I would like to share with you an intimate secret of mine, something from the dark recesses of my mind that conflicts with some of my own personal philosophies (hence its secrecy), and which may surprise some of you, and not others (like, perhaps, Tony). I should say that my claiming it will be surprising, but that I actually believe it may not be.

You know how I have always said that money doesn't matter, money is overrated, etc.? Do you want to know why I have always said that? Because I know that, in only a matter of years, I am going to be making a shitload of money, and I don't want to sound like some greedy, arrogant bastard when I am richer than the rest of you. I know that I will be successful, and I know that arrogant rich people piss everyone else off.

So I planned from a very early age to mold my fiscal philosophies around the idea that wealth is not a social trait and has nothing to do with a person's worth, and from there I have concluded that money is overrated. Of course I still believe that; my philosophy has been so deeply ingrained into my mind that it can not be uprooted without years of contradiction (if there are enough years in one lifetime for that).

Despite that view, I also believe that, within the context of our capitalistic world economy, money definitely matters. And regardless of what you think, I will probably make more of it than you. Nothing personal. (Hint: get on my good side now, just in case.)

In case you're wondering what is my motivation for sharing this little secret, I'd kinda like to know as well. Maybe I just feel like it's time for me to take a ride on the ego train. After all, I need to pull something drastic to once again be comfortable with my self-worth. I need change. Not change that affects who I am, but change that affects how others perceive my ideas and how I relate to the real world. No matter what, I will still be the same ol' Paul McCord. But without that familiar rock to lean on, I have to do things my way ... or no way at all.

I choose my way, so get out of it.

Don't let my usage of the word "depressed" and its variants confuse you; "depression" is such a strong word. I'm not depressed. I'm moping. I'm feeling broken and dejected, so I'm sulking and brooding. I have "the blues", so to speak. But I am not depressed. Certainly, depression involves moping, but depression also generally involves the inability to concentrate, insomnia, and hopelessness.

Okay, so I'm feeling dejected, extremely sad, and I am occasionally unable to concentrate, but the more I talk to people about it, the less sad I am and the more I can concentrate. And while I was unable to sleep for the first week or so, I slept a full nine hours last night, and yesterday was a very rough day! And I am certainly not feeling hopeless. I have plenty of hope. I have hope that things will be mended, but more than that, I have hope that things will turn out the best regardless of the details, because it is my philosophy to believe such -- it's part of my belief in the causality of events; what happens was meant to be, and therefore regardless of any humanly opinions, it was best. (That kinda puts a new twist on things like the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and the Holocaust.)

Also, Claire, I want to apologize for anything I have said or will say that may be a bit too personal for your comfort. Further, I would like to apologize for anything I may say that may make it seem as though I am trying to change your mind. This is certainly not the case, but I want us both to be certain that the decisions we have made and will make will stand. I must be absolutely sure of the situation before I may adjust to it, and given our unsuredness of anything lately, I'm still a bit too confused to simply adjust.

Besides, I can't quit bad habits cold turkey... so how should anyone expect me to quit a good one?

I'm late because I'm sick because of stress. I'm so out of it that I just tried to leave my house without my books. Um, hello? School without books? What the hell? And damnit, why the hell can't I eat anything!?

This is really starting to piss me off, and if you know anything about me, you know I vehemently avoid getting angry. In other words, day one is not going so well.

I've decided that Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays are going to suck profusely. Originally, they were intended to be those wonderfully wide open days when I could sit back and relax so I wouldn't have to on the weekends (guess what I'd be doing then? oh, but wait, I can't...). Classes from 9:00-11:00, then freedom for a day! Freedom was great when I had certain securities. Now that I have none, freedom sucks.

And this is precisely why I have always advocated being rational instead of being emotional. Rational keeps you headstrong and positive; you guide yourself. Emotional changes you with the wind; the emotions guide you through a roller coaster of pain and happiness -- mostly pain -- that you can't control.

So we've basically traded her pretending and her guilt for my pretending and my guilt. I guess that's always the difference between the one that wants and the one that doesn't.

p.s.-- I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't be writing about this if my body would allow me to eat food. I wouldn't be so pissed off at the world if I could just go about my day as normal. My emotional state is currently fine, except that anything I eat goes through me faster than water, and that pisses me off and scares me. If this keeps up, as it has for the last three weeks or so, I'm going to begin thinking that there is something more wrong than simple emotional stress.

I feel dead from the neck down to my waist. My brain is functioning, my legs are moving, and I can feel the frustrations of being alone, and because of that, most of the rest of my body is refusing to function properly. Is there a way to simply switch everything back into cooperation mode? This emotional shit wouldn't be near as bad if it would just leave my body the hell alone.

The ultimate goal of technology is (or should be) to provide such efficient automation of tasks so as to reduce the cost of the employment of said technology in order to provide service cheaply for everyone -- in other words, to provide a good quality of life for all people, rich and poor. The idea is to limit the luxuries of life to luxuries, as opposed to including such things as food and education as "luxuries" in some parts of the world.

Naturally, if such a goal were ever achieved, there would still be complaints from the have-lesses who still believe that everyone should be "equal". I would rather advocate an effort-driven society in which everyone was granted the same quality of life, and any luxuries or differences would be a result of effort -- everyone gets the minimum good life, and hard work earns better. In other words, capitalism with a social backbone that works to support itself and its subjects.

So "life" is protected by government, "liberty" is achieved as the majority will would have it, and "the pursuit of happiness" is preserved and perfected by a combination of technology and an economic system with everyone in mind on an individual and collective basis.

A major problem with socialism, I have concluded, is that its practicality fades by the minute -- birth rates outweigh death rates nearly everywhere, and as more people pile into (or onto) our world, it becomes harder and harder to provide the social institutions to serve them. This allows for several doses of hypocricy from those who demand that government allows them greater opportunity for the sake of equality, but who also seize every opportunity out of capitalistic instinct in order to bring themselves higher than another (or, worse, in order to bring someone else down).

So the best possible solution for survival and a higher quality of living for those who survive is (coldly and harshly) the type of capitalism, or fascism, that promotes selfish tendencies and completely anti-socialist institutions. The type of every-man-for-himself systems that would certainly destroy entire nations by starvation and other harsh methods in order to provide better lives for those who can survive.

That is, that is the best possible solution if the world's population continues to grow. And, eventually, it will grow to the point that we will have no choice but to institute semi-totalitarian regimes in order to curb the afflictions of an overpopulated planet. Genocide will become common and necessary a few centuries down the road if we can not get a handle on ourselves and our varying cultures.

One trait that has to be diluted is the idea that any civilization, culture, regime, etc. is really any better than any other. That simply is not true. We have all spawned from the same origins at some point in our collective past, so it is unfair now to say that one is any better or worse than any other. We have simply followed different paths and been exposed to different experiences -- but we are all ultimately the same. We all want essentially the same thing: comfort and happiness with just enough activity on the side to keep us from eternal boredom.

Claire says I should write something philosophical like I used to do when we first got together. She gave me a good topic, but I can't really figure out a better alternative to the value system we generally refer to as "money". Sure, the system is flawed, but that doesn't mean something better exists in my head. I would have to think a bit harder and longer on the subject; I can't just generate something from nothing on any given topic on a whim.

Well, actually, I bet I could. But instead, I have spent the last hour or so reading all those things I wrote back in February 2001 to get a better idea of what she meant, and I have come to this conclusion: I wrote about all of those things because I had just gotten out of an English class in which my textbook was an introduction to Philosophy, and so I therefore had plenty of time to ponder in the various realms of philosophical thought. After so much of that, I basically settled on my views, and only when something is uprooted do I find it worth mentioning. However, as philosophy is an extremely valuable part of anyone's life (especially those who ignore it who need it most), I'll see what I can come up with here.

I have often thought of money simply as "the root of all evil", but through various other teachings, I have come to realize that evil doesn't exist; rather, it is the general lack of knowledge that promotes the existence of unfortunate circumstances which lead to, well, bad things. To that effect, I have also determined that money is not inherently a bad thing, but neither do I believe it to be the best possible solution to the problem either. And what is that problem? Why, establishing a standard measurement system for the values of goods and services for the purposes of exchange.

To begin, there must be an acceptable working definition of money. Simply put, as I would define it, money is a standard of value for measuring the relative worth of different commodities (goods, services, etc.). That is, money is a medium of exchange that is widely accepted as payment for said entities and in settlement of debts. As a medium of exchange and a measure of value it facilitates the exchange of goods and services. Without money, trade would be reduced to barter, or the direct exchange of one commodity for another.

The common understanding seems to be that barter was bad, and money is good. This can be true for several reasons, most obviously that a standard measurement of value indeed facilitates exchange, which facilitates productivity.

However, the problem I have with the concept of money is its conflict between relativism and absolutism (not to be confused with the philosophical or political terms). You see, money is a measure of relative worth -- prices of given commodities vary based on availability and relative demand, but the prices are absolute. The problem is that no commodity is worth the same price to two different people. For instance, I would buy X for $20, but Claire wouldn't buy it unless it were under a dollar. And then there is the matter of food and other necessities: people who can not even afford food are being shafted by a system that is supposed to standardize exchange. No matter how financially poor a person or family may be, I do not believe that they are putting so little into the world that they deserve not to be able to afford food.

(Timeout. The more I think about it, the more I think that my opinions regarding the problems of money reflect the inner humanitarian socialist in me. Rather than preach for a medium of exchange based solely on supply and demand, as the obediently conforming capitalist would, I preach for another factor to be considered: need.)

