No offense is meant to any of the mentioned parties below. I love the three of you dearly. That said... This may annoy you. Deal. :-)

I just spent the last hour or so arguing, mostly on the defensive, against Mom and Claire. By the time it was all over, I felt like I had spent the entire time arguing against my sister. Emotionalism versus rationalism, where there can be no victor and in the end one wonders how the other side can possibly not grant the other any validity.

The verdict: I would make a damn good lawyer, but only if I truly believe in what I am arguing, and only if it is not against one, two, or the three of them.

The end.

Another example of the sickening and disturbing, and of discrimination. Read all about the replacement players of the 1994-95 strike.

I apologize if this is copyrighted or exists elsewhere on the Internet, but I received it as an email from Tommy, so as far as I am concerned (unless someone corrects me), that is enough citation for me.

If you're even moderately a baseball fan, check out these anti-strike signs and vote for the best one. The one I voted for is currently winning the vote with a plurality of about 18%. Another of the signs I featured on this web site about a week ago.

If you didn't know it, the baseball players union is threatening to strike after tomorrow's games if a labor agreement isn't reached. It's ridiculous, really. The average player salary is about $2.4 million, and they want more money. Eight years ago I was on the players' side because I knew nothing of the business of baseball. Now, with a lot more knowledge of history and how strikes work, I understand that Major League Baseball players have no good reason to strike. A strike typically occurs (or is favored) when workers are enduring unfavorable or unusual working conditions. In the case of Major League Baseball, the players and their huge salaries can just get over it, because they're making gobs of money to play a game that I would gladly play at no cost.

For love of the game, don't strike. If you do, don't come back. For the sake of baseball, I hope the owners already have a plan to ban all current players in favor of the strike for the rest of their natural lives, much like those involved with the Black Sox scandal of 1919 were, so that fresh, new talent can take over and revive the game. Without the greed and corruption of the players' union, perhaps baseball can become America's pastime once again.

Just in case something happens, here's a link to the labor talks. If the players are smart, they'll swallow their pride, suck it up, and accept defeat in order to preserve the game. If they do not, we all lose.

On a related sidenote, we may as well prepare for a strike: Bud Selig has arrived for the labor talks. I have a feeling that players want him there so he can screw up and swing public opinion in favor of the players, because MLB's lousy excuse for a commissioner wouldn't be much good for anything else.

There's a word that should be in everyone's vocabulary, just to throw off the dumb people.

I feel compelled to elaborate. Last night's post regarding what I do and do not believe in was incomplete and, at best, vague. It was meant to be interpretive. You get to figure out what I mean by it! But I left out such obvious moral justifications for my political philosophy as beauty, truth, and life. How would they have fit into the puzzle? Well, they fit into it quite nicely when I laid it out in my head, but I forgot to include them after twenty ounces of Smirnoff Ice at one o'clock in the morning. So never mind those. Let's just go with what I have for now.

I do not believe in dark; I believe in light. If you have ever taken literature seriously, even for a moment, then you have noticed the symbollic use of light and dark. Dark basically represents any and all things bad, while light represents any and all things good. Simply put, I don't believe in "bad". If it's bad, it has no reason or purpose, and therefore should not exist. Furthermore, based on my complicatedly partial belief in the causality of all events, I do not believe in "bad" from a barely rational, completely philosophical standpoint. Finally, if one considers the natural laws of physics, there is no such thing as dark, but rather the absence of light.

I do not believe in cold; I believe in warmth. The same goes for temperature: cold does not exist, but instead there is heat or its absence. Symbollicly, I mean warmth as kindness and cold as insensible or callous. I do not believe in unkindness. This is not to say that it doesn't exist; keep in mind that my beliefs are relevant only to me, and that they have no applicability to the tangible or intangible existence of such things outside of my person. I simply mean to assert that I do not believe in such things. (Furthermore, as long as hypocrisy exists, I will occasionally screw up and act in a way that I do not intend. Man is fallable. Deal with it.)

I do not believe in hate; I believe in love. There is no rational explanation for the belief in or promotion of hate. By the application of logic as used previously, hate can not exist, but only the absence of love. At the theoretical absolute zero magnitude of love would be hate, but I do not believe any being is capable of such emotion. At some point in its being, there must exist some desire or love for something, and that eliminates the possibility of hate. This may not necessarily reduce the plausibility of selective or partial hate, but that is just as irrational. It is quite obvious that malice helps no one.

I do not believe in equality; I believe in equity. That is to say, I do not believe in reducing everyone to likeness by methods of preferentialism or favoritism. There are two primary reasons for this: (1) such treatment would violate the rules of natural law, which serve as a cornerstone of my personal philosophy of life; (2) equality would make life absolutely boring and pointless. If we could all be reduced to a single common denominator, we would no longer be human, but back to the status of primates, all thinking alike and reacting the same in every situation. The notion of equality should therefore be thrown out in favor of equity, which is the practice of fair and impartial judgement and will. Insofar as merit is not concerned, no individual shall receive any treatment different from any other. Where merit is concerned, and this is a key point, all persons will receive the same treatment based on the level of merit achieved.

I do not believe in you; I believe in me. This is perhaps where I am most misunderstood. I am a selfish individual, yes, but this does not mean that I am selfish with disregard to others. Whereas the classic definition of "selfishness" indicates a lack of consideration for anyone other than the self, my definition of selfishness is expanded to that which makes me happy. The key to a good person, in my opinion, is that he/she should attain happiness (generally) through the happiness of others (but more specifically through the application of logic and reason to forfill purpose). Trust is also an issue. I do not suggest that I do not trust people; I am a very trusting person, too much so for my own good, I am told. But I only know the contents of my own mind, not of yours. Therefore, I can never put absolute trust in anyone other than myself, for I only truly know my own intentions.

I have learned that there are two important attributes that make a person truly worthy of greatness: absolute honesty and toleration. Where those two traits are in place, others such as respect, beauty, and moderation naturally fall in behind. If it is so easy, though, then why is greatness so rare? Quite simply, because all events are the results of previous events    the causal nature of life means that one can be no better than the combined experiences of one's life allows. Originality only goes so far as what one can create from those experiences, but creation from nothing, in our physical universe, is impossible. We are all spawned from something prior, and therefore are limited by priority and experience.

While I am being incoherent, let me change the subject again. There are many things wrong in the world today, yet so many things could be solved if people would learn to accept differences and/or try to work toward a compromise, a balance. In every instance of opposites, there is a balance point. Between white and black there is gray. Between negative and positive is the concept of equality or zero (such as the equator between north and south).

Applying this idea of a balance point to one of Tony's and my favorite conversations, between the idea of a regressive tax rate and a positive tax rate is the idea of a flat tax rate. However, given the existence of taxes and the all but proven idea that a regressive tax rate is absolutely not the right way to go, one can only consider the balance point between a flat tax rate and a progressive tax rate. Obviously, that only leaves room for a less progressive tax rate, but progressive it still must be.

Considering that there must also be a balance between equality and equity, I can say that this makes sense. The rich should pay a slightly larger proportion of their income than the poor, simply because the rich have a much larger income. If a man who makes $1,000,000 is taxed at 40% while a man who makes $10,000 is taxed at 10%, the richer man still nets $600,000, while the poorer man makes only $9,000.

