, and we can kiss some of the freedom that we enjoy good-bye.

Via The Politburo: About a year ago, animal rights groups in England successfully lobbied to illegalize the uncivilized hunting and/or killing of foxes. Once confined to the backcountry, foxes are now seen roaming city streets, including London's.

But this week, a fox attacked an infant in its home. "The fox tried to drag the baby out" before the father chased the fox out. The child has bite marks on his head.

It doesn't end there. The head of the Fox Project (funny name, heh), Trevor Williams, had a somewhat stunning reaction to the fox attack. In fact, when asked about it, he declared that this wasn't an attack at all because that would indicate "something vicious and wild and ferocious". A fox dragging a 14-month-old child out of its home by its head in the middle of the night is certainly not that, not in London. In other words, this man, who is the head of the project that allows the foxes to walk the streets, is defending a fox that was perhaps seconds or millimeters away from killing a 14-month-old baby!

For once, that doesn't happen in America; the phrase "only in America" doesn't apply. We let animals get away with all sorts of things over here, too, but once human life is threatened, the animal is shot. Sorry, but until animals are intelligent enough to defend themselves in court, the buck stops at threatening behavior.

First, I agree with Al Sharpton when he says Michael Jackson is no wacko. Second, the idea that minority artists should be compensated for how they were born is absolutely ridiculous. If you've got beef with how you were born, talk to mom and dad, or any other individual involved in your conception or delivery, but the record companies had absolutely nothing to do with it, and they owe nothing for anyone for being black, white, blue, green, red, yellow, or purple.

That, and Michael Jackson seems to be riding this "black or white" brotherhood thing a bit too hard. He claims to know his race, to know that he's black, and he's standing on a stage with Al Sharpton claiming that "we are all brothers and sisters no matter what color we are", while off stage he and Sharpton are demanding money simply for being black (or not white, I should say).

He's not wacko, or crazy, or insane, but he is losing steam. A lot of the negative press he's getting right now is likely resultant of media bias against him. I don't know why they don't like him or why they choose to keep referring to him as a wacko, except that he's always been a bit emotional and a bit different than anyone else. Then again, a simple black kid turned most recognizable man in the world is going to have a little difficulty coping with drastic lifestyle changes. You would probably think there was a conspiracy too, if you were in his shoes.

Of course, I don't think it's a conspiracy. It's not like we planned to stop listening to his music. He just sucks now, and that's going to be difficult for him to get used to. He needs to take the Michael Jordan route and leave his trade behind except for commercial use. Buy a company. Write a book. Do something to take your mind off of your waning career.

Hmm, can we say mid-life crisis?

I don't think it's the end that anyone would have chosen if there were any better alternative, but there was no better alternative, so the 2002 Major League Baseball All-Star Game ended in a 7-7 tie after 11 innings. Tonight's game was somewhat anti-climactic after an exciting start, and especially considering the usual excitement that comes with extra-inning games. That makes two lousy endings in a row for me; last year's All-Star Game was interrupted (for me, anyway) when the local Fox feed died in the bottom of the eighth inning. The feed did not return until after the end of the game, which was quite pointless. At least I had ESPN's GameCast to give me the play-by-play, even if it was only words on a screen and delayed by a minute or so.

Despite the weak ending, this year's All-Star Game and festivities were worth the break. The Home Run Derby was great, with Sammy Sosa hitting six home runs over 500 feet, and Jason Giambi getting his revenge from last year by outlasting Sosa in the final round. The All-Star Game itself was wild; Barry Bonds was robbed of a home run in the first inning, only to hit one higher and farther in the third inning that couldn't be taken away. Pitching was excellent, as usual, but only in the innings when the hitting wasn't better. I thought for sure at several moments in the game that the National League couldn't lose, and I suppose I ended up being right.