Despite the shortcomings of the money system to serve those at the bottom rung of the financial ladder, there is one huge advantage that prevents the overwhelming majority from giving a rats ass: it makes our lives simpler in many different ways. Instead of trading something that we already have for the next thing we want, we simply trade a few dollars. By extension of this, people are allowed to specialize their talents and therefore be more efficient as a society, rather than each individual attempting to be entirely self-sufficient (see footnote). As an indirect result, money subtly promotes greed and stinginess (anti-humanitarianism) -- or perhaps it is the other way around, that greed and stinginess promote the money system -- which is perhaps why capitalism has such a lousy reputation in Europe.

So where does that leave us when it comes to money? Money is intended to be a tool, not a possession. Money is intended to make life easier for all, not only for those higher up in the business world who come across more dollars than the rest of us. It should be their responsibility to see to it that those dollars reach the hands of those in lower positions. "All men are created equal", and those who are trusted with such responsibilities should feel obligated to fulfill their duties and not keep the gold for themselves. But, as I have suggested, the natural greed of man intervenes constantly, and the imbalances grow day by day.

Am I advocating socialism over capitalism? No. Am I advocating equality? Heck no! What I am advocating is a system in which the individuals of our society choose to allow needs-based transactions to take place; a system in which honesty and integrity are key, and dishonest and greed are punished handily. If all members of society can even make an attempt to meet this ideal, then whether it is reached or not, the medium ground will certainly be better than the wrongful imbalance we experience today.

I am not a Communist or a Socialist, but a Capitalist, and I recognize that in order for the individual to best serve his own interests, he must also partially serve the interest of his peers. By effect of reciprocity and expansion, the result would be tremendous -- a society built on individuals who voluntarily seek economic near-equality.

Despite the obviousness of the solution, there are two rather small problems that pose impossibly significant obstacles: the rich don't want to give up their high status, and the poor want to achive that status. This is not to say that such an improvement on the idea of money is impossible, but it is implausible. And regardless of what grand ideas come out now, by the very nature of civilization (especially as it grows), it will take a very long time before such ideas become widespread, and even longer before any are accepted.

Suffice it to say that the idea of money is flawwed, but in that it is better than previous systems for exchange, it is a good system. (Now if only we could rid the human race of its evil characteristics...)

Footnote. I have separate qualms about this. Because the conveniences provided by money virtually prohibit the self-sufficient lifestyle, people are essentially forbidden from abandoning the society in favor of living peacefully outside of it. This supports Rousseau's theory that "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains". We are born into a social contract, just as we are granted life, without the chance to choose the alternative. We are born into the system of conveniences provided by the money system, and therefore our freedom is limited from day one.

I can't be sure, but I think both Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg are liberals and/or typically vote Democrat (based on those rare political statements of the past, not to mention that big liberal club they're in). But like I said, I can't be sure. I can be sure that regardless of their politics, their stances on the Iraq issue are about as open-minded and vague as I've seen from anyone out of Hollywood. At least they make sense though. (Their thoughts, basically: Bush and his administration knows more of the current physical evidence than we do, and there is historical evidence that suggests that Saddam is quite a rotten apple. Not that they're going out on a limb to support Bush, but they aren't letting any political differences come between themselves and their opinions.)

I bet less well known actors or directors would be reproved or even mildly and indirectly punished by their fellows in Hollywood. I've read of several minor instances where a young Republican actor has been denied work in the industry. (Though the connection between political affiliation and acceptance/denial in Hollywood can not be proven, it is often suggested, and I think it's rather obvious when you consider that the only people in Hollywood ever to speak out against a Democrat or for a Republican are really big-name stars who can't be reprimanded.) Even Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg are likely to meet criticism of their views, just as Arnold Scwarzeneggar has met criticism of his over the years.

Warning: this is a mildly biased report. I have not mentioned any of the scores of Hollywood stars who have in recent weeks spoken out against Bush. Why? Because they always speak out against Bush (Actors' Guilds, Screenwriters' Guilds, labor unions, liberals), so it isn't really news. That said, it is news when someone "breaks rank" and comes out in favor of a Republican. (Notice, though, that there is no mention of any opposition to a Democrat. They'll never blast Gore or Daschle, but they'll accept Bush's policy as "ok" for now.)

Tom Daschle is being fitted for Al Gore's lockbox; it seems like Daschle is on the verge of self-destruction, and his hopes for a Democrat Senate next January 20 are fading. Between George Bush screaming for war and Al Gore screaming against it, Democrats in Congress (like Daschle) have no where to go. Support Bush, and you're a weak Democrat. Support Gore, and you're a weak American. Either way, Al Gore has once again positioned himself between what he selfishly wants (President Al Gore) and what he ultimately wants (any Democrat president). As today's Best of the Web notes, Gore's strong anti-Bush-isms are setting the stage for the Republican Revolution version 2.0 this fall.

Check out the Best of the Web; a lot of Democrats are concerned about the midterm elections as well. In fact, while on the subject of who's politicizing what, note this:

More than a dozen Democrats, who requested anonymity, have told The [Washington] Post that many [Senate Democrats] who oppose the president's strategy to confront Iraq are going to nonetheless support it because they fear a backlash from voters.

Even The New Republic, "which has fervently supported him in the past", has determined that Gore's speech "consisted of neither honest criticism nor honest opposition". I think of it this way: few Democrat politicians are honestly opposed to stopping Iraq now; they only say that to protect their jobs. And now that a strong Democrat voice (Gore) has come out vehemently against Bush's patriotic plan, the Democrats are going to have to make a decision. Either they all take Gore's side (and be perceived as anti-American), all take Bush's side (and be perceived as petty politicians and weak Democrats), or they face a split.

So no matter how you look at it, it seems like the Democrats are breaking up for the fall, and hopefully restoring Republican leadership in Congress -- at least for the short term.

Kelly Clarkson, who won a record deal by being the fan-favorite best on the surprising hit show "American Idol" this summer, broke the record for the biggest jump to #1 in the history of Billboard's Singles chart. Her new single, "A Moment Like This", displaced Nelly and Kelly Rowland from the #1 spot, which they had claimed for seven straight weeks previously (for your information).

This is absolutely a good thing. Despite the argument that it is obviously putting a great deal of attention on the entertainment industry and therefore distracting many from the substantive issues of life, the good outweighs that. Besides, if not on Kelly Clarkson, then the entertainment-driven of us would focus on some other pop sensation, or in a fit of boredom we would try to figure out who's connected to who based on present, past, and potential relationships. You see, at least Kelly Clarkson is making some headway. Now let me explain that.

First, the most obvious reason, given that it was the concept behind "American Idol": she is geniunely talented and deserves that which the industry can provide for her. Second, the next-most obvious reason, given that it was also a part of the show: the fans decided that she was the one to get the record deal, to record a new single, and hopefully launch a musical (and film?) career. Now, the implications: aside from the backdoors and loose ends that may have been crafted in Kelly's record "deal", the fact that Kelly was chosen by the fans is a direct hit to the foundation of the music industry's virtual monopoly over which artists are heard and which are not. Previously, musical talent was not as important as who heard it, in what mood they were in at the time, and how much of an investment they were willing to make for it. Perhaps Miss Clarkson is helping to knock down a door that will return the music to the musicians and the fans.

I suppose we'll see how all that turns out. I expect no significant breakthroughs any time soon, but maybe the economy and Internet will help to speed up the process a bit. In the mean time, there's always Kelly Clarkson's debut album and the "American Idol" compilation album coming up in the next few months. (See Billboard story.)

Prediction: the "American Idol" compilation album will sell very well.

I'm not going to get my hopes up, but this could be the big break Republicans needed to split the Democrats this fall. (The likely result, however, and the reason I won't get my hopes up, is that it will simply draw a distinct line between the Democrats and Republicans for the election; bringing war to Iraq will be the central issue that drives the midterm elections.)

But first, the truth of the matter: neither side politicizes anything, and both sides politicize everything. The paradox comes from the sad reality that everything can be treated politically, so everything is... and isn't. Sure it sounds illogical, but when was the last time logic worked for anyone in the political arena?

Just think of this as my way of not letting either the Democrats or Republicans "win" on this. Both being political parties, neither is going to take blame or credit for politicizing anything, but everyone knows that they all do it anyway. That's how the game works! That said, Tom Daschle should be made to look foolish for blasting Bush for something that every politician in America must do to get anywhere.

And Bush's comments, that the Democratic Party-controlled Senate was compromising national security, is the de facto opinion of the Bush administration, and one with which I agree. The only reason why the (Democratic) Senate opposes the war now but didn't in 1998 is because a Democrat was in the White House four years ago. Okay, so opposing the war isn't exactly "anti-American", and no American legislator deserves that label simply for being against the war, but there are similar labels that should and do apply.

I like watching political events like this unfold. Vote Saxby Chambliss in 2002!

Oops. Glancing through my file list, my eye caught one of my Metallica mp3s and I instinctively played it. There is nothing quite like the booming sounds of Kirk Hammett's guitar and Lars Ulrich's drums. I feel a Metallica binge coming on... Or, better yet, I should burn a CD that alternates between Lifehouse and Metallica! Rock on!

Little homework left to be done. My State & Local Politics class has reached political parties and elections; it's a fun topic for me. My Comparative Politics class is discussing France and its political history; it's entertaining in another way, in that things actually happened... Everyone should understand politics. We wouldn't be in this mess if they did!

If you are or know someone who worries that someone is abusing their privilege to use your computer, then perhaps IEBlocker is the solution. It essentially lets you control access to the Internet and local folders on the computer for every hour of every day of the week. Naturally, this could be painful if someone needs the computer for various reasons throughout the day, but if your motivation is to keep them active rather than sitting in front of the screen all day, then it's only a judgment call. (Don't get any ideas, Mom.)

I don't think (m)any concerned parents read my web page anyway, so that is all.