Is this fair? Well, no, but one has to consider that the argument goes both ways. On one hand, the injustice is that the rich man makes so much more money than the poor man. On the other hand, the injustice is that, while each used his specialized skills to earn a particular amount of money, one man loses a much greater percentage of his income simply because he made better financial decisions. In other words, he is punished for his ability to make more money.

Still, one can not argue that this is completely unfair. While my selfish nature has allowed me to preach in favor of a flat tax rate in the past, I can not promote such with a clear conscience. I can not accept that it is fair for a man to complain about a portion of his income when it still is several hundred percentage points more than the man in a lower tax bracket.

Besides, and you should have seen this coming, my life does not revolve around money, nor do I believe that it should. Money is wont to encourage greed, laziness, and jealousy. And due to the idiocy of man, money also encourages inequity. This makes perfect sense, however, as money is a tool of man.

Last night, I initially ended with a sixth line: I do not believe in God; I believe in reason. The only problem with that statement is that I do believe in God; I simply do not know his/her/its form. For years, I have read of the imagined division of reason and religion, yet it has never been proven that the two are wholly separated. It is only a matter of opinion, and as long as such things can not be proven in either way until death do us part, there is no rationality behind the argument. Thus, one should defer to the quality of toleration, and let one believe as one will as long as such beliefs do not result in actions that assault your natural rights to life and liberty.

I do not believe in dark; I believe in light.

I do not believe in cold; I believe in warmth.

I do not believe in hate; I believe in love.

I do not believe in equality; I believe in equity.

I do not believe in you; I believe in me.

I have added a fourth color scheme to the mix. This one makes viewing the page much simpler and easier. I kinda stole the idea from nickd.org, but since Nick doesn't use it any more, I don't feel so guilty.

An interesting problem has developed in the last ten minutes. My left mouse button has stopped working. You know, the button that does everything. For months my mom and I have put up with a crappy mouse for no apparent reason (other than that we didn't buy a better one), and apparently it felt that tonight would be a good night to end that run. So, tomorrow I get a new mouse, and this one bites the dust. Maybe I should get a new keyboard too...

I know that most new links that I add to the News & Politics section on the right side of the page are near impossible to spot, so I am going to try to give them special treatment when I first add them, beginning with this one: BBC's home for UK Politics. I add this link because my Comparative Politics course is currently studying British politics, and I know that the BBC is one of the most prominent media outlets from the United Kingdom. So, there it is, full of news and current events regarding the motherland.

Also, I have noticed that, even after only a few days of discussing international relations, one finds a better understanding for the American political "leftist" point of view. Not that it's justified to vote that way, but I can understand what would compell someone to socialism. I just can't understand why it is better than capitalism. (There are also quite a few inaccuracies and misperceptions about, for instance, Lockean liberalism and capitalism in the textbook, which I would like to address but probably wouldn't get anywhere in a class full of Democrats.)

My goal with these links is that I may eventually have enough foreign policy or politics links so as to include them in their own section. I have already separated commentary from general news and politics (although I probably haven't gotten them all). And so you know, since you probably don't care about any of this, I am really writing this in this space so that I will see it and remember to do something about it later.

Thanks for understanding.

My mom said she was bored today and found several spots on the Internet where my name popped up after running it through a Google search. I was curious, so I ran my own search. Aside from the neat places here and there where I found my name when I wasn't expecting to, I also discovered that my old, oooold redirect subdomains (mccord.cjb.net and jpmccord.cjb.net, much to my surprise, still work! Even more surprising, I remembered my passwords to edit the accounts and have any email sent to jpmccord@cjb.net or mccord@cjb.net redirected to jpmccord@hotmail.com. There are two reasons why I chose the Hotmail account. Primarily, I wanted to see how much junk mail the two cjb.net addresses were getting. Secondarily, I don't exactly want to enter my primary email address on any form for anything, much less for some site that has been around for years making money in only-God-knows-what ways.

(deep breath)

I also had no idea that the black on gray bodytext generated by style3.css was so hard to read. I have received a couple of minor complaints about it, but I really don't know what to do with it, unless you want me to get rid of it.

By the way, those of you who were asking what the purpose for loading different color schemes may be have raised a good question. For now, the purpose being served is my furthered education in PHP. For future use, I hope to be able to use multiple style sheets to load multiple site designs, not simply multiple color schemes. It is a slow process, though, because any attempt to make the same content load in many different ways would require a more modular approach.

I have taken the first and most important step for this: I have placed the content of pages in their own HTM files, and the "header" and "footer" in their own PHP files. When/if I am to commence this project, I will simply have to alter each style sheet one at a time, and I will likely have to copy and modify the header and footer files as well.

Sound painstaking? It will be. But it will be fun, and you should enjoy the ride.

I found three suitable articles for my assignment, but while were simply adequate, one was perfectly relevant to the course. The first two were a couple of feel-good articles. The first is actually really good news: BT had its lawsuit thrown out. Had BT won the case, nearly every company with any stake in the Internet would have owed BT royalties for its patent on the hyperlink. (On the hyperlink! Hey, I wonder if I would have owed money.) BT's stock would have gone up, but then everyone invested in BT would sell and stop investing in the company out of spite.

The second article is about a new wireless network being developed in the Washington DC area that will allow several police, fire, and safety agencies to communicate without worry of net congestion. As I understand it, the system will be an instant messenger applicaton run off a database on a central serve so as to allow communication between several types of networks and platforms. It's a very clever idea if it can be implemented well.

Finally, the article I chose to use for the assignment. But first, an explanation of the two classes. The first class is ITEC 4221: Data Communications & Physical Media. Despite the title, we actually cover everything from the wiring, NICs, and other physical network components (as one would expect) to addressing and LAN/WAN topologies (essentially layers one and two of the OSI Model). The second course is ITEC 4222: Data Communications & Message Routing, which essentially takes place at layers three, four, and five of the OSI Model. It covers message routing, flow control, and session control. I am not taking the third course, which covers the presentation and application layers of the OSI Model, which include formatting, compression, encryption, and applications on the user end of a network request.

What that essentially means to you, the reader, is that about twice a week you will encounter some form of tech news in this space (or near) regarding one or the other of the two classes I am taking. It may not always be relevant, but I will try to keep things within the scope of the courses so as to actually learn stuff.

Now that my motive is sanctified, let's take a look at the first article that I'm using for the Physical Media course. It's simple, really. The VPN (virtual private network, or a private network that uses public wires [like the Internet] to connect nodes) has been suffering from an indentity crisis for twenty years. This article promotes a new type of VPN that should displace WAN services for LAN-to-LAN connectivity and wholly revolutionize the way we think of VPNs, if we think of them at all. Its immediate result should also be to further complicate the magnitude of the VPN's identity crisis.

It's relevant, it's good, I feel like I've learned something, and (most importantly) I've done my homework! (Glorious assignment, isn't it?)

I just read an exhaustively long article about web standards that can be found in the September issue of New Architect, or here. (There is also good information regarding the MPEG-4 standard.) I have a few comments, and most will follow a selection from the article. Organization is secondary to providing information, chiefly the parts with my opinions.

Consider the amount of trust we must place in organizations like the IEEE and ISO to provide standards that help everyone to win the bet. It's like playing the stock market, and the standards organizations are the FED. We obligingly follow where we must, and if a good idea goes bust, so do the trusting users or followers of the system. Of course, as it is their nature to want to keep their business, they tend not to make very many bad calls. Or the tech industry is just good at adapting.