But nobody won, either. Disappointing as that may be, it's better than the alternative: sending two pitchers out there to last however long the game may last at the risk of injury. One thing fans need to remember about the All-Star game in any sport is that it is just an exhibition, and this time both teams ran out of players. Changing the rules to solve this in the future presents a number of potential easy fixes, but in a world dominated by little conveniences over logic, each easy fix will find a way to piss someone off in the future. Adding more roster spots will only anger fans of the players that don't get to play in case the game goes to extra innings. And even if the rules allowed players to re-enter the game, a pitcher can't just come back. Pitchers are the most delicate players on the field because they throw the ball consistently hard; there is a reason why they ice their shoulders after they pitch: the arm needs to recuperate.

Enough of that. It was a great game, despite the tie. I suppose someone ought to create a statistic for that. I mean, it wasn't exactly a "no-decision", since the managers and Bud Selig decided to call it quits.

Personal highlights of the game: Torii Hunter's catch; Barry Bonds's homer; Alfonso Soriano's homer; Damian Miller's two doubles; Omar Vizquel's RBI triple, and Lance Berkman's two-out, two-run single. Honorable mention goes to Curt Schilling's three consecutive strikeouts and a great start. Word to the hilarity of manager mics.

Oh, and next year, let's vote on some All-Star announcers, 'cause... damn.

Click on an image to enlarge it. Prepare magnifying glass for reading text, or just look really closely. If these inserts are genuine, then I can't wait for the DVD to be released!

For your information, if you can't tell by these thumbnails, the Anakin/Padmé/Yoda image is the chapter selection and the Dooku image contains a list of special features. Some of the special features, according this, include eight deleted scenes, feature-length audio commentary, and several behind-the-scenes featurettes that will keep people like me busy for hours.

Thanks to the Latino Review for the images. For those of you with 800x600 resolution, these images are essentially desktop wallpapers (but you might want to shave five and three pixels from their respective heights).

Jesse Jackson claims that President George Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft are "the most threatening combination in our lifetime". I'm no fan of Ashcroft, but I would choose Ashcroft over the likes of Jesse Jackson any day. And George Bush? He's been one of the best presidents we've had since 1900, in my opinion. No president can do everything right, but he has done so many good things for our country that so many people don't realize (because they only pay attention to what the critics say, not what actually happens).

You know, I can not understand why people still listen to Jesse Jackson. He has had numerous legal and ethical problems throughout his career, yet he is still on top of his game. If George Bush had committed even one of these minor injustices, he would not have been elected, or the Democrats would be screaming for impeachment! Jesse Jackson profits from his charity organization (he is exactly the greedy, rich type, that people who like Jesse say they don't like), and he cheats on his wife. And this is a man that millions in our country idolize!

Naturally, Jackson's anti-Bush speech comes at the annual convention of the NAACP, an organization that is granted tax-exempt status for being nonpartisan while it closely follows the Democratic Party's political agenda (opposing school vouchers, encouraging stronger hate-crime laws, among other things).

And the timing couldn't be better! George Michael's new song, "Shoot the Dog", which ridicules George Bush for only a moment and on nothing particular (Michael is British and is allowed to make fun of anyone he wants!), has Americans demanding that George Michael be kicked out of the United States! How American is that? And, even worse, how American is it that people would rather have Jesse Jackson stay, when cleary his personal offenses and his offenses against our President are much worse?

To bend a quote from Michael's song, something about this country ain't right. We need to straighten up and get rid of our embarrassments. That may include John Ashcroft, and certainly includes Jesse Jackson, but George Bush? Heck no! He's one of the best we've had in decades. (This should be evident, at the very least, by looking at the current state of his reputation despite the best efforts of the likes of Clinton, Gore, and Jackson.)

Upon further reading, I am beginning to like Bud Selig's request. He wants to increase the amount of local revenues that teams share with the league from 22.5% to 50%, which means rich teams like the Yankees would be sharing more of its huge profits with the low-budget teams like the Twins (who seem to be winning anyway).