Hey, I have never said that Al Gore doesn't absolutely believe in the ideas he pushes; I only imply it. This time, he's telling America that George Bush's pushing for war with Iraq is making the world "more dangerous". Well, of course it is! War is always more dangerous than, um, non-war. But allowing a madman to continue his work without so much as a peep from the so-called peacekeepers of the world is quite a bit more dangerous, don't you think?

Hmm, you're right Al. We should have let Hitler rebuild his armies and develop nuclear weapons instead.

This is sad. Not only did the businessman understand almost exactly the problem with education in America, but he had nearly figured out some sort of workable solution. The sadness is that he almost willingly gave up his noble quest for better education because he couldn't figure out that children aren't blueberries. Children aren't blueberries! Good lord! How could someone not know that?! I mean, that's like not knowing that black and white are different... What the??!?! AHHH! That idiots actually believe this justifies upholding the current educational structure makes me want to scream.

(p.s.- If you don't read the story, this won't make any sense.)

Now this is my type of game show (see another article if you like)! Forget American Idol (which was one of the better ones in recent memory); Rupert Murdoch's latest show idea could impact the presidential election in 2004! The idea is that 100 candidates will "run" from the beginning of the show; subsequently, their numbers will be "whittled down" based on viewers' polls. The final episode will air around July 4, 2004, and will be an "American Candidate" convention, acting as the official nominating procedure for the winning candidate.

Forget political parties... Now we've got television to back up presidential fund-raising. This could be very good or very bad, but it will definitely be very interesting. Too bad I'm not eligible...

In potentially related news, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice says that "the US will be 'completely devoted' to the reconstruction of Iraq as a unified, democratic state in the event of a military strike that topples Saddam Hussein". Notice the implied ifs in that statement.

If the Atlanta Braves allow nine earned runs or fewer in the next ten games (or twelve earned runs if they make up that game against the Giants), they will finish the season with a team ERA under 3.00. That is rather unlikely given that teams will have to be shutout four or five times between now and then... unless, of course, a couple of Braves infielders volunteer an error or two in order to create unearned runs instead. But that isn't a good idea, because then you likely take John Smoltz's potential saves record away, and we can't have that!

Yay! Microsoft is attacking SPAM! Maybe my I'll only have to delete the piles of junk once per week now! (I have had the same Hotmail account for about seven years, so I guess my address is "out there".)

Whether true or not, this is a ridiculous claim to make given that there has only been one test subject and no way to prove any of the findings. The theory behind it is more interesting than the assertion.

UPDATE 01:40

Because the brain is the master interpreter of all experience, there is no way to determine whether the reality depicted by the brain is truly real or not. I mean, who am I to say that, just because my brain tells me that I am typing this, that I am really typing this. Maybe this is just my brain's interpretation, and I am really just a figment of some Matrix-like contraption / superimagination. Therefore, perhaps the question should be: Does the brain even exist?

That is, there is a gaping hole in the average environmentalist's argument, and I don't mean the one over Antarctica. You see, the conventional theory is that our ozone-depleting tendencies are only getting worse, but the new theory is that our restrictions phased in over the years have stopped most of the significant causes of ozone depletion, and in fact the ozone hole is expected to close within the next fifty years.

I don't suppose environmentalists want to go back to taking homes from the elderly because an endangered fish lives in a nearby pond...

On another note, I can't help but notice either bias or ignorance: Kelley Vlahos reports that both Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and Earl Hilliard (D-AL) lost their respective primaries in "stunning results". Umm, I'm not even going to question her reasoning behind it, which may be crossing a line between hate-mongering and slander, but what exactly made McKinney's loss stunning?! Everyone in Georgia knew she was going to lose! Well, except perhaps her strongest supporters. But, really, they could not have been that blind. We don't elect communists down here!

This is a different type of breakthrough. A new, medium-sized black hole has been discovered, the smallest ever discovered (by Earthlings, anyway). This makes perfect sense to me. I have often thought that all black holes have a minimum possible size based on how much matter is within its reach. Assuming it eventually pulls everything it possibly can within its reach, I would presume that, at that point, it becomes stagnant and essentially becomes the best representation of a black hole -- that is to say, it has actually become a black hole. Of course, we can never know this to occur, because by definition, black holes are invisible (they suck in light, so we can't see them). We can only see where they may be when they pass in front of some visible celestial object.

Because we don't know exactly how powerful the "suction power" (as I call it) of a black hole really is, there is no telling whether or not a black hole may reduce itself to the size of, say, a bowling ball. However, I have my own oddball theory that the universe "began" with a black hole "exploding" -- the big bang, if you will -- and will thus eventually "end" with the opposite occurrence -- the big crunch. Okay, so many others have probably arrived at this conclusion as well, but I arrived at it simply by my own understanding of the Big Bang Theory and of black holes, so I should get at least a little credit for that!

More:

Using the motion of stars within the clusters, the astronomers could determine the mass of the star groups and of the black holes. They found that the ratio of the mass of the black holes to the mass of the globular clusters was precisely the same as the ratio between supermassive black holes and galaxies. This suggests a neat, uniform universal truth that applies the same mass ratio to black holes of all sizes everywhere...

Well, isn't that convenient. If that turns out to be the case, it somewhat defends my vague arguments above. (I have guessed and wondered about such a ratio before, but I do not possess the knowledge to make any assertion about it with authority, so it was little more than a guess, and I don't think it ever made it into this space.)

"The new discovery may help astronomers answer a basic question: Which came first, galaxies or black holes?" --- Yeah, right. You're better off finding out whether the chicken egg came before the chicken. I would rather suggest that, since according to our natural laws, time can neither be started nor stopped and matter can be neither created nor destroyed (but switched around with energy), then perhaps it all has always existed in some form or another (which, of course, makes absolutely no sense based on our laws, religions, etc.). At some point, one might wonder, maybe all the matter in the universe was crammed into a tiny, energetic little black hole, and when it finally achieved its perfectly smallest size, it exploded. I said it this way some years ago:

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded.

Of course, if you're a creationist (which I consider myself to be, actually), then perhaps Douglas Adams said it best:

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Good ol' Douglas Adams...

I think I may be making an early return. I have not heard from any of the involved parties (i.e., Claire) today; my email has been down since early this afternoon, and we haven't talked on the phone or anything, but hopefully I won't get home to my email only to be shot down from my once-again-floating cloud. Well, let me just tell you how my day has gone.

I woke up in a miserable state, but I did not want to miss my Comparative Politics class -- it's my favorite one right now, so I went. Well, you know that stomach-in-your-throat feeling you get when you're sick or want to cry? Well, it got so bad this morning that I could not go to work. My stomach was weak, I was weak, and I could not stand even to meet at our discussion group -- and I'm one of the main talkers! Those groups are my favorite times of the week (when I don't see Claire, that is).

So I went home and felt like I could sleep, after getting no good sleep last night. It was going well, but then the painters showed up, and my dogs went nuts. Every time the dogs settled down and allowed me to get closer to sleep, the doorbell rang and I had to help out with something. I had called in sick to work, but I decided that I could not stay home and think to myself -- if I can't get to sleep, I have to get away from these walls that seem to be laughing at me.

So, having absolutely no one else to turn to, I went to my mom's office downtown, and I kept her from work for most of the final two hours of her day. We talked, and after getting more emotional than I've ever been around her, ever, I felt better. Moms are the ones that the sons never want to talk to, but it's amazing how much better you feel once you have.

On the way home, it started to pour down rain, which made perfect sense since our house was being painted today. And I could not help but laugh at the situation. Here we are, riding home in the rain, knowing our wet paint is about to run all over our house in the storm, and I'm laughing, because it feels so nice to have something bad happen that isn't as bad as what I'm going through.

Then the song on the radio. I caught the end of "The World I Know" by Collective Soul, and suddenly everything made sense again. I mean, things had already started to make sense, but the song helped so much more than the talk had, or maybe it was just the song coupled with the talking. Either way, something about this afternoon made things better. (I suppose the moral of this story is that, no matter what you're going through, there is always a song for it. The Bible and other significant inspirational works may have the framework of something to make you feel better, but songs are written by people who have been through it. There is a song for every situation, and I have found my song.)

Come to think of it, it might have just been the caffeine in my system again. (I hadn't had any since Sunday.)

Do you know all I have had to eat today is most of a small apple and about ten Burger King fries? I feel much, much better, but I am still not hungry. But that doesn't matter. I feel better again, and you're the first to know!

I realize now why my reaction has come as so much of a surprise to her. You see, I respond differently now to this pressure than I have to past pressures because, well, nothing in the past has actually bothered me. You people who did not understand how I could live a stress-free life -- well, I couldn't understand it either, but I was comfortable with everything I had, so I had no reason to let the little things bother me.

Well, this isn't so little. A huge chunk of my life is being ripped away from me, and I've never felt worse. Someone asked me today if my dog had died or something. I told them that I would actually be able to deal with that more easily. I wasn't even aware that I was portraying myself any differently at school, but people are noticing.

I'm trying to manage, but I don't know where I stand or how to deal with it. For the first time in my life, I have lost the one thing that mattered most to me. And I still can not comprehend why it should be that way.

I am actually physically ill over this. My body is so weak that I can not even hold food. I'm too tired to be awake, but too tired to sleep. I'm too weak to eat, but too hungry not to. Yet I must keep up with the typical activities of my daily life -- school, work, etc. -- and I have, out of sheer necessity. I do what I have to do, and it only makes things more difficult.

Why do bad things happen to good people?

Why am I, the always happy-go-lucky optimist, depressed?

I cried tears of sadness tonight for the first time in several years. I feel like I am at my breaking point. It's now or never, and conventional wisdom says "never say never"...