Although a painful and expensive lesson for those bitten by a lurking patent license, the GIF debacle served to heighten awareness of IPR issues and promote a "look before you leap" mindset in the Internet and Web development communities. Fortunately, looking in advance of implementation often reveals open alternatives.

This happens all the time. Linux has risen to challenge Microsoft, and PHP to challenge ASP. Open-source and/or free alternatives are mounting quite an offensive against the big money markets provided by several web standards. Why pay for X when Y is as good or better and doesn't cost a thing?

Although it's by no means a silver bullet, many companies have successfully invested in established standards. Adopting official and formally recognized industry standards and de facto standards alike can offer competitive advantages through increased interoperability and compatibility. In this sense, standards can pave the road for the commoditization of software and services, in addition to media.

This is the argument I would make. As a die-hard capitalist in a capitalist nation, I can respect the purpose of standards. Voluntary adherence to standards allows the industry to clean up after itself, whereas a completely every-man-for-him-self free-for-all would result in absolute chaos. The giants can afford to invest in standards, and it's up to them (and some of us) and those standards to keep the Internet usable for everyone. Or else, I'd hate for the government to have an excuse to take over and enforce their own set of standards...

Yet even when you opt to use standards for strategic purposes, deciding which standards to use isn't easy. There are so many to choose from, and every standards organization is unique with respect to how it operates and the types of standards it produces. There is no equivalent to Baskin Robbins in the standards industry, where all of the flavors you could reasonably want are housed under one roof. If you want to consume standards, you have to shop around.

JavaScript style sheets can do things that cascading style sheets can not. ASP can do things that PHP or JSP can not. TCP/IP can do things that IPX/SPX can not. And vice versa in each case. Like he said, it's a matter of preference as to which standard one chooses.

To paraphrase ISO, standards are documented agreements that contain technical specifications or other precise criteria used as rules, guidelines, or definitions of characteristics. Standards ensure that materials, products, processes, and services are fit for their purpose. In this way, standards help to make life simpler while increasing the reliability and effectiveness of the goods and services we use.

I include this simply because it is an excellent interpretation of the purpose of standards.

De facto standards, on the other hand, are not formally recognized or endorsed by official standards organizations, but rather are technologies that have become widely adopted or acknowledged as preferred solutions nonetheless. For example, technologies produced by the W3C aren't official standards, contrary to popular assumption. In fact, W3C doesn't even claim to produce formal standards. It produces "recommendations" in the interest of helping to establish Web standards. Yet several W3C recommendations, such as HTML and XML, are more widely implemented than many official standards.

In the W3C's case, they are "standards" because they have become the de facto standard. I believe that the W3C is a contributor or cosponsor of the Web Standards Project, which independently aims to keep the Internet available and viewable to everyone using up-to-date software. Despite W3C's "unofficial" status, the major browsers all consider the W3C's specifications when developing newer versions, or else half of the Internet could only be visible in one browser.

You can further distinguish official and de facto standards by the degree to which they are (or are not) open. The organizations behind them vary in their stances on issues related to IPR and licensing. Whereas many standards organizations, such as ISO and MPEG, accept technology that is shielded by patents or other forms of IPR protection, others routinely discourage IPR encumbrances, or reject them outright.

It depends on the standard. Some need to be left to an authoritative, governing body. Others are better if the users are allowed to suggest specific changes or even make specific changes for their own local purposes. Many video codecs and programming environments are this way. "IPR-encumbered" technology is often very well done or it wouldn't survive against the open-source technology. And open-source technology is generally widely accepted for its flexibility and generally cheaper price.

Irrespective of any particular standards organization's stance on the issue of IPR in general, the debate often boils down to the fundamental issue of whether patents are good or bad for standards. The question of whether patents protect and advance standards or merely encumber and stall them isn't likely to be resolved soon, if ever.

Protection is encumberment. Think of it in a political sense: security clashes with freedom. On the whole, patents neither advance nor stall standards, nor does the absence of patents. It simply depends on the technology and its demand in the given time period.

If you must know, I am required in two of my classes to fish out relevant articles and share them. This is one that I found. I will find another soon.

Huh. Suddenly, the links on the right side of the page are displaying their dotted underline when your mouse hovers over them (when style2.css loads). This is an intended effect; I mention it because, for the last several days, it has only been working in Netscape (not Internet Explorer), which is entirely backwards. But, if you'll notice, the movie report links are still not working properly, which suggests to me that the problem resides somewhere in that HTML table. I'm on it.

Also, anyone with any mathematical ability can deduce that I have slept little in the past few days, especially last night. I'll make up for it, honest.

I told you he looks like Eeyore. Too bad you can't fully see his posture, then you'd really see it. He's an eight-year-old Yorkshire Terrier who's aged more quickly than he should have due to unfortunate circumstances. His fur is nearly white with patches of gray and light brown. He weights about fifteen pounds. He's got personality. Or dogality.

"Quit fooling around and take me to my bed."

Thanks to Matt, I now have OmniHTTPd Pro running which allows me to view PHP files running on my local machine without having to upload them to the server first. This allows me to work out the kinks and typos in my code before it goes public, which was essentially my goal. Now I only need to set up hotkeys for loading OmniHTTPd Pro and the web site. (Does anyone know how to program a file to run more than one file successively in Windows Me?)

Still on my to-do list is to develop a working news-posting script that allows me to preview (until ready) and post my updates without going through the minor hassle of editing the code by hand every time. One may argue that this is simply a lazy way out of typing in the code, but then I would argue that the skills necessary to create such a news-posting script, which must first be acquired and then employed, are more than enough to overshadow said laziness. Besides, Americans live for convenience, right? Well, what better way to achieve convenience than by accomplishment?

I just bought this. I know, I know. The third edition is already available. So that's why the second edition only cost me six bucks at the neighborhood Barnes & Noble bookstore. Besides, a suite of protocols as widely used as TCP/IP can not have changed that much between November 2000 and April 2002. Even if it has, there is still much valuable information to be gathered from the second edition of the book. And for six bucks, it's a steal.

I also bought the September 2002 issue of Liberty, a libertarian political science journal, and the revised edition of New Ideas from Dead Economists by Todd G. Buchholz. The latter is "an introduction to modern economic thought", and is for pleasure reading.

And you ask, who on earth would read that for pleasure?! Well, put it this way: I like to read that which has practical purpose. I want to gain something useful from my reading. Reading requires much time and devotion, and I would like not to read Star Wars or Douglas Adams novels, or any other fiction, most of the time. Of course, the occasional fruitless diversion is quite entertaining, and many are quite educational in their own mind-expanding ways.

In other words, if you enjoy reading fiction that provokes the imagination or can be considered critical (negatively or positively) of the way something (anything!) happens, then I believe that you're a smarter person for it. If you only read about entertainment (Hollywood, music, etc.), fashion, or games    unless you are planning to use information gathered from said source(s) to further your education or career    then I can not say the same without further analyzing your character.

In other words, people like my wonderful girlfriend Claire, who enjoy Hollywood or fashion news, are not necessarily dunces, as she so defiantly proves. She is a very intelligent and beautiful person with thoughts, opinions, and preferences all her own, and my insensitive, elitist, and generalizing ideas about [see above] are, in her case, significantly challenged.