I still am not caught up completely, but from what I have read to day, Bud Selig's request seems fair. But I do not know the politics of Major League Baseball, neither do I know why the players association seems to be against this. Perhaps I should write Skip Carey or John Schuerholz or someone, as if they would actually send a response. (I would love to get one!)

Reid Stott has a bright new idea: "Forget the fan. Forget the manufacturer. If you want an inside view, go to the source. Listen to an artist." Stott references a Janis Ian article called "The Internet Debacle". In it, Ian points out that the industry is afraid to do its homework, or report it, because it is afraid of the truth    that downloading music is better for the artists. "...everyone is forgetting the main way an artist becomes successful    exposure." However, despite Ian's and Stott's excellent reasoning, their points beg this question: is there a limit to the amount of exposure an artist can get before everyone starts losing?

This subject has fascinated me since Napster's legality was first questioned about two years ago. From freedom of speech to copyrights to privacy, this issue has Constitutional and statutory law all over it, and in some way or another, how this unfolds will affect every American citizen. Being fascinated with law and politics, with music and entertainment, and with their affects on people (most notably me), you can bet that I'll probably keep you posted on any significant news or opinions regarding it in the future!

It might also be a safe bet to assume that, if I do get involved with law or law school, that I might pursue something relative to this    cyberlaw is going to be a big field in the next half century, I suspect.

Ted Williams, one of the greatest baseball players of all time, and one who would be remembered only slightly more highly (as a ballplayer, that is) if he hadn't served his country in World War II and Korea, missing almost five full seasons, had his body frozen in a cryogenic state, perhaps in hope of bringing life back to it at some point. One of Ted's sons, John Henry Williams, is allegedly orchestrating the cryogenics plan. Ted's daughter from his first marriage (John Henry's half-sister), Bobby Jo Williams Ferrell, wants the plan halted. Living in the Bible Belt, I know how most of my peers are likely to think about it. But like the Splendid Splenter, I have always been fascinated with science, and I doubt that his son would be orchestrating this plan without his prior approval.

Enter the bias. In this article, the author subtly makes clear his opinion on this "life extension" plan by referring to the brother as "controversial". Okay, so maybe he is controversial in some way or another, but using that adjective where he did was, at the very least, inappropriate. The purpose at that point should have been merely to clarify the facts, which were that Ted's body had been frozen, John Henry was carrying out the plan, and Bobby Jo opposed it. By referring to John Henry as "controversial", the author has (subliminally though perhaps unintentionally) created an aura in his article against the life extension process and may have created an unfair public opinion against the cryogenics plan.

As for what Ted Williams really wanted    cremation or cryogenic freezing    I have no idea. But I do know that, if the cryogenics plan is to keep him frozen until he can be brought back to life, then at least he would have another chance to choose cremation. Of course, as Tony can validate, logic rarely works in the real world, and especially when it opposes God.

"I always thought I was a Liberal. I came up terribly surprised when I found out that I was a Right-Wing Conservative Extremist."

John Wayne

I think the duke sums it up best. People always assume that they're liberals because of the good spin put on being a liberal. (Surprise, the media is heavily biased, hence the overwhelmingly good reputation for liberals.) It isn't until people look it up or get involved for themselves that they realize that, hey, I just might be something else!

Quite simply, a liberal is someone who thinks the government is better at taking care of America, while a conservative is someone who thinks that Americans should take care of themselves and the government. (I think conservatives have it much more close to correct, especially since it is every American's responsibility to elect government representatives.) Liberal politicians push for a larger government (more agencies and programs, or more money to be spent) and higher taxes to pay for it. Conservatives push for fairer taxes and smaller government, though liberals have never allowed government to be decreased in size.

When I first began to pay attention to politics, I assumed that I was a liberal, but then someone told me that I should look the words up before simply settling on a label. So I did. I looked far and wide across the reaches of the internet, and I found several varying definitions of the words "liberal" and "conservative", most of which depend on who's defining them. So I considered who was putting spin on what, and I tried to define the two words myself. As someone who claims to be neither a liberal nor a conservative, I think I've done a better job than most people from either camp could.