Here's hoping.

Now, I am taking the week off. Bye bye.

This must be said for clarification. The Florida terror-threat story that I reported on yesterday was loaded with inaccuracies that this Miami Herald report clears up:

Damnit! What did I tell you? Hysteria and profiling mangled a report and led to a grossly overexaggerated eight-hours of near-pointless news coverage. Ratings were through the roof for an entire day over something that deserved little more than a mention before the weather report. Ugh, Florida! Why can't we just push it off into the gulf? Getting rid of it and the other sunshine state would greatly reduce this country's problems... (We can all vote efficiently, and no more Berkeley!)

Well, it's an idea.

I have decided to take the week off. No web logging. You may be able to catch me on Instant Messenger from time to time, but I don't have the energy for this right now. Unless something unexpectedly significant happens, don't expect anything more than a little peep from me for the next week or two.

Hopefully, this funk will have passed by then. I just can not put affort into any of my arbitrary projects without knowing in what direction my life is going right now. As I figure things out, you will hopefully notice a change. I hope not for the worse, but I can't say that I feel all that great about anything right now.

Email me if you so desire. I don't mind communication. I just have nothing to say to myself that can make me feel any better. See you soon.

I still don't know what to think. I still don't know why, really. I hear what I'm told, but that doesn't seem good enough considering how perfect everything else was. She has all but acknowledged this. I know that things get difficult two-hours of highway separates us, but how does that make all the wonderful things so bad that it's worth this?

I've never felt so open. I've never felt so much emotion. I have little else to prove or to hide. I may not be that strong, but I'm not that weak. Whatever was wanted, whatever was had, whatever was lost, it wasn't enough. I understand that. That isn't what bothers me. That I don't understand why -- that hurts.

I have never heard of an easy long-distance relationship. Granted. But why should that make this one so easy to give up on? If something is worth hanging on to, you don't push it away. You force it closer. That means stern action and warnings, not vague clues and half-hearted attempts to persuade action through indirect means. Such has always been the problem on the other side of my relationships. No one has ever come forward with the problem, up close and personal, before it was too late. Granted, this time she tried, but she never made it so clear that any breaking point was near. She made it seem as though we were working through it, not working out of it.

I do not intend to present only a one-sided argument if the other side wishes to present itself. I understand that this is my web space, but the idea is not for it to be only what I think. If someone has something to say that matters to me, I will include it in this space if so desired. (I bet that would be an Internet first.)

This is funny:

This is funnier.

Bush will force Iraq into the civilized world, even if the U.N. won't. I like that. What I don't like is how Democrats acted like they weren't in support of it until the last possible minute to jump onboard (as opposed to being left behind). You see, they were in favor for the entire time, as were most (about 70%, and 70% are not Republicans) Americans, but they acted like they weren't so it would seem like they were being more cautious and therefore more pragmatic. Well guess what! They knew we were going in. They knew Bush had made the case. They knew, just a well as they knew in 1998, that Saddam Hussein posed a threat.

The Democrats don't pick issues; they simply respond to the Republicans. Republicans take stances, and then Democrats oppose the stances that the people, who really don't know a lot about how government works, didn't like, hence their reputation as the "people's party". I won't say that the Democrats are the ones screwing the people over, though, because all political parties do that. It's in their nature.

All in favor of party-free America, say I! Or better yet, make your own argument for or against it.

This isn't going to blow over well. Three medical students were on their way to Miami for medical training when they illegally drove through a toll booth on I-75. On the previous day, a restaurant patron felt uncomfortable around the medical students, who are each of Middle Eastern descent, and the students took advantage and turned the Georgian's prejudice into a very bad joke.

Thus, a very significant highway was shut down for about a day over a stupid, distasteful joke. This could have been avoided in several ways. The students could have paid the toll. The students could have ignored the derisive actions, comments, or glances from the idiot Georgian. The idiot Georgian could have kept his idiot thoughts to himself.

In any case, the three medical students should be treated no better or worse than any other idiot drivers who run through toll booths. They have already been detained, so fine them and let them get on with their lives. That the whole thing was blown way out of proportion is only a result of misunderstanding and idiocy, and we can't punish them for that just because they're also Middle Eastern.

I write this only because I anticipate a mess of opinion articles in the next few days about how these three should be punished more severely than simply being fined for a traffic violation. My argument against this: they didn't shut down the highway; the authorities did. And if I read one stupid thing that I even hinted at not wanting to see here, it will be blasted. (Do not send me links. I'd rather not see it.)

I meant this one (subject to change): Our Lady Peace - Gravity - 07 - Not Enough.mp3

Given that "Not Enough" is track seven, I wonder if that means I'm supposed to go on to track eight. I don't think so, but you be the judge.

I was only able to read a few of my friends' online September 11 tributes on Wednesday, and I was unable to attend my own school's memorial because I had to work, but what few memorials I did see were moving. My own was meant to be nothing special -- just a reminder of what we've been through and how we have changed over the course of a year.

I bring this up because, after this September 11, I feel guilty because I feel like September 11, 2001, is nothing, simply because what happened last year did not directly affect me in any significant way. What happened this September 11 attached itself to me and has not left me; I have been carrying its weight and working to accept its reality.

Damnit. As you might have guessed, the music stopped playing. Someone turn off the self-pity mode. I think I need to be slapped. Tomorrow night ought to make better sense of the situation (and turn my sulking around). Another friend who lost his girlfriend earlier in the week is coming over, and we plan to celebrate our newfound singlehood (under harsh circumstances, as the case may be) and sulk, or whatever the alcohol leads us to. If you know who he is, you'll probably know why this is an extremely ironic, coincidental, and funny (though not to the two of us) situation. Even I grin when I think about it.

Noise Therapy - Tension - 12 - Standing in the Dark.mp3

On Tuesdays and Thursdays at 12:15 (or lunch time, or immediately after 11:00 classes, or whenever you can show up if we're still there), a small group of political minds gather in the Macon State College cafeteria to discuss. To discuss what? Um, anything that comes up. Usually, we keep this limited to politics, religion (morality), history, and other related subjects. But once our professors take off, the remaining of us (usually Kristi, Victor, and I, though we picked up four more this last Thursday) discuss all sorts of things... How can Coruscant (city-planet in Star Wars universe that is so populous that the entire surface of the planet is hundreds of stories of developed urbania) avoid collapse, especially if, for instance, a drunken Han Solo were to crash the Millennium Falcon into one of the stronger foundations of the city-planet's structure(s)? Or how is Kristi's sex life (she loves to share)? Or why hasn't Paul cheated on Claire yet (because I would never; Kristi likes to joke)?

Last Tuesday's meeting was probably the best one we have had this semester, though Thursday's was pretty darn good. We started off with our typical debates over American political ideologies, the war on terror and Iraq, and the fallacies of religion. When Dr. Tate left, we moved on to more important things: Kristi decided that my sex life was the optimal topic for discussion. I debated, but soon found that I had little to no choice, despite Victor's insistent pleading with Kristi.

I can not remember many of the details of the discussion, but essentially Kristi thought it was a horrible idea that I should restrict myself to one person who was over two hours away. Victor and I respectfully disagreed. It kept two pressures off: time management, which is difficult enough without seeing her five nights a week, and womanizing, one of the most stressful activities on earth, even if it is fun.

So Kristi began to push the idea, half in jest, that I should cheat on my girlfriend, and she was shocked that I hadn't already. Quite simply, I would never allow myself to do that; my personal moral standard is too high for that, although I probably would not have even flinched if I had been cheated on. (In fact, I have been cheated on, and I didn't flinch. I didn't care. I think monogamy is a bit unnatural and unhealthy, but when that is the agreement, it should be respected.)

The conversation continued. I explained how I could not even talk to another girl if it was not academically motivated, simply because I didn't want anyone to even get the impression that I could be available. Not only did I not want the pressure, but I was happy with what I had, and I was hoping to be able to concentrate on school in order to provide the most for us once I graduate.

Come Thursday's post-discussion, all that was thrown out the window. After about thirty seconds of "Aww, are you okay?", which I told them to stop before someone got hit, because I really am okay, okay? So let's just move on to what happens next. So immediately Kristi jumped in: "Hey, you're single now!"

Why yes, yes I am. And I don't know quite what to think of that. On one hand, I have plenty of time to get my work done. On the other, now I don't feel motivated to do any of the work. I'm perfectly comfortable with a barely-there kind of existence, as long as I have my few toys and comforts. I don't need elegance or style. Why aim for what I don't need? Ah, someone once said. Because then everyone who once thought you weren't good enough could be proven wrong, and would suddenly regret their past dealings with you. Someone forgot; I am neither spiteful nor vengeful, so remind me again... What's my motivation?

The irony of the situation is that I essentially reaffirmed my absolute devotion to Claire, even if I couldn't be there to provide a security blanket for her at UGA, just a day hours before she decided that I wasn't providing enough. (Well, presumably she came to that conclusion long before, and I apparently continued to reaffirm it.)

All I can say is this: I was perfectly comfortable with the situation. I didn't like not having her around, having her so far away, but it did allow me to focus most of my efforts on school, which comes out of my pocket. It allowed me to do that without thinking about other girls and without compromising school time for her time and vice versa. Life was flowing perfectly steadily; I was in cruise control.

I suppose that's a good argument for reading the signs, especially in potentially dangerous situations. Cruise control may be comfortable, but you can't just cruise through a stop sign and expect to get away with it. Of course, one can not absolve the rare occasion that the sign was (partially?) obstructed or not even there in the first place.

Too many variables. Again with the thinking. Where's my music?