The point of all of this is to get across a simple concept: elitism not only hurts those discriminated against, but it hurts the elitists who can not see the err of their generalizing, standardizing ways. The last time I attempted this speech, I was accused by more than one person of writing generically about specific experiences with them. I did nothing of the sort, though I will not deny that the accumulation of such experiences probably factored in my eventually writing about my distaste for the trait.

Also, I chose to use myself as my example because I thought my "essay" would carry a bit more weight. Usually, I am blasted for inaccuracies and bias when I make these assertions about another figure or opinion. Well, eat this. My argument still stands, and you can't argue the actuality of what I believe.

Why don't we have morning radio shows like this in middle Georgia?

Paul, your true color is Blue!

You're blue    the most soothing shade of the spectrum. The color of a clear summer sky or a deep, reflective ocean, blue has traditionally symbolized trust, solitude, and loyalty. Most likely a thoughtful person who values spending some time on your own, you'd rather connect deeply with a few people than have a bunch of slight acquaintances.

It looks like America's intelligence agencies are about to break down again, only this time it will be a psychological breakdown in response to Bill Gertz's new book, Breakdown. The CIA is fighting Gertz over Breakdown, in which Gertz cites documents and dispatches from the national security agencies, alleging that some highly classified information was illegally obtained and is about to be illegally made public.

There is a conflict of interests here. First, there is the author, who may or may not have obtained the information illegally. Let's assume for a moment that he did not, but it is still supposed to be classified. If he is simply telling what he knows and has no contractual obligations not to, then the first amendment protects his freedom to tell all in the book. If the information was illegally obtained, then there is a question raised about the legality of profiting from illegally obtained information.

I am not sure where I stand on this issue based on politico-philosophical principles, but in my gut I can feel that publishing the book is the right thing to do, and the CIA should take one for the team. Several good things could come of that. A popular clamor could eventually have such effect so as to constrict or consolidate the national security agencies or other government bureaucracies.

On a broader scale, the principle could be likened to the intellectual property battle in the music and other industries, and perhaps it could be seen that the spread of information is actually healthier for everyone on the whole, despite conventional wisdom. (Besides, regarding the music, if the record companies failed twenty years ago to stop the recordable audiocassettes from becoming mainstream, they can not stop the spread of mp3s by the same token. People were sharing and recording music then, and it's no different now. Overall, it only allows people to hear, and therefore buy, more music. So they don't buy the CDs at first when they download the mp3s. Well, if they had never heard it in the first place, they wouldn't buy it anyway unless it was a follow-up release by one of their favorite artists! Plain and simple, the industry should belong to the artists and listeners, not do-nothings in fancy chairs.)

I sent the following email to about 113 email addresses tonight (BCC'd, of course, so as to prevent half the world from peeping on your email addresses):

The idea is simple: keep your headlights on while you drive on September 11. No explanation is necessary, but we hope to show solidarity and respect for the victims, for all Americans, and for all the people in the world who respect what America stands for. September 11 will never be a national holiday, so the least we can do is something minor that inconveniences no one to show our respect for lives lost.

Seventeen copies of the message were returned to me due to email box failures. Is that bad?

I need help with two things. First, if someone could tell me why the dotted underline on the links on the right side of my page are not working (with the dark blue style sheet, or style2.css) when they work everywhere else on the page, I would appreciate it. Second, if someone could tell me how to convince my ASP instructor that he needs to learn PHP if for no better reason than to a kickass tutorial for PHP like the rest of his tutorials, that would be great, and it would benefit the rest of the world too.

In case my lack of posting to my web site is bothering you or needs explication, I have been busy adjusting to my new schedule. My four IT classes look to be edutaining, and my political science classes are awesome. It's weird taking a political science class without Dr. Tate at the helm, but I figure the best I could do without him is to take both of the other professors at the same time.

By the end of the Spring I should be qualified for my associate's degree in Political Science! Then I will finish my last year at Macon State College and get my bachelor's degree in Information Technology. Cool mix, eh? I hope to use the political science background, not only to keep my mind balanced while I'm here, but also to prepare me for law school. If I am not accepted or do not wish to be accepted to law school immediately following my four years at Macon State, I may instead go to Mercer or UGA for a bachelor's degree in Political Science or Economics, only then to try on graduate school for size.

What do you think? Claire won't like the idea, because that (a) requires staying in Georgia and (b) means that I will have less time to spend with her and less time to work and make money. I know, I know, people make such a big deal about making money and getting ahead in today's society. Well guess what! I don't care to be ahead. I only care to be comfortable. So don't expect more from me. If you get more, feel free to celebrate, but I'm too desensitized to get too worked up for it.

And for the sake of all that is good in the world, if you don't like what I have to say or the way I say it, don't read it! Good night.

I apologize if you have been trying to reach my page in the last hour or so and have seen some awfully unstyled mess. I have been working on the PHP code to deliver the most efficient method of calling a random stylesheet that can also be checked by the W3C's "check referer" validator. I write this message now because that mission has been accomplished.

Next on my list is the transition of nearly every other part of this web site to PHP. I plan to leave the archives (i.e., 200208.htm, etc.) alone for two reasons: (1) I like to leave old layouts in tact on a monthly basis so that I may view how my site has changed throughout its history; (2) I am now using the monthly archive as my browser's home page and as my test page before I upload anything.

Once I am satisfied with the layout of the page, and I think I am, I will begin work on my posting script. Coding the script will be the hard part (unless I mooch off of Matt, which is a good idea if he's willing), because it will be an ugly mixture of PHP and HTML. However, once the mixture is prepared properly and has baked at 350° for 90 minutes, it will be ready for me! It will theoretically be a simple form in which I will type each post in a little text box, preview it to check for spelling or coding mistakes, and then submit it to the web site itself.

I only hope that the ASP class I am taking can help with my developing skills with PHP, rather than confuse them.

Also, in case you didn't catch what I meant in the first paragraph, if you will reload this page a small number of times, you should notice that there is more than one color scheme    two, actually. I plan to add more, but to have the script working with two is good enough for now.

Official results.

I predict that Georgia Republicans will retain their eight seats in the House, and Democrats will retain their three. However, there are two more districts that are leaning slightly Democrat that are too close to call. The Senate race between incumbent Max Cleland (D) and Saxby Chambliss (R) is going to be too close to call until November. In yesterday's primary, about 500,000 voters selected the Republican ballot, while only about 400,000 selected the Democrat ballot. Despite the difference in partisan turnout, there is no advantage for either candidate right now other than Cleland's incumbency.

Most important to me this year is the Governor's race. I have heard from and read of Sonny Perdue for several years in middle Georgia, and I am quite certain that he is my best candidate for Georgia's governorship. Roy Barnes has been okay for a Democrat, but he is no Zell Miller, and I don't want to see Barnes re-elected.

I am also more confident in Perdue's ability to oust Barnes than I am of Chambliss's ability to oust Cleland. About 40,000 more Republicans and about 20,000 fewer Democrats voted in the gubernatorial primary than in the Senatorial primary. What that means to me is that the gubernatorial election is not only slightly more important to Georgians (as one man in charge has more clout than one man in a legislative body of a hundred), but also that the gubernatorial election will lean slightly more Republican than the Senate election. Now we wait ten weeks to find out just how much it leans.