You, too, should think about what it means to be a liberal or a conservative. You might find that you've assumed the wrong label for all these years, or you might find that the label fits you better than ever! It's always good to know who you are, and this is just one aspect of that. Really, it can't hurt.

If it was Milton Friedman's idea, then no wonder it was such a good one. Ending the government's monopoly on education has been something I've mentioned here and there for quite a while, but I had no idea something would be done this soon. Word to George Bush. Hopefully, he'll drop the morality police side of his conservative agenda, and then we'll have the perfect president! (As long as the Ashcroftiness is still with him, he's far from perfect.)

Some presidents don't know how to get into a fight properly and then don't know how to end it, and don't provide proper support for the ground troops. Hopefully, Somalia will not be repeated. We have massive force available, and we damn well should use it if we are going to get involved. As long as we don't have a whiny-ass, liberal skirt-chaser or tree-hugger in the White House, I guess it will be fairly safe to be in a combat unit.

As long as there is no great force that unifies several of our enemies into a surprisingly stronger, larger enemy, I would tend to agree. That's another reason why I think that Saddam Hussein should be taken out and his government all but leveled. There should be no room left for Saddam or his cohorts to rule Iraq when we (or whoever we make it look like did it) get through with Baghdad. But the problem with that is the politics of the situation, because everyone over there thinks they know our intentions, and too many of them think it's a horrible idea, despite the oppression.

I suppose, though, that if you don't know any better, it's easy to think that toppling Saddam would make things worse; it isn't supposed to be easy to change anyone's mind, especially when dealing with ousting their leader. Any conservative should understand that.

Do you know who loses the most when everyone sells their stocks? The rich. And according to this report, the rich were hit very hard in 2002, losing an average of about 6% of their wealth. That may not seem like a lot to you or me, when 6% might be a couple thousand dollars. But to a guy like Ted Turner, 6% is millions and millions of dollars! And then I'm reminded why the stock market dipped in the first place: because people who know nothing about financial value put their money into (mostly tech) stocks that had no liquid value, and when that was realized, they all tried to sell. What resulted was a nasty financial landslide that damaged the global economy, all because a few million idiots didn't know what to do with their money. They just liked the idea of getting rich quick.

Money is bad. Money is evil. Money is the sincerest form of temptation, and temptation is no picnic. People don't seem to understand that, in order to use money for its intended purpose, as merely a tool and medium for exchange, we must earn our keep. No, people do not understand that, or they do not want to. Everyone wants to be the one that can avoid the work. Everyone is lazy.

Believe me, I can sympathize with that. I'm lazy too. But I also know that it isn't healthy to believe that any get-rich-quick scheme could ever work for me, simply because I know that the odds are astronomically against it. Rather, I work hard enough to appease myself and to provide enough of what I want for myself, and eventually I'll have the tools and the abilities to enjoy a comfortable living. We should all do the same.

Two final thoughts. First, the rich wouldn't be nearly so rich if we wouldn't invest in them. So don't. It's pointless, and any profits you make are reduced by inflation (which seems to be on pause at the moment, but values aren't rising either    coincidence? no... for every gain, someone loses). Second, we would all be better off if we focused on real assets rather than symbols, figures, and tools. Focus on what you have (including your skills and ideas) and what you can get from it, not what the world can get for you. Because, believe me, the world doesn't owe any of us a thing.

As for overtaxing the rich, well, that's true. Anyone that has a higher tax rate than anyone else is being overtaxed by comparison. In the same manner, anyone taxed at a lower rate (i.e., those who pay no income taxes at all) are comparatively undertaxed. Taxation is plagued by preferentialism, and that needs to be fixed. This country should establish a nationwide federal income tax rate, and each state should establish its own statewide income tax rate, and so on. Progressive and regressive tax rates should not exist, and states like Tennessee should remain without the income tax (as anyone is much better off without an income tax).