Janet Reno has learned from Al Gore's mistake, but I can't help but think that the reminder of Election 2000 is only hurting everyone involved, probably mostly Governor Jeb Bush. Still, I would rather have a good governor and a buggy election system than a great election system and a horrible governor. Bush in 2002! Er, I don't live in Florida, so I don't really care. I just never liked Reno. (So maybe if she loses the recount, I'll be okay.)

I have temporarily abandoned instrumental music (film, techno, etc.) in favor of loud, agressive, hard rock. I have recently purchased new CDs by Audiovent and 30 Seconds to Mars, and I am currently listening to Noise Therapy. Others that I have been mixing in lately include, but are not limited to, Project 86, 3rd Strike, Blindside, Born Naked, and 12 Stones. (Some older albums or bands include Tool, Diffuser, Linkin Park, Flaw, and Unwritten Law.) I have also downloaded Disturbed's new album, and it's as good as I expected it to be, which means I will purchase it soon after it hits Best Buy's shelves.

Movie scores are incredibly relaxing and encourage silent reflection, but after the last two days, I don't want to have free time to think -- I want to hear someone else's message so loudly that I am given no chance to think about whatever my mind settles on. I feel like I'm better off that way, at least for the short term. Internal reflection is healthy and good, but I have had enough of it, and it isn't getting anywhere. It doesn't change anything. But I do have plenty of time on the weekends now to hear all those bands that I didn't have time to hear before.

I think the best thing about most of the hard rock that I listen to is that the music exudes an aura of self-reliance. I can feel the negative emotion, while the lyrics emphasize a certain individualistic optimism. In other words, it's the best music in the world to turn emotions from negative to positive.

I have also bought a few more DVDs recently. I finally purchased Red Planet, and I have received from DVD Empire my shipments that have included the first two Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies (for sentimental reasons), Good Will Hunting (the wrong version, so I sent it back and I'm still waiting), the "24" first season set (shipped this morning), and the Eagles Hell Freezes Over concert (finally!). I also picked up The Professional, which (I had no idea) is also one of Natalie Portman's early films. Come to think of it, Tony has probably told me this several times...

Finally, I think I am about to buy an Area-51m from Alienware. I am customizing mine, but most of the default settings are untouched. I am removing the optional laptop bag, the retro gaming package, and the automated support. I am adding a Lunar White Internet Keyboard and an IntelliMouse Explorer. I am upgrading to Windows XP Professional Edition, and I am considering purchasing Office XP Professional. Currently the price is just over $2500.

Some of its default features include: 15" UltraXGA 1600x1200 LCD, four USB ports and one IEEE 1394 port, a laptop carrying case, and a personalized owner's manual and user's manual. Sure, this looks expensive, and it is, but it is a far better value than I could get anywhere else. And so I'm spending about $500 more than I would anywhere else; if I went anywhere else, this same machine would cost $1500 more. Besides, this will last me several years. All I need to do is allocate the funds.

And the most significant news, though I don't know how to take it yet: I'm single for the first time in exactly two years! (Dalila and I got together on September 11, 2000. We broke up the day before Claire and I got together. That ended September 11, 2002. Two years!) In other words, I have forgotten how not to have a girlfriend, and I had grown very comfortable with the one I had. Adjustments are pending. Life continues.

And so does work! Time to go!

Hah. Donald Rumsfield is caught borrowing from Abe Lincoln, and Al Gore's son is in trouble (again). News can be so entertaining sometimes.

One like myself can not help but wonder if there is any weight to the argument that Iraq would teach US a lesson if attacked. I believe that any war involves lessons to be learned, but that isn't to what Tareq Aziz is referring. The problem is, no one but he and a few Iraqis know to what he refers, and I personally believe that it is an empty threat that is supposed to instill doubt in America's cause. In that case, it's working. But I have a feeling that we're still coming anyway. All Saddam has to do to prevent an invasion is

scrap his biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs and stockpiles; end support for terrorism; cease persecution of the civilian population; free or account for non-Iraqi citizens missing since the 1991 Gulf War; and end all efforts to circumvent UN economic sanctions.

All I really know is that Iraq poses a serious threat to the United States, and the United States poses a serious threat to Iraq. The two are going to arrive at a solution, and one or both of them must choose how. Ideally, everything would be settled reasonably peacefully. But peaceful diplomatic solutions are unlikely on this planet.

Though it really has no effect on how the world spins, more people than usual are suddenly interested in my life. I'll tell you why. Here's the short, short version, and there aren't any other versons: Claire broke up with me Wednesday night. It hurt. I'm fine. Don't send me pity or hope that I'm better or any of that. I just said I'm fine. Things happens, we adjust, repeat. Despite perception, this is no different. It happened. I'm adjusting. Pretty soon it will just be another memory.

Keep in mind that I am unusually optimistic and grieve for a very short period of time over anything bad that happens. September 11, 2001, kept me grieving for a few weeks (in the form of anger). I expect that this should last substantially less time, though it has hit much harder, mostly because it directly involves me and the closest person to me, excluding immediate family.

People who don't know me interpret me rather poorly when they say that I am a cold, non-feeling, non-caring individual. This is far from the truth. But unlike so many of you whiners, I choose to keep my personal, hurtful feelings largely on the inside. Why? Because a happy person is more likely to keep happy relationships. Whoever said I don't grieve was wrong. I just keep it to myself, and I don't allow it to control my life.

Breaking news as I type this... I'm going to see Creed in Portland on October 17. My sister won tickets through a radio show, and I just bought a plane ticket to go out there and visit. Nothing like my favorite band to bring us together again... It's a good thing the concert is during Fall Break, because I can not afford to miss school at that point during the semester.

Maybe this was the good thing that was supposed to be coming to me. (I know something great happened in the winter and then the spring, or the spring and then the summer, and either way something good was supposed to happen sometime soon. Seeing Creed and getting back in with my sister would be good. And it's progressive, since the good thing in spring was meeting Mark Tremonti, Creed's guitarist.)

I want to be mean, or at least not nice, but I can't be anything other than nice. Why is that?

Sometimes you just have to appreciate Linux geeks. Thanks for the Link, Tommy.

No matter how much "evidence" there is to support otherwise, you can't deny the meer suggestion of supernatural intervention sometimes. Like, for instance, last night's New York Lottery (the game similar to Georgia's Cash 3 Lotto), using it's same protocols for randomness as always, picked the numbers 9, 1, and 1. Of all days of the year, why September 11? How many millions of New Yorkers do you think bought a 9-1-1 lottery ticket yesterday? And can you imagine the investigation now trying to prove that the other nine balls in each machine weren't unfairly weighted? (Actually, I will be rather pissed to find out that they were.)

Okay, so this isn't overly significant news, but it is a little eery. And then there's the question: is anything ever really random?

I have changed my mind. More important things have come up than interpreting news. I'll put it this way: September 11 has a very bad track record.

Enjoy the changes I have made to the page. I planned an explanation of what I've done and what my future plans, but I was significantly side-tracked. I'll get back to it when there is time.

Don't worry, I don't expect to be gone long.

Please use this day to reflect on your values, your passions, your friends and family, your life. Acknowledge things lost and things gained, and use that knowledge to guide your future. Don't get in the way of your own hopes and dreams; dare to achieve greatness! Tolerate differences, show respect for your peers, and never forget who you love and who loves you. Most of all, take a look at yourself and be proud: you're the only one! We are all beautifully alike yet beautifully similar. Let's remember that.

That is all for today. I will resume posting randomness as usual tomorrow.

A man "struck" a woman with his vehicle and dragged her several feet before she dropped to the ground. He sped off, striking another vehicle, presumably after realizing what had happened. This occurred outside of a Los Angeles radio station where Justin Timberlake was giving an interview; apparently a "crowd" had gathered for him. When I first saw the headline, I thought that, Timberlake as popular as he is, the word "crowd" meant hundreds or even thousands. But according to the Sacramento Bee, there were only "about two dozen". Now I can understand hitting a person in a crowd of hundreds or thousands, but with only "about two dozen", there is no excuse. Add alcohol to the mix, and this guy deserves considerable jail time.

Now the argument is going to be over how much.

Meanwhile, there are more important matters. Iraq is vaguely urging attacks on Americans. I say "vaguely" because there are no direct quotes of direct urging from Iraqi officials; the urging is implied or interpreted. Still, it's pretty powerful. Also, an "Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera broadcast more excerpts of a videotape on Tuesday in which a male voice attributed to Osama bin Laden can be heard naming all nineteen September 11 hijackers". Among other things, the voice "lavishly praised" the terrorists "for their piety".

At the very least, these two articles prove that neither Saddam Hussein nor Osama bin Laden should be left alone. They are both dangerous leaders who pose a significant threat to the United States in particular and Western cultures in general. I can not tell you that we have proof that Saddam and Osama are in league, so I may not be able to justify furthering America's war efforts against either Iraq or al-Qaeda, but it is justified in my mind.

I don't think of myself as a heathen; I believe in the God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam. I just think that all three of those religions are partially right and partially wrong, mostly because each is essentially a different branch of the same religion, thanks to different turns taken at forks in the road of history. The fault that they all share, in my opinion, is that they are all self-righteous despite acknowledging that man is fallable. The Church, being an institution of man (even if its purpose is higher), is therefore fallable, and so individual men should pursue their own paths to God.

Relevance: The Church has no business in affairs of state. See U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1.

...or maybe 69% of the American people aren't convinced to obstruct the President and follow some punk Senator who wants to be President!

That was Rush Limbaugh this afternoon, bashing Tom Daschle for saying that "the American people aren't convinced" that the case has been made for invading Iraq. A New York Times poll, on the other hand, has shown in recent days that 68% of the American people are behind Bush's call for action! Even with a margin of error of 10% (which is much larger than the actual margin of error could be), almost three-fifths of the country would be in favor of attacking Iraq. Sorry Dasshole, you lose.

Of course, there is no such thing as a New York Times article that supports any Republican. Even the headline of this article, which admits that 68% of the population is in favor of attacking Iraq, cites "unease on terror fight and concerns about war on Iraq". Bullshit! The question asked was very specific and was loaded in order to provide a majority of "NO" answers, and an overwhelming majority still said "YES"! The question:

Do you approve of the U.S. taking military action against Iraq to try to remove Saddam Hussein from power?

By adding "to remove Saddam Hussein from power" to the question, the New York Times added a few percentage points more to the "NO" answers from people who may support attacking Iraq, but not ousting its leader (or from those who may support removing Saddam, but not directly attacking the Iraqi nation). Add that to the 8% who were undecided, and it's a runaway vote. Iraq is our next target, and the UN's time is almost up.

AIM conversations can be fun.

Obviously, though, there is a conflict in my preaching for moderation and toleration if we can not tolerate the imperfection of our system, your critics will say. Hey, I never said things had to be perfect. But damn you all if none of you even try to make things better.

Tony and I also came to the conclusion that it is illogical to be either a Democrat or a Republican, unless you're at one of the socio-economic extremes. That is, the financially less fortunate are generally Democrats while the financially well off are generally Republicans. Any one between the extremes, however -- and that includes just about everyone -- really has no good reason to be a Democrat or a Republican (except that "logic fails in the real world"). You see, "Democrats want your money, and Republicans want your privacy". Or as I would put it, I'm hoping to discover a compromise between the Thought Police and the Morality Police.

There is really only one major issue separating the two parties in America, and all other differences are resultant of it. Democrats believe that greedy capitalists' abuse of the economy while the poor suffer is worse, while Republicans' believe that the poor suffer because of their lack of financial discipline (resultant of abuse of welfare institutions) and that is worse. Other minor differences, such as Democrats' favoring expanding bureaucracy and Republicans' favoring deregulation, are only side-effects of the first. And while I can never be either and will always be neither, for reasons previously explained, I lean closer to the Republicans than the Democrats.

The only logical position to advocate, therefore, is to be independent or, if one must choose party politics over individual politics, libertarianism (which is the strongest advocate of everything I wrote about in the previous post). I think Tony is opening up to that. I should probably start correcting people in our political discussion group at school who refer to him as an "ardent Republican".

Any quoted material in the previous paragraphs was spoken/typed by Tony DiLascio. They're his words, so if you feel like you must refuse them, give him credit.

I have arrived at some temporary solutions to problems regarding political philosophy in the real world. For the most part, the debate over the ideal political philosophy has been narrowed down to two choices: socialism and capitalism. I agree with this. However, blending in with that debate my own conviction that toleration and moderation are the keys to success in any situation, I have concluded that there are, for purposes of this discussion, two types of political philosophies, and each is best served by a compromise between socialism and capitalism.

Individual Political Philosophy. I believe there can be no question that individualism is the political philosophy that best serves the individual. By its definition, which follows, one can see that individualism advocates effort and responsibility as a price for freedom. If all individuals in any given society earnestly tried to be productive for themselves (and/or their family, business, country, etc. -- whatever serves the individual's interest), the result would be an emotionally and materially prosperous society, as well as free and secure.

One should note that the inherent selfishness of individualism is not the same type of selfishness as the typical, derogatory form, characterized by a general disregard for anyone but one's self. Rather, the selfishness of an individualist with a solid moral foundation -- which is best achieved if the individual's peers, serving their own interests, influence such a moral foundation -- is characterized by an awareness of one's role individually and as part of the collective. In other words, a morally sound individualist can never be a "greedy, back-stabbing capitalist" unless unfairly coerced.

Collective Political Philosophy (or social political philosophy). Just as individualism is the political philosophy that best serves the individual, collectivism is the political philosophy that best serves the collective. (Branches of collectivism include socialism and communism, derived from "society" and "community", respectively, and thus implying their interests in serving the collective rather than any individual or groups of individuals.)

The virtues of collectivism arise from its noble intentions; collectivist aim to level the playing field in order to improve the quality of life for the less fortunate. However, by the definitions of individualism and collectivism above, one can immediately recognize conflicts which can cause and have caused significant struggles between advocates of individualism and collectivism. The most significant conflict arises when the collectivist attempts to redistribute previously earned wealth (material or otherwise) into the hands of the less fortunate. While the collectivist's intentions are noble, so is the capitalist's conviction that his wealth as earned as his to serve his interests in his way. The problem is that the collectivist believes that wealth should be no one's and everyone's, and that it should be used to serve the collective interest in the most equitable way.

It is important to note the difference between the concepts of equality and equitableness. To reduce two objects to equality would mean to shape them exactly alike. To reduce two objects to equitableness would mean to reduce them to similar forms with subtle, but acceptable, differences that allow no advantage of either over the other. In this context, then, equitableness is congruent with fairness.

It is important to understand this difference, or else the intentions of collectivism may be grossly misunderstood, as they have been since the ideals of communism were first put into righting. Collectivism and its sub-philosophies promote equitableness, or fairness, not equality. A collectivist, socialist, or communist does not want to reduce all individuals on earth to a single, molded form. Rather, the collectivist wants to reduce the inequities created by capitalism in order to provide equal opportunities -- of education, of wealth, of all things noncultural -- to everyone.

The problem, naturally, is that the wealthy do not wish to donate their good fortune for such a noble cause, because it would be a drastic reduction in the quality of their lives. Regardless of how "fair" it would be once equitableness is attained, it would never be "fair" to those who once were wealthy, who had given up their wealth in order to be a commoner.

Ah, the solution. Granted, I am only twenty years old and have not had the time nor have I put in the effort to thoroughly research these topics, but I understand the concepts well enough, and I think I may be on to something. The solution, as I stated above, is merely a result of the application of moderation and toleration to the diametrically opposite political philosophies of individualism and collectivism (or capitalism and socialism, if you will).

In order to reduce to conflicts between the individual interest and collective interest to a minimum, the individual must be an individualist with a healthy respect for the collective, and likewise the collective a healthy respect for the individual. The individual must be able to pursue promotion, but the collective must offer no preferential advantages to any particular individuals or groups of individuals.

Call it collective individualism, or merit-based socialism, or something in between. But know this: in order for such a philosophy to represent its own best interests, the greatest autonomy must rest with the individual, and the collective interest must allow individual freedom only to the limits at which it would encroach on the health of the collective.

To find an example of such a system established, read the "Declaration of Independence", The Federalist Papers, and The Anti-Federalist Papers. In those documents lie the foundations of federalism, the only form of government which allows for the perfect balance of individual and collective interest.

Only through federalism may the tenets of liberalism truly be followed in an equitable fashion, so as best to serve the individual, the collective, the world.

One does not have to agree with the social motivations of a "Labour Party" in order to like its leader; Tony Blair is very likable, if for no better reason than he stands in the way of European anti-Americanism and asserts, fearless of the political ramifications, that something must be done about a growing threat in the Middle East. From the Opinion Journal (one of the best political journals out there):

The Prime Minister echoed Mr. Bush's point that "doing nothing . . . is not an option for the United States" and that much European criticism is "just straightforward anti-Americanism." So much for the argument that the U.S. will have to "go it alone. . . . As Mr. Bush said [Wednesday, September 4], "today the process starts." It shouldn't stop until Iraq's people and the world are liberated from Saddam's terror threat."

For further information on the "case" to come (the case to bring war to Saddam's back yard), read the Opinion Journal article.

Also, James Taranto verbally slapped Bill Clinton up-side the head on Friday, calling his idea to finish Osama before going after Saddam not just "dovish -- it's cuckoo". Think about this:

If Clinton means more generally that total victory over al Qaeda should be a prerequisite for an attack on Saddam, then his proposed policy would give the Iraqi dictator a powerful incentive to offer aid and comfort to al Qaeda. It's almost as bad an idea as the notion that America must first resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict before it can move against Saddam.

Good idea, Bill. Why don't we just send them beds to sleep on. Read more of Taranto's remarks concerning Daschle's bad policy critiques and Berkeley's bad policy decisions, and gobs of other useful information. James Taranto's Best of the Web has to be one of the best blog out there, even if it really isn't one.

I don't suppose this helps to build a case against Iraq, does it? It seems that we were right all along; Saddam Hussein has stepped up Iraq's nuclear and chemical weapons development, and we've thusfar only been able to slow it down. Across the puddle, the British are prepared to fight with us even if the United Nations is against military action.

As further evidence that nuclear violence was and is in the interests of those unfriendly to the United States, it has been reported that al-Qaeda planned to fly hijacked jets into nuclear installations, not the symbollic landmarks of Washington DC. It is understood that they "decided against the attack on nuclear power plants 'for the moment' because of fears it could 'get out of control'." The article linked to here spells out al-Qaeda's plan for what is now known simply as "September 11".

As it turns out, it seems that Osama didn't know that September 11 was the day until the previous Thursday.

In order to cut back on commercial email spam, the Federal Trade Commission is encouraging us all to forward our spam to them!

Among other things, the lead argument is that "Spammers should be required to identify themselves properly, make their pitches honestly, and honor consumer requests to be removed from their contact lists... as telemarketers are already required to do." An immediate red flag pops into my mind: once the federal government starts securing the Internet, they have a legitimate argument to tax it. I would still never agree to it, simply for the sake of keeping the Internet free of federal taxation, but the expression "no taxation without representation" would be taken care if the the FTC began to represent our interests by seriously going after spammers.