The most beloved game in America, on the whole, is about to be shut down. Over seven hundred men who are making an average of about $2.4 million each this year ($200,000 is the minimum, which includes rookies who have yet to prove themselves) are about to cancel the remainder of the Major League Baseball season because they don't like the money situation. The owners are supposedly getting in the way of higher salaries.

Excuse me if I don't shed a tear on the players' behalf, but I think I can understand where the owners are coming from. Furthermore, I am surprised that more young players have not publicly come out against the strike. I realize that such action could have someone blacklisted in their own community (the union, shudder), but I also realize that there are scores of rookies and young players who are simply thrilled to have a chance to play in the big leagues, and the greedy superstars are about to take that away.

Someone should remind these guys that, unlike Michael Jordan, they are not the entire game, and that their actions will have repercussions. The politics of the issue are much more public this time around. The people are actually paying attention, and they're losing respect for the players. Consider the results of this Fox News poll. Okay, so 70% of the pollsters think that the most important thing is simply to set differences aside and to play ball, but that response does not indicate which side is to be less liked for this. Casting that response out, about 93% of the remaining pollsters are on the owners' side.

Perhaps a bluff wouldn't look tough and manly at this point, but if August 30 passes and there is neither a resolution nor a strike, the fans will be excstaticly pleased. Even if the players simply push the strike date back to November 1, the fans will love them for it and will likely then see the owners as the gluttons. The players need something to put themselves in a better light. Putting off the strike, while it won't make things perfect again, would certainly make things better for baseball.

Let's play ball.

Our country is facing many simultaneous problems. One of the most significant is the anti-capitalist onslaught that continuously campaigns to uproot our capitalist ways, steal what you have earned, and give it to those who could not earn it. In a society where we are supposed to be rewarded based mostly on merit, we are allowing our Democratic leaders to impose "solutions" that redistribute your hard-earned income into the hands of those who refuse to earn it. So who has the easy life here?

Well, we have bigger problems: Tom Dasshole wants to be your President, but only after he has completely weened away the Republican majority in Congress, thereby establishing a reasonably socialist majority (by capitalists' standards) in the only national law-making body of the only ultimate defender of capitalism in the world. And what's worse? Barbra Streisand is coming out of retirement to support this!

Damnit, this better result in some good South Park episodes, or it just isn't worth the trouble.

I have been know to occupy my home with a small gathering of friends occasionally, usually in tandem with some other special occasion (that is, other than the occasion of the gathering itself) like a birthday, a holiday weekend, or any time my mom offers to cook and clean up after twenty teenagers. The gatherings usually consist of an interestingly odd mix of persons of different backgrounds and interests, which provides for great fun when I whip out a game like Moods, Guesstures, or the all time Party-at-Paul's favorite, Catch Phrase!

I still remember the first time I threw one of these parties. I'm pretty sure that it was on or around January 20, 2000, because I was dating Emily at the time, and we only dated for five weeks. What confused me about that particular gathering, though, was that I had convinced myself over the years that I wasn't very popular or well liked, but just thought of as a "nice guy". Nothing special, just an all around good-natured human being. So I invited exactly sixteen people over, knowing quite surely that only five to ten of them would show up, which would still be way too many for our tiny dining room. Well, all sixteen showed up, and then fourteen of us went bowling. Not only was I proven wrong by dating a girl before graduation, but everyone on my invite list thought it important enough to make an appearance!

My ego grew three sizes that day, and from that point until graduation was probably the pinnacle of my life. For several months, not counting the two weeks surrounding Valentine's Day when unfortunate circumstances allowed my girlfriend and me to break up, I was on an emotional high without many concerns for much of anything. I was enjoying my life, and I did not care how my peers and elders judged me. Those whom I cared for showed that they cared for me, and that was enough.

Things haven't changed much since. I am still as comfortable and confident as ever, but I feel as though I'm simply floating, neither improving nor regressing, thus I have found emotional reaction difficult. (I suppose it is better than the other extreme, which would be to struggle with emotions because I was upset or jealous with the world.) The only emotions I can allow myself to show anymore are excitement (and I can't fake it) and forms of frustration, the latter of which usually is in response to accusation, intentional annoyance or misinformation, or potentially dangerous ignorance or carelessness. (So I'm justified, right?)

The problem is not that I am an emotionless bundle of joy, though certain females in my life conceive otherwise, but that I occasionally, unintentionally inflict unnecessary or avoidable pain for lack of emotional comprehension. Maybe the problem is bigger than I believe it is, but until it either causes considerable damage or otherwise becomes necessary to adjust, I will continue to enjoy being me at the expense of no one and for the enjoyment of my peers. Hopefully, this will encourage more of them to join me when I invite them for an evening of random forms of entertainment.

Er, without alcohol or sex.

The Two Towers will not open with a recap [careful, minor plot spoilers] of The Fellowship of the Ring. Quoth director Peter Jackson, "It's a very TV device to slap a little recap on. We thought...we'll just jump straight into it." Good idea! While it's usually expected of a television series to recap a previous episode that was to be continued the following week, it is bad for movies. First, most interested parties have seen the film (in theatres, online, on DVD, on VHS, etc.) at least twice, read the books, and/or are generally familiar with from where the movie has left off. We don't ten minutes of our precious movie to be wasted on telling us what we already know    that's what trailers are for. Good job, Peter Jackson!

The closest of all upcoming movies that I have been highly anticipating for the past several months is Die Another Day, the fourth installment of the James Bond series since Pierce Brosnan became Agent 007. Unlike previous Bond films, MGM does not aspire to make an "old-fashioned Cold War espionage" movie with Die Another Day, instead attempting to use James Bond "in a new and refreshing way". But MGM is not so quick to be out with the old; the twentieth Bond film also features several allusions to classic Bond films for the true fans to catch. I have made no secret in the past that I am a huge fan of James Bond and spy films, but based on what I know of the film so far, I would expect it to be as good as or better than most of the others. I can't wait to see this one hit the screen!

For the past several years, inspirational chick flicks have really taken over the end of summer box office. As noted at Box Office Mojo, movies featuring girls who kick butt (not just physically) have "proven quite profitable". I have only seen three on the "Late Summer Girl Power" list (Legally Blonde, Bring It On, and Coyote Ugly), but each was much better than I had anticipated, so I entered the theatre to see Blue Crush with high expectations    and I wasn't disappointed.

This movie isn't the best of the year, and some of the dialogue and seens were all but foreseeable, but two things make it worthy of high marks: a solid delivery and great camera works. While the movie may not be Oscar-worthy, the actors involved gave solid performances under mildly difficult circumstances. The story wasn't entirely convincing, but because the focus of the movie was on surfing and overcoming obstacles of everyday life, one can get around most of that. Besides, the presentation of towering walls of water in this film was amazing, especially the shots from inside the waves. Those shots alone were worth the admission price.

As for Box Office turnout, I don't expect spectacular numbers for Blue Crush, but I expect people to see it and to generally like it. Girls will like it because the movie focuses on female athletes who overcome difficult odds to achieve success. Guys will like it because Kate Bosworth looks pretty hot in a bikini for about two hours, and because guys love athletic movies (especially when they feature hot girls like Kate Bosworth). I would assume that younger audiences would enjoy this movie more than older audiences, but only because I perceive surfing as an activity that most "classy" adults would consider juvenile, like skateboarding (unless they're from the plains, where surfing is either absolutely amazing or of no concern at all).