The chances that my thoughts on this matter can affect you with or without any type of educated explanation are the same, so I will spare myself the effort of trying to write one, and you the effort of reading it (or skipping it, as the case hypothetically may have been).

I meant to tell you this afternoon before I left that I was going to the Atlanta Braves game this afternoon and that I would be sitting in an aisle seat in left field wearing green shorts and a white t-shirt. Naturally, the infinite improbability that anyone I know would actually see me, one of 49,000-plus on hand at Turner Field tonight, on television meant that it was certainly about to happen. You see, there are some oddities when dealing with hypermathematics, specifically improbabilities, that makes the opposite of what seems logical almost immediately occur. It's sort of like Murphy's Law, only the other way around.

So sue me. I forgot to tell you to watch for me on television. It's the only Braves game I have been too since I started this web site before which I forgot to mention that I was going, and naturally this was no big deal, as the only way I would ever be seen on television at Turner Field on a night when the stadium is crammed with 50,000 people is to catch a home run.

So I did. My brother was off buying food, so it was the perfect moment do the impossible (catch a home run), bask in the spotlight (for a whole fifteen seconds), and have him miss it (actually, it would have been better if he had seen it). And thanks for all the wonderful "Hey, I saw you on TV" emails. Please, if you saw it, feel free to add your email to the list. :-)

nickd's Chicago Cubs came to bat in the sixth inning with a 5-0 lead over my Atlanta Braves, so I said something I've said dozens of times before when the Braves were hopelessly trailing the visiting team: "I don't care if we lose if someone sends me a ball. Even if it's a [insert visiting team mascot, which in this case is the] Cub." Naturally, I expected nothing. My glove remained under my seat, and my legs were entirely too sore to venture even so far as to track down the coke man.

Funny story about that. It is a July 4 tradition (since, um, last year?) for my family to join other families in a familiar place about eight miles north (I think it's north) of the Bibb County line by the river (not sure which one). Someone owns a nice piece of land out there, and the field between the house and the river happens to be roughly baseball field-shaped. So we play. Well, on this particular July 4, we began at 1:30, so the clouds decided to shove off somewhere else down the river to give us some blistering heat. After my team scored the fewest runs in the history of our river field baseball (two) in the most innings we've ever played, ever (seven), the winning team (of all teams) called it quits and we ate.

While we ate, the clouds thought it would be fun to play tag above our heads once more, and the sun presumably took a light nap until we decided to come back out and play again about an hour later. This time the game was more involved. Boys and girls of all ages and sizes played, and the teams were more evenly matched. In the end, my time won the second game 18-9 (by my count) or 12-8 (by someone else's), but the numbers are mostly irrelevant as long as I won.

Oh, the funny part. You see, I hadn't played much of anything in several weeks, and certainly not for that long, and certainly not in that kind of heat. To make a long story a little longer, I awoke the following morning incredibly sore below the waste. You know, the kind of sore that hurts most when trying to move, particularly in and out of a vehicle. So physical labor of any kind, including walking or making breakfast, has been nearly impossible for the last forty hours or so, yet I somehow managed to stand up...

Wait, I'm not there yet. It was the sixth inning, and I had just spouted my usual demand to the usually absent god(s) (or whatever powers that be) of baseball, and given my physical and mental state (both equate to lazy), I was not entirely prepared for what happened next.

The ball went up. No one could see it, but I knew when it left the bat that it was headed in our general direction. It was out of the stadium's jurisdiction, too far for the downward-pointing lights to locate it. Suddenly, in a courageous attempt for a surprise attack, it dove back down on its original course and...

I caught it. I spread my arms in triumph, sat down, and the game resumed as normal.

We lost.

We lost bad.

We lost to the Cubs.

But I don't care. I caught a ball.

The end.

The alien ship was already thundering toward the upper reaches of the atmosphere, on its way out into the appalling void that separates the very few things that are in the Universe from one another.