A clearly defined set of rules would give the FTC more tools for enforcement, let marketers know what was acceptable, and inform consumers of their rights, the consumer groups said. The FTC encourages consumers to forward any spam they receive to the e-mail address uce@ftc.gov. Consumers can support the consumer groups' petition and swap horror stories at a Web site set up for the purpose at www.banthespam.com.

Just remember, allowing for a clearly defined set of rules and federal government enforcement of those rules just takes us a step closer to Internet taxation. In that case, perhaps we should instead look to the open source community (that's programmers, coders, hackers, etc. -- the good guys) to develop new methods of avoiding spam. Such programs as DeadAIM for AOL's Instant Messenger and ZeroPopup for Internet Explorer block the ads in those two widely used applications. I'm sure that, given attention and support, programmers could develop filters to block ads and spam from everything else under the sun as well.

Naturally, neither the industries nor the government wants that, because when we can do things for ourselves, they don't directly get our money. Aww...

Or have they simply recognized a bad political tactic? Al Gore is still popping up in the news on an almost weekly basis, but you don't hear anyone complaining that he should be our president anymore. Aside from the obvious, legal, reasons, I would like to suggest another reason why we don't hear such anti-Bush complaints any more: Americans are very much relieved that they elected George W. Bush. (Ah, the wisdom of hindsight!)

If you look back and read some of my Election 2000 posts -- it's hard to believe that that was two years ago -- you might find that I didn't much care who won the election. In fact, I did not even vote because neither candidate had won me over, and at the time I did not believe that either would really be a better president than the other. After a few short weeks in November and December, however, I was very much disappointed that I had not voted for Bush.

Add to that two years of concentrating on current events and American politics, and Bush is a no-brainer choice over Al Gore. Bush understands the economy, a rarity among politicians these days, while Gore understands the need for greater social amd economic reform, an obstruction of the market economy and of individual autonomy.

Okay, I can deal with the reality that all presidents receive high approval ratings in the early going -- it's a natural side effect of being a charismatic politician. Bill Clinton was a master of earning the people's good graces, despite not knowing how to run a country and having a communist ogre for a wife. They presented themselves in public and in speeches as if they really cared, and the people loved it. Bill only wanted the spotlight; Hillary only wanted Bill's job. Thanks to Bill's relative incompetence, Hillary essentially had it for eight years, and now she wants to steal it back. And steal it she will, by threatening us with lies about the Republican Party.

I have confidence in my country. I am proud to be an American. I don't think we will elect Hillary Clinton in 2008. If we do, I will feel like leaving the country, but as an American who actually understands how our government works, I would never actually consider such a thing. Despite that our lives are getting worse as socialism gradually cripples our Constitution, the United States of America is still one of the best places on earth to live. I wouldn't leave unless I had to.

But please don't elect Hillary Clinton. I'd much rather see Al Gore.

Scary thought. Tom Daschle may not be after the President's job. He may be after the Vice President's job, playing second-in-command to President Clinton. Or Clinton could be Daschle's VP. They could theoretically be in office for sixteen years if whichever is VP stepped up when the first's presidental terms expire. Isn't that a nightmare?

I'm not sure what I should think about the Middle East Media Research Institute. I would suppose that it is somewhat similar to our own Media Research Center, but having only a limited knowledge of the Middle East and Middle Eastern politics and media, I can only take it at surface value.

Still, there is a lot of interesting reading over there, including criticism of Iran's press comparing Americans to Nazis. Perhaps my even mentioning that is a bad idea in America; I don't know how far our freedom of speech goes any more, but in a time of war, I would hope that no American would be dumb enough to call his countrymen Nazis or his leader Hitler. I'm sure that obscenity laws can apply somewhere...

My point is that you should probably avoid reading snippets from the Iranian or Iraqi press, even if they are being criticized, simply for the worry that they may make some kind of antithetical sense to some Americans -- even you. We don't need to corrupt our own minds with the didacticism of the enemy.

Who you gonna call? George Dubya!

Libya has not historically been friendly to any United States cause, and now they're developing weapons of mass destruction and forging alliances with such nations as Saudia Arabia. According to Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Libya is receiving help from Iraq, Pakistan, and North Korea (among perhaps others) to develop missiles and other weapons.

However, other signs are pointing to a nation grown up. Libyan ruler Moammar Khaddafy seems to be moving away from terrorism in hopes of reconciling with the United States and the West. "'In the old days, they called us a rogue state', Khaddafy said in a speech on national television last week. 'They were right in accusing us of that. In the old days, we had a revolutionary behavior'."

I only have limited experience with and knowledge of the social sciences, but usually one of two things when one accepts accusations regarding his past. He has either recognized the err of his ways and has grown up, or he has recognized that giving people what they want to hear might get him what he wants.

With the relative instability of the region right now, I don't know what to think, except that this could hurt Bush's chance of making that unnecessary "case" for war on Iraq. With a (former?) terrorist-sponsor attempting to clean up its act yet still holding alliances with others whom we are sure have aided terrorists, it would not be a good idea to suddenly throw their region into uproar. One alliance could lead to another, and we could easily turn a new friend back into an old foe.

So you see, all this does is feed the idealist, anti-war ideologies that are against a United States unilateral attack. Well, maybe they are ultimately right, but in the event that none of us actually knows the truth about moral rights and wrongs when it comes to war, I'm going to rely on conventional wisdom based on historical analysis -- allowing a nation or nations to continue development of more potent weapons than ever before like letting someone take a smoke break in a coal chamber.

That's right; you don't want to do that.

Certain types of manure used to be transported by ship (like everything else). In dry form it weighed a lot less than when wet, but once seawater hit it, it not only became heavier, but the process of fermentation began again, of which a byproduct is methane gas. As it was typically stored below decks in bundles, you can understand what could (and did) happen. Methane would build up below decks, and the first time someone came below with a lantern...

Several ships were destroyed in this manner before the cause was discovered. After that, bundles of manure had to "Ship High On Transit", or "S.H.I.T." as it was abbreviated, which meant high enough on ths ship so that any water that came into the hold would not touch this volatile cargo.

Bet you didn't know the history of that word. And I always thought it was derived from Old English.

From an email that I sent to my dad:

The only consoling ideas I have left are that logic never works in the real world, and new ideas are bred all the time. Sooner or later, new philosophies will develop, probably too late, that could save the world one society at a time. Of course, if we fail with that, then we have two options: what I mentioned above, or kaboom.

I would rather be a Winston Smith than a savage. Then again, I would rather be an enlightened dissident perceived to be a savage than a Winston Smith.

Matt has decided to ditch AIM for a while. I can't blame him. When you have things to do but you need to be online in case [insert important person here] shows up, connecting to AIM can be a waste of time and a royal pain in the ass. Especially if you have about 150 buddies on your list like I do, in which case you are subject to being bombarded by about ten IM's at once, which isn't good for Windows 4.x.

So I inadvertently developed this pattern; I habitually, accidentally ignored IMs because I was simply too busy with other tasks. After a while people got snotty because they thought I was being rude. Sorry, I just had work to be done, and despite how much I love to discuss life, the universe, and everything, sometimes actual tasks must come first. And because my life is crammed full of little tasks and distractions, I rarely engage myself in conversation over the Internet anymore.

It isn't that I ignore people. It's just that I have better things to do, or things that need to be done (which, in my pragmatic mind, are better things to do). So to all whom I have loved and lost to the vastly spacious Internet, I'm sorry. I'd probably miss you too if I could remember your name.

One thing. If you are going to use AOL Instant Messenger, use DeadAIM to get rid of those silly ads. Just make sure you download the right version for your copy of AIM.

I just ran some career numbers against about fifteen of the best players in Major League Baseball history. Before I ran these numbers, I would have predicted that Ted Williams was the best offensive player ever, Babe Ruth was second, and Barry Bonds was third. Well, I got the top three right, but not in the right order. According to my formula, Babe Ruth is the best ever by a significant margin, and Williams barely takes second over Bonds. In fourth and fifth (though too close to call) are Jimmie Foxx and Hank Greenburg, greats from the pre-World War II era. I have a feeling that, if Bonds keeps up at this rate, he'll have nicked Williams before he's through. (And then there's Alex Rodriguez, Vladimir Guerrero, and others who will deserve consideratin in about ten years.)

Formerly aspiring to major in math, I believe that everything can be reduced to numbers. Pythagoras developed that idea millenia ago, and since reading about him in high school, I have believed in the core of his argument. That said, I know that there is a formula to which the game of baseball can be reduced. I have worked out the offensive side of the game for individual hitters -- now if only I could postulate a formula for pitching and/or defense, I could put it all together and have one ultimate formula. (In theory, it should all balance out.) Right now, I am satisfied by applying a pitcher's opponents' hitting statistics. Since pitching is only the catalyst and the hitting is what produces the production, good pitching will obviously be reflected by less production.

The only thing left to consider (for collective purposes, such as best teams in history) is defense. If I can figure out the formula (which shouldn't be too difficult) for how many bases a team allows per inning as a result of errors, which would be very small, and then multiply by the average number of hitters faced per inning, I could add that number to the opponents' total base percentage to get the overall bases allowed per hitter. I could then compare the numbers to the offensive categories and run regression after regression to figure out formulas for figuring runs per game, wins per season, and a multitude of other things.

I am nerd. Hear me think.

Finally, to news of real importance: baseball news! Unless you've been living under a rock for the last three weeks, you're aware or have been at some point that the Oakland Athletics have not lost a game since August 12 -- that's over three weeks ago. The A's have won 20 games in a row, a new American League record broken just last night. The 1947 Yankees are the only other American League team to have won 19 consecutive games, while the 1906 White Sox won 19 of 20 games with a tie at some point during their unbeaten streak.

That tie game raises a very interesting point. In 1916, the New York Giants won 26 of 27 games with a tie in the thirteenth game. In football or hockey, the streak would be considered two streaks -- a 12-game winning streak and a 14-game winning streak with a tie in between. But in baseball, ties do not count in the same way because they do not affect the standings and are re-played if convenient or if the missing game would have an impact on the final standings.

You may not think that this is entirely significant, but a team full of Athletics and a world of Athletics fans would disagree. When it comes to statistics and records, one has to argue semantics. If the tie-game breaks up the Giants' streak, then the Giants had two excellent winning streaks, but no records. However, regardless of that, the Giants do hold the record for the longest unbeaten streak in Major League Baseball history at 27 games.

I bring this up because, depending on how you look at it, the Athletics could tie the all-time record of 21 consecutive wins tonight (held by the 1935 Chicago Cubs), or it would take them another week to tie the Giants' record.

Either way, the Giants's record will always have an asterisk by it. As a purist, I think the two records should be listed on the same page but separate from each other. The Giants hold one record, and the Cubs another, and hopefully the Athletics can beat them both. If you agree, scroll down this page and vote in the poll.

Despite the Athletics' tear, the Atlanta Braves still have the best record in baseball by only a half-game (over the A's). The Braves' magic number, or the difference between 163 and the quantity of Braves wins and [insert second place team here]'s losses, is down to six. (There are 162 games in a season, so once a first-place team's wins and a second-place team's losses add to 163, it is impossible for any team in that division to catch the first-place team. The magic number is how many first-place wins and/or second-place losses are necessary before the clinching point. Did you get it that time, mom? Maybe next year?)

Minnesota's magic number is ten with 22 games remaining, which means that they are all but guaranteed a playoff spot. No one else is close to clinching a playoff spot, but with three weeks left, I'll go ahead and predict the final eight for the season:

NL East:	Atlanta Braves
NL Central:	St. Louis Cardinals
NL West:	Arizona Diamondbacks
NL Wildcard:	Los Angeles Dodgers
AL East:	New York Yankees
AL Central:	Minnesota Twins
AL West:	Oakland Athletics
AL Wildcard:	Anaheim Angels

It looks like four teams, possibly five, are going to win 100 games this year, which is an amazing accomplishment for any team in any season. For five teams to come close means that, for one season anyway, there was either a significant competitive imbalance or an unfair distribution of breakthrough or career years. I can't locate the formula for this year's first-round playoff matchups, so I can't make any hierarchical predictions based on that.

That is another of Major League Baseball's nagging problems; ever since the divisional realignment of 1994, the Division Series (first round) matchups have been decided arbitrarily before season's end, and they have always separated the wildcard team from the champion of its division. The best (most equitable) arrangement would be alawys to matchup the wildcard team with the champion of its division. The division champion would have home field advantage, and this would prevent teams from only one part of the nation dominating the League Championship series. The reason: it simply isn't exciting for east coast fans to watch two west coast teams go at it, or vice versa, and nobody wants to see two teams from the midwest in a League Championship -- that would just be absurd!

Looking at the eight remaining teams as I have predicted them, I would like to see the Twins represent the American League in the World Series, and I want the Yankees to lose the first three games of the playoffs and be finished. As for the National League, do you have to ask? Of course I want the Atlanta Braves to win, but the humanitarian in me wants the Cardinals to get to the World Series after what they've been through this season. Of course, if the Giants can pull the wildcard spot out from under the Dodgers, I would be rooting for Barry Bonds and the Giants (second to the Braves, of course). Same goes for the Mariners.

Now for postseason award winners:

NL MVP:	Barry Bonds
NL Cy Young:	Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, or John Smoltz
NL Rookie:	Mark Prior
NL Manager:	Bobby Cox
AL MVP:	Alex Rodriguez
AL Cy Young:	Derek Lowe
AL Rookie:	Eric Hinske
AL Manager:	Ron Gardenhire

These predictions are by no means final. The awards won't be voted on until after the World Series, so you can bet that I'll either affirm or alter these predictions before the time comes.

After my classes this morning, I returned to my car in the sweltering Macon State College parking lot to find that I could not open my driver-side doors -- for the second time in a week. Actually, when it happened earlier this week, it was on both sides of the car, so I literally had to push my door into another vehicle just to get into my own.

Picture this: I get to my car today, and I am parked slightly more to the right side of my parking space, meaning the car on my driver-side had an entire parking space of its own plus room to spare because I had allowed extra space on the left. Yet I could not open my door -- again! This overweight behemoth on wheels was partially in my space.

As you should know, bad drivers are one of the very few things in this world that anger me, because bad driving is incredibly dangerous. (And if you can't park, how should I expect that you're a good driver?) So I left a note on their windshield:

IDEA: DON'T EVER PARK LIKE THIS AGAIN. THANKS.

My first instinct was to write, "Park in your own fucking space", but two prevailing thoughts cancelled that one out. The first: I am too nice a guy to write a note like that. The second: A mean note like that would only anger the other driver unnecessarily and would likely be counterproductive. The one I wrote was mean enough, but not unnecessarily so. At least they probably got the message.

"What is this? Fox is letting Daschle help with the weather? Find a hurricane. Throw him into it." Ah, the veritable Rush Limbaugh. So right. So staunch. So right. I often disagree with him on matters of opinion, but not near as often as I agree. I am not a Republican by any means (as I have found I must continuously reiterate), but his arguments are organized in such a way as to make them virtually irrefutable. And one thing none of us can refute is the hypocrisy of the liberal left.

But never mind that, I'm here to support them for once!

(Interesting. I just inadvertently correctly separated the words "never" and "mind", as opposed to writing them as a combined word as I normally do. I wonder if this means I've already subconsciously made that change in my mind, even though I haven't actually even made conscious note to fix it yet. Weird.)

The President speaks:

If Saddam refuses to keep his commitments to the international community, we must be prepared to deal directly with the threat these weapons pose to the Iraqi people, to Iraq's neighbors, and to the rest of the world. Either Saddam acts -- or we will have to...

Saddam himself understands that the international community places a higher value on the lives of the Iraqi people than he does. That is why he uses innocent women and children as human shields, risking what we care about -- human lives -- to protect what he cares about -- his weapons. If force proves necessary to resolve the crisis, we will do everything we can to Prevent innocent people from getting hurt. But make no Mistake: Saddam Hussein must bear full responsibility for every casualty that results.

For those of you, like me, who believe that we should not listen to George W. Bush and should instead rely on Bill Clinton's presidential wisdom with regard to our relations with Iraq, you read it here first. The quoted selections above are President Clinton in 1998 expressing his opinion on how America should deal with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Clinton received overwhelming support from both sides of the political aisle in 1998, and in fact then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle led the charge for a joint resolution to attack.

(The argument that Clinton's support of attacking Iraq was just a political diversion from his impeachment is out the window, since he publicly denied that that was the case. Supporting that argument would only further discredit Clinton. Or would it? I suppose we all know that he was a charismatic, compulsive liar, but did he ultimately know what was best for America? And, assuming that he did, did he sacrifice what was best occasionally in order to better opportunities for himself or his party? Anyone who answers no to that doesn't know how the political machine works in Washington.)

Face it, Democrats were on board to strike Iraq in 1998, and now that the situation has gotten worse, Democrats are demanding that a case be made for an attack! It's hypocrisy and a double standard. There have been no weapons inspections since, a Republican is in the White House, and Saddam Hussein is suspected of involvement with al-Qaeda and the September 11 attacks. Everything suggests that the situation in Iraq has only deteriorated since Clinton's and Congress's approval of attacking Iraq in 1998, yet now Democrats are attempting to block it.

If I am missing something, I would love to know exactly what it is. Otherwise, it seems like liberal partisan politics is endangering our lives and liberty.

Are you an environmentalist? Do you think that environmentalism is a good thing? Do you believe that global warming is destroying our planet? Good. Read this.

And by the way (and this has nothing to do with the linked article), even if the globe is warming, it isn't doing so quickly enough to hurt us, and nothing we have done has had any dramatic effect on it. I know, we all have delusions of grandeur, but we're not that significant in the grand scheme of things.

Within the last week, I discussed the idea of naming a child something generally thought to be offensive. Specifically, I wondered what would prevail, parents' choice to name their kid their way, or some arbitrary authority's choice to refuse it. Not that argument would stand any chance against either side of that double-edged sword, but I suppose the truth is out there.

Both sides of the argument deserved to be raised, but I don't have time for that. So I'll just reiterate: neither side can win. It's like abortion. It's legal for now. It won't be someday, and then it will be again. It's bad but it isn't necessarily; it's bad only because people are offended by it. So... who's to say that anything is genuinely bad in this world, if it really all comes down to obscenity?

I am tired and angry as I write this, so if it sounds rushed, that's why.

People need to grow up. Just because a word sounds similar to another word that "offends" you does not mean that you have any right to have another person punished for using it. The word "niggardly" is not a racial slur, is not racially motivated, and it never was. The word is of Scandinavian origin insofar as modern etymologists can tell, and it comes from the word "nig" which means "a stingy person".

It makes me sick that the preferential treatment of a tiny few who find a word to be offensive can change the course of the language. Every day we lose another word to an anti-American cause because it is offensive to someone. People, learn the rules. Research obscenity laws and figure out where you're going wrong.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with describing a black person as a black person when you are trying to physically describe someone. However, if a person is not of African heritage, but is perhaps of Jamaican heritage, it is wrong to refer to such a person as "African-American". In such a case, one would either describe the person as [insert ethnicity here], or as "black" if that is all the person knows.

If you get offended, grow up. I'm tired of our language shrinking because people have nothing better to do than complain.