This movie was well done and very entertaining, but it isn't one that I will be clamoring back to see repeatedly. It is good, not great, and will only be a part of my movie collection when it merges with Claire's. (I will make it a point to see it again, though.) Blue Crush is a solid B+.

p.s.   The part about Kate Bosworth looking hot in a bikini is mostly aimed at Claire. :-)

I know, I know, I can't make up my mind. Deal with it. How is blue instead of green? I like this particular layout, but I'm having a tough time picking colors that I like. Maybe I should draw up a form of some kind that lets you choose and save whatever colors you like, ridding me of the burden. That would actually ensure that you all get exactly what you want, as long as you could handle the hexadecimal color codes. Of course, if I were to draw up such a form, I would include some of the more common colors' codes on the page for your convenience...

Hmm. I'll think about that. But my laziness probably won't permit any action for at least six weeks. (That's better than the INS, though.)

I met their guitarist, Mark Tremonti, back in March. It was more of a "can I get a picture" meeting than anything; he probably wouldn't remember me. So I didn't really meet anyone. But I did shake his hand and have a picture taken with him, which I still have not scanned. However, they did have my Winamp skin that I created from scratch put on their web site: here, at the bottom. Just remember that my name is Paul, and you can figure out which one it is. Simple and easy to use. I like it!

It has come to my attention that Accuracy In Media, an organization that aims to combat biased media organizations and reports "For Fairness, Balance and Accuracy in News Reporting" is no less biased than all the rest. Come to think of it directly, I can remember no AIM articles that have ever criticized a bias favorable of the right wing of American liberalism, so I probably should have come to this conclusion long ago. (I suppose it doesn't help that I rarely depend on any third source to interpret my news for me; I simply prefer the facts, and I do my own interpreting.)

The giveaway is a bit too obvious. In a July article that asks about alternatives to biased media outlets, there is no attempt to discourage readers from subscribing to bias on the other side of the tracks. Apparently, based on my interpretation of this article, a pro-left-wing opinion is "biased" and a pro-right-wing opinion is fair and balanced. I don't mean to call anyone a hypocrite, but this is exactly the type of bias that AIM cites when referring to the New York Times and other organizations as favoring the left and the Democratic Party. You can't favor conservatism in your writing and still be fair and balanced.

The fact that I am also a moderate conservative should allow my criticism to carry a little more weight. An opinion that charges someone who disagrees with bias is likely to be considered biased. An opinion that charges someone on the same side as being unfairly biased, despite sharing the same preferences, is less likely to be considered biased and more likely to be considered fair and balanced.

And if I were a well known conservative writer, the Democrats would take this article and run with it, and that would be biased.

While I'm on the subject, here's another funny story about baseball. I have thought for years that Bud Selig was a lousy commissioner for baseball, and I made sure people knew it after this year's All-Star Game. But as it turns out, George W. Bush was pursuing Major League Baseball's commissionership in the early 1990s, and Selig claimed that he would not stand in Bush's way, and then Selig took the job for himself.

That was a lousy day for baseball. I still remember the looks on their faces as the SportsCenter analysts questioned Selig's motive and his ability to run the league. I mean, he had done a lousy job as interim commissioner, so why should he be allowed to take over full-time? The answer was as clear then as it is now: As a former owner, he was on the owners' side.

One thing has changed since then, though. I am also now on the owners' side. But I also believe that the strike in 1994 would have been avoided if any other commissioner in the prior history of baseball had been there in place of Selig, and I believe that baseball would not be in the mess that it is currently in if Selig were not in the driver's seat. It's time he stepped aside.

Idea: When George Bush is through with his duties as President come January 20, 2008, he should make a bid for Commissioner of Major League Baseball again. Let Rudy Guiliani take over in the White House.

Rush Limbaugh actually made a good point today. I rarely hear him, and when I do I take it with a grain of salt (he's a bit too holier-than-thou for my tastes), but today he said something with which I did not want to agree, but had to. He essentially argued that baseball is no longer the national pastime (football is), and it has much to do with how the professional sports are run economically.

The NFL is essentially run as a league, and MLB is essentially run as individual teams. The NFL treats each team as a division of the company, and therefore a competitive balance is more-or-less preserved and the sport remains exciting in nearly every football city. MLB treats each team as an individual company that competes for business with the others, and that is driving baseball business in cities like Kansas City, Montreal, and Miami way down. In short, baseball players' greed is preventing a collective bargaining agreement that could save baseball. As it goes, baseball is probably going to lose its unofficial label as the national pastime before the month is out.

It's quite simple really. The owners want to increase the percentage of revenues that each team shares, which the league then redistributes in a somewhat socialistic manner. This would prevent teams like the New York Yankees from buying World Series championships year after year. The other request from the owners is a luxury tax on teams that go over a certain payroll limit (including forty-man rosters and benefits), which would also then be redistributed to the less fortunate teams. The tax would likely slow the rate of growth of players' salaries, which would not only bring more revenue for the teams and league, but would allow for more promotions and a competitive balance which would bring people back to the stands.

I can understand why the players are against this. They are capitalists, and one of the unfortunate side effects of capitalism, especially when one attains a high level of material wealth, is greed. Players are looking ahead and are seeing $20 million contracts and don't want to be slowed down. Owners are looking ahead and are seeing bankruptcy, team contractions, or even the end of Major League Baseball if the money well runs dry. Owners can not expect to pay players more and more when fewer and fewer fans are coming out to play, and the players can not expect to make millions more when they already make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (at the minimum) just for playing a game    for less than two-thirds of the year, I should add.

The players are prepared to strike on August 30, once again ruining a baseball season for everyone, and once again, it's all about money and themselves. They should really be more concerned about the fans, since that's what sports and entertainment is really all about.

I suppose one good thing could come out of this: If Major League Baseball comes to an end, so will my insatiable desire to follow every statistical aspect of the game, which would likely result in more significant devotion to other aspects of life, such as work and school. But the chances of that happening are too slim to mention numbers...

Tommy has pointed out an interesting factoid about time. As it apparently turns out, there is no such thing as 12:00am or 12:00pm. I don't exactly buy it, but it does justify the use of a twenty-four hour clock as opposed to the am/pm system.

As Tommy explained it to me, "am" is an abbreviation for ante meridiem, which means "before midday" in Latin, and "pm" an abbreviation for post meridiem, meaning after midday. According to the web site to which I linked, official or legal documents back up the fact that neither 12:00pm or 12:00am exist because those are the two points on the clock which are equidistant from midday    they are neither before nor after midday. (Someone should really link directly to the official documents that back this up so I can trash them directly.)

Perhaps the law backs it up, but for the sake of practicality I have to go against it. I understand that, by the meaning of "am" and "pm", it may not be logically correct to assume that 12:00am or 12:00pm exist. However, for the sake of digital watches and consistency, those times should and, de facto, do exist. Their existence is another instance when the value of common law is realized; the books may say it isn't so, but practice over the years has made it so out of necessity.

Suddenly, I'm validated for XHTML 1.0 Transitional. If only I could do something about that damn <center> tag, I would validate for XHTML 1.0 Strict. Any ideas? (I know that I could simply delete it, but that sets the entire page off by about two pixels, and that is absolutely out of the question. Any other ideas?)

UPDATE 14:33: I am now validated for XHTML 1.0 Strict! (I wonder how long this will last.) Rather than deal with one tiny, nagging glitch in my code, I redecorated a little. I thought the new colors weren't right without a slightly new look, so here it is. Very little has changed, yet it looks so much more crisp and less cluttered. You like?

From 12:00am to 11:59pm September 1, FX will re-air the first season of "24". The rerun marathon will take twenty-four hours, which is exactly how much time passes from the beginning of the first episode to the end of the last. I have already ordered the DVD set, so I probably won't watch much of the FX marathon, but it's worth noting or I wouldn't have noted it.

School begins next Tuesday, I am throwing a semi-party on Saturday, and I am temporarily working two jobs until Monday. This will be a very tiring week for me, and I expect to have less time than usual to comment on the happenings in my universe, and I probably won't even notice what happens in yours. I apologize in advance. I am experiencing an unfair week.

Hopefully, books will only cost half of this month's paycheck. I am considering buying that laptop much sooner than planned...

Music of the Moment: Lifehouse! By their new CD on September 27, and the old one too, if (like me) you don't have it yet.

I wanted a change, but I don't have the time or the energy for a full-blown redesign. So what's the next best thing? Why, reversing the colors, of course! What you're looking at is a nearly exact visible-spectral reversal of the colors on my web page. The nearly white blue became nearly black green, the vibrant medium blue became orange, and the darker blue became a very faded orange. If you can't tell, I replaced the faded orange with black, mostly because the faded orange gave the web site a horrible border and the image of difficult-to-read puke. At least now it's easy-to-read puke.

If you don't like it, tell me. My feelings won't be hurt. I promise.

This happens rarely, so I'll place emphasis; I agree with Roger Ebert: "In its own punk way, xXx is as good as a good Bond movie, and that's saying something." xXx is the epitome of the stereotypical guy movie: violent effects, cool gadgets and toys, hot girls, and nonstop action! And like any good James Bond movie, our hero xXx manages to escape a number of impossibly destructive situations without so much as dislodging a hair (although, in Xander Cage's case, it helps that he has no hair).

From the very beginning, it was apparent that this movie was meant to be loud. Around every twist and turn was loud music, explosions, or just plain noise. The movie featured a good blend of heavy metal and rap music (an action sequence is the only acceptable role for much rap music), with the sound effects of a your average explosive disasters on the side: just enough to keep everyone wowed by the visual and audial effects. Many will say that the special effects and loud music were abundant or even overkill, but for a movie like xXx, not only do you have to expect that, but you have to enjoy it! A fast-paced, spy-thriller is no fun without the fast-paced music to accompany it.

Although Xander Cage isn't the typical spy that we're used to, some things are the same: he has a insatiable desire for women, expensive and explosive toys, showing off, and destruction. Like James Bond, xXx is a hero with a few questionable characteristics who must employ his talents to stop a madman who wishes to destroy the world. (Unlike Bond films, however, the evil plot isn't overly fantastical or unthinkable. It is flawwed, though, but that is another story...) However, whereas James Bond's questionable traits generally stop at sexaholism, Xander Cage's are only beginning. But you've seen the trailers, so you know all about that.

xXx was a wild ride from start to finish, with only a few rushed lines to diminish the quality of the film. One can never expect factual or physical perfection when watching a spy flick made for entertaining. xXx is not Oscar-worthy, but it has been the most consistently entertaining film (from scene to scene) of the year so far, even beating Spider-Man. xXx gets an A+.

What can I say? I'm a guy! I have always loved James Bond, and Vin Diesel merely one-upped him. Maybe Pierce Brosnan and MGM can fix that in November. (Here's hope: A "very hot love scene" has been shot for the new James Bond film, Die Another Day. "Whether it survives the censor's cut, or the producers, we'll see." I doubt that it will survive because MGM has been very stubborn about its PG-13 rating from the beginning, and I don't think they want to lose that now. But maybe something to look forward to on the DVD! Er, um, not that that alone would make Die Another Day a better movie...)

She's famous! Okay, well, sort of. She isn't exactly labeled or anything, but this is still kind of neat. If you visit the home page for the Georgia Southern College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, there is a picture to the right of the menu. That picture is loaded randomly from a small selection every time the page loads. One of those random pictures happens to include my sister. So keep reloading until you find my sister helping a little girl paint a pumpkin! (From what little we can see of the pumpkin, it looks like a good job...)

Or, if you're lazy like me, you can go straight to the picture. Gritting teeth to avoid jokes, she is the one on the left. With that picture fresh on your mind, go back to the home page for the Georgia Southern College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (man, is that a mouthful!), and keep reloading until you see it. It actually fits quite nicely.

For the first time in years, Disney might have some good ideas working. This Three Little Pigs adaptation marks the first classic children's story in quite a while that Disney has chosen as subject for one of their animated films. Depending on how their story's twists capture or repel audiences, this could be what Disney needs. In my own warped little mind, I think this Disney film has a better chance of success than, say, Lilo & Stitch did. (Now if only they would make a movie about Stitch invading all the other movies!)

This is why Al Gore isn't president, "in a nutshell", according to Fox News columnist Roger Friedman. First, this is funny. Second, it's the first time by my knowledge that I have ever agreed with Roger Friedman in any way and realized it. Third, I think this hurt Gore's chances at re-election...

Just in case you didn't want to know, American Pie 3 is scheduled to begin production in January 2003. Sean William Scott is back as the "centerpiece". To make matters worse, my copy of The Lord of the Rings is still at least a day away, having been seen in Kentucky early this afternoon. I thought the whole idea behind pre-orders was to get the item on the day of release without having to go get it yourself?

The good news is we bombed Iraq. The bad news is we bombed Iraq!

The good news is I got my Blade DVD back today. The bad news is I broke the library's main computer.

The good news is my dog is going to get better. The bad news is my dog has Cushings Disease.

Finally, the good news is the New York Times has come through with a great article. The bad news is we all have to wait nine more months.

Mahatma Gandhi walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail. And with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath. This made him what? (Highlight the white space below.)

A super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.

Thanks to Adam for bringing this to my attention.

Although this particular column is several weeks old, its message is timeless. Peggy Noonan has once again written a brilliant piece, this time explaining how "Big Money" has cheated America and capitalism all over the world. She cites Michael Novak:

Capitalism cannot exist in a void. Capitalism requires an underlying moral edifice. Without it nothing works; with it all is possible. That edifice includes people who have an appreciation for and understanding of the human person; it requires a knowledge that business can contribute to community and family; it requires "a sense of sin", a sense of right and wrong, and an appreciation that the unexpected happens, that things take surprising turns in life.

What should make Novak's view more acceptable is that he was once a socialist. Having been a member of the "enemy", he knew the critiques. But he realized the good of capitalism when he realized the best reason to support the claim:

Of all the systems devised by man it is the one most likely to lift the poor out of poverty.... Capitalism, like nature, wants to increase itself, wants to grow and create, and as it does it produces more: more goods, more services, more "liberation", more creativity, more opportunity, more possibilities, more unanticipated ferment, movement, action.

There is no reason to argue against that; socialism and capitalism require equal treatment by definition. Only capitalism allows anyone to receive treatment or benefits based on merit, and a merit-based system is the only best choice there is. That assumes, of course, that the underlying moral edifice is secure and strong.

I could go on. In truth, this article is one of the most excellent critiques of capitalism I have read in quite a while. Peggy Noonan has always been an amazing writer (I suppose that would be necessary of a former presidential speechwriter), and I have been introduced to a new source of information: Michael Novak. If you think any of this was worth reading, I have only hit spots of Noonan's article. People like Tony should read the whole thing.

It's time that Major League Baseball finds a new commissioner. Bud Selig is not only personally biased because he is formerly an owner of the Milwaukee Brewers, but he also has no clue how to run a league of organizations for maximum profit and fan appreciation. And now he wants to take one of the greatest success stories in baseball history; he actually wants to get rid of the Minnesota Twins!

These contraction talks have really got to stop. In all the years of all the professional sports in America, never has any league dropped any of its teams. Teams have relocated and been renamed, but never has any franchise disappeared without a replacement, and never has the number of teams in any of these leagues shrunk without the lost teams going somewhere else. And even then, never has a team that performed better than average the year before even been considered for contraction! Yet Bud Selig, for the second year in a row, is trying to rid Major League Baseball of two good teams, the Montreal Expos and Minnesota Twins.

If he does, here's an idea: file a lawsuit against him for unfair business practices. In much the same way that our government is set up so that largely populated states do not have an advantage over less-populated states, Major League Baseball should not be rigged so that big-market teams like the Yankees and Braves have a near-permanent advantage over small-market teams like Kansas City. Bud Selig is greedy, biased, and he knows little about how to run the business of baseball. It's time to get him out of the driver's seat. Maybe then we would even get a labor deal signed.

I have just learned that one of my favorite bands, Stabbing Westward, disbanded back in February. I would have learned about this sooner, but I read in December that they were working on a new album due out late this year, and I typically avoid news about an artist who has an album still months away to avoid the pain of anticipation. I only learned about this now because I have, in the last week, been craving particular audial sensations that only Stabbing Westward can provide.

Based on what I have read, I don't think the breakup is permanent. The bandmembers are still pursuing musical interests and apparently stay in contact, and they have unfinished (or was it finished?) material lying around. Hopefully, they'll come back and put together at least one more album, if not another tour, and maybe then they can talk about calling it quits for good.

Everything that wasn't in Goldmember that I was hoping would be (Vanessa Kensington, Felicity Shagwell, and Mustafa), actually were in the movie and were left on the cutting room floor! I won't be nice about this: not letting us know what happened to Felicity in the movie was just stupid. I suppose, though, that James Bond never held on to a woman after the first (who was killed), but Austin Powers isn't James Bond. It bothers me that Felicity was in the film and was cut. It is even worse that Mustafa was there too! Ugh! I know the DVD will have the scenes, but I hope there is also a director's cut disc with the footage restored in the film!

After reading this, I am beginning to think that maybe Goldmember is only a B+ film. I mean, as funny as it was, it could have been better, and they took out what could have been some of the best parts! And whether those cut scenes were even humorous or not, there is a plot that needs to be followed... Unless, of course, Mike Myers is trying to separate one Austin Powers film from the next in the same way that 007 films rarely tie together.

Congratulations to Ben Affleck, who is now dating Jennifer Lopez (who isn't even in my top 25 attractive women in Hollywood, for further evidence that I am not like you). And despite the loss, congratulations to J-Lo's ex, Chris Judd, with whom Lopez has agreed to pay a £10 million ($15.7 million!) divorce settlement after eight good months. Hey, that's £1.25 million (almost $2 million) per month!

Affleck and Lopez are starring in two movies together in 2003, Kevin Smith's Jersey Girl and Martin Brest's Gigli.

Looking over a few reviews of Full Frontal, a movie for which I have high expectations, I can't help but wonder if there is a significant impact of media and/or Hollywood bias resulting in so many negative reviews. The film intends to satirize the film industry in Los Angeles, so I could certainly understand the motive behind the reviews, but I have to wonder if they are criticizing negatively because they don't think that's their real image.

Of course, I haven't seen the movie yet, and I'm not going to let a few idiotic critics who claim a movie is simply "forgettable" without any shred of reasoning to support their claim. They intend for people not to see the movie, quite obviously, but they can not actually call it a bad movie. (Can any movie with Julia Roberts be that bad?)

I'm not saying that it will be good, or that you will even like it. I am simply saying that I expect that I will enjoy it, despite what these critics think.

I also am saying that I hate it when critics word their criticisms so as to say what I will think instead of what they think. For example: "You will hate this movie" is a very bad thing to say in a review, because it is arrogant, horribly presumptuous, and has nothing to do with what happened in the movie or the critic's opinion. On ther other hand, "I hated this movie" is a perfectly legitimate thing to say; it is the critic's personal reaction, and it comes off more pleasantly rather than forcing something that may be wrong. (Receiving advice from "know-it-alls" who like to flaunt their knowledge of the subject at hand is usually annoying, unless you agree with it.) The point is that there is a difference between telling people what you like (thanks for the tip!) and what they will like (you don't know me, you arrogant bastard!).

If you delete dozens of screen names from your AOL Instant Messenger buddy list and still have 132 left, you might be a computer geek. Either that or you're really popular, or you've just been online for a very long time. I don't really know what the story is with me; I think it's some nifty combination of all three. However the sun sets on that, the fact remains that my buddy list just dropped from over 170 down to 132. I didn't want to talk to them anyway.

Someone needs to be shot, although I'm not quite sure who it should be. Complaining is one thing, but filing a lawsuit because a fat man sat next to you on a plane is a bit over the top. All the same, the airlines probably should have some seats available for people who are particularly wide. I don't buy the man's claim of "severe emotional distress", but otherwise it seems like he has a reasonable argument. I just don't think it's worth a lawsuit (except as being the only method of getting considerable attention to the problem).

Anybody want to help me go after idiot parents who are making it nearly impossible for our country's education system to develop young minds properly? What these parents are doing is telling their kids that, if they don't get the job done, then it isn't their fault, and someone will come to their rescue. In the real world, if you don't get the job done, you get fired.

There is a psychologically valid point here: failing grades in school is negative reinforcement aimed at getting kids to put the effort in to earn good grades. Without bad grades, parents don't discipline the kids. If the kids aren't disciplined properly, they don't develop good work habits. If they don't develop good work habits, they won't get anywhere in life. And then the country will be forced into communism because of the majority of idiots who don't know how to make anything of themselves.

This type of thing makes me sick. I say ordinary citizens should file lawsuits against these idiot parents for endangering the welfare of their own children.

It still amazes me that there are so many arrogant, inconsiderate, ignorant idiots in this country (mostly Democrats and their supporters) who continue to refuse to allow oil drilling in Alaska. I mean, a nuclear waste site in Nevada is acceptable if we look the other way, but drilling for oil 4,000 miles away? Never! And all because about twenty bears would be forced to walk down the ice a little. Good one, America.

Further down the road, Americans are going to lose their homes in favor of endangered or otherwise protected animals. Then we'll see just how far the animal rights movement will go, because it won't get much farther. Yes, sure, they are living creatures too, but we have to survive too, or preserving them is kind of pointless.