Douglas Adams

Note: Any movie that I review within the first few weeks of its theatrical release will not contain any plot spoilers    hints, maybe; but no spoilers!    that are not already spoiled by the various interstitials. That said, on with the subjectivity.

As you should notice, I keep track of 2002 movies that I've seen to the right, along with a letter grade to represent how well each movie faired on my movie scale. C's are merely entertaining; B's are good; A's are great. D's need a lot of work, and F's basically suck. Naturally, this is all highly subjective and should mean roughly diddly squat to any of you. One should note, however, that the infinite improbability that any of my critical thoughts on anything mean anything to you actually means that whatever I say is to have vastly significant meaning to whomever reads it within moments of having read it.

Let the keyword be "subjective", as anything I say can and will likely be mostly subjective, except when it is objective, in which case it may also be mildly subjective, so you have to be on the lookout. I suppose my reason for explaining this so extravagantly is better understood when you notice the grade I give to Men In Black II: A–. You see, it is entirely my opinion that this movie has achieved greatness, but likely mostly because I sincerely enjoy the dynamic duo (not to be confused with the "dynamic duo"    an example of the all-too-common occurrence where quotation marks make a world of difference) of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, not to mention that Frank the Pug is absolutely hilarious, and I am currently rather obsessed with a good mix of outer-worldy sciences and spacely science fiction.

Of course, no one ever suggested that this movie was perfect. (Primarily, it's nothing close to being as good as The Matrix, so perfection it lacks. Secondarily, it isn't even as good as the original, but that's practically a law against sequels. There is really very little that the sequel can do about it. It is generally hopelessly destined to be cannon fodder when stacked up against its original. I mean, hello?! Where's the innovation when it's been done before?) Perfection is far too difficult to achieve. However, in knowing this, the cast and crew of Men In Black II put together a very good movie and achieved precisely what they were going for: a less-than-perfect movie about aliens and New York that revolves completely around the bear-destruction of life as we know it, funny looking things that talk, and a the typical, slender, big-breasted villain. Everything on which pop culture feeds.

So what keeps this movie from being better than it is? Kids. It's all the kids fault. The directors and producers apparently felt that the movie needed more knee-slapping one-liners and less realistic (well, for science fiction) interstellar violence. In other words, there were too many kiddie moments that should have been modified to suit a teen-to-adult audience. Or maybe there are no particular scenes, but the entire movie is subtly infected with this childish comedy that removes the aura of danger from the film.

That, and unlike the last film, everything relevant to the plot wasn't entirely explained. Everything directly relevant to the sequence of events directly involved with the Men in Black and the villain was explained rather well, but some of the nonessential stuff is, um, mysterious. For example (and you'll know what I mean when you see it; hopefully, you'll also be paying attention and will notice an explanation): what is Frank hiding behind?! And in the end, when the final conflict is supposedly resumed, how does that resume the conflict? I still haven't figured that out. I mean, I hear it said many times that this is what must be done to prevent the destruction of life on earth, but why? how? Unless I missed it, it isn't explained.

Overall, the film easily scores two thumbs up. Great laughs, thought-provoking fun, a few tender, heart-warming moments, and the all-too-familiar "this is just how things are meant to be" feeling that only a narrow escape from imminent destruction can provide.

For many years, and especially recently, I have wondered why the American press has been allowed to internationally broadcast American foreign policy plans that involve any military action. Case in point: the Drudge Report is tonight reporting exactly what President Bush's attack plan against Iraq is, basically warning Saddam Hussein. Who needs military intelligence when the American press is telling you exactly what to expect?

Either shut them down or shut them up. I don't care what they report, but I'm tired of seeing reports that conflict with America's best interests. You can talk all you want, Drudge, but stop telling the enemy what to expect. (Well, at least if any invasive force ever gets to America, Matt Drudge knows that he'll survive longer than most: the enemy won't kill him immediately because they'll depend on him for strategic developments.)

The freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but when you potentially endanger the rights of Americans to live their lives freely and peacefully, questions will be asked and fingers will be pointed. Sooner or later, some enemy force is going to receive information through the American press and use it against us. Then this argument will carry a lot more weight.

I'm incredibly tired, and I think I will be incredibly sore for the next day or two. Today was fun. Playing baseball/softball for seven hours was worth it, but I don't know if my body is going to enjoy the repercussions.

About 30 men want 50% of the money that Major League Baseball makes, leaving the several hundred players with that same percentage. Ridiculous! I never really thought of this as good guy / bad guy issue before, but now that I'm starting to read the articles, it seems to me like the owners are greedy S.O.B.'s. They simply want to profit from the players' work, and the players mostly want to play. Here's an idea: sell the baseball teams to baseball fans, not greedy capitalists! Business for profit is one thing, but business for unfair profit and taking others' rightful share just because you're the guy that owns the franchise    that's wrong. And what's worse? It's up to those same few men to decide whether a team's sale is okay or not. In other words, if a team sells to a guy that isn't on their side, they will find a way to discredit and anull the sale.

In other words, if the baseball players union does strike, it's because the management is greedy and lousy. Besides, the management is likely going to lock them out anyway, since the players union is refusing to allow the owners double what they currently receive (which is more than enough). It's the owners' fault, and if things start to get worse, I plan to make this point very loudly and very clearly. Hopefully, it will catch on.

I don't know what J.K. Rowling knows about this, but assuming that she didn't condone this allegedly fake book's release, I also don't know what she can do through foreign legal systems to stop it. I can really only assume that it's not Rowling's work based on subtle hints: the title sounds Eastern, and the villain is a dragon. The good news is that the copyright pirating book is plugging a gap left by Rowling's decision to delay the fifth book for a year. The bad news is that it may upset the Harry Potter universe. Rowling's publishers are looking into it...

One document holds more truth about American values than any other. One document holds the very meaning of our country, and it was written several years before our Constitution, before our first President, before our first political parties. Maybe you'll recognize it, but somehow, I'm guessing that most of you have never read the entire thing. Assuming that most of you may feel slightly more connected with your country now than on Independence Day's of the past, perhaps now is a good time to read what Thomas Jefferson wrote about independence some 226 years ago, "In Congress, July 4, 1776":

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

Keeping in mind that we are no longer facing a tyrannical king across the Atlantic, but varying degrees of impedance on our freedom from varying enemies (some subtle enough as to be allowed statutory recognition, even), now is probably the best time in American history, since that first Independence Day, to stand up and verbally fight for America's freedom.

Not only from the hateful attacks of external foes, but also from the irrational, perhaps unintentional attacks from our own brethren. Fight for Democracy (not to be confused with the Democratic Party), fight for republicanism (not to be confused with the Republican Party), and most importantly, fight for those values for which our government and our country were established in the first place over two centuries ago: classic liberalism (to be confused with libertarianism)!

Okay, despite the rush of excitement decapitating a statue of Bill Clinton or Jesse Jackson would give me, there is no way that I ever actually would. Despite conflicting points of view and political philosphies, they are still a significant part of the recent history of the United States. And despite how much I disrespect them, I (almost begrudgingly) respect that several millions of Americans do respect them. You see, it isn't always about agreeing with the majority, but allowing yourself to tolerate what the majority wishes, in the event that you disagree with it. That's what democracy is all about    majority rule and minority toleration.

That said, Paul Kelleher's "act of wanton vandalism", which is utterly deplorable, should earn him significant punishment. One can not disrespect the establishment or its history in that way without expecting a psychologically painful backlash (like sitting in a lonely cell for several years). Unless, of course, the establishment wants that sort of thing to increase and get worse, in which case the man should be punished minimally on the grounds that he was practicing his free speech.

But that could only happen in America, and Paul Kelleher's offense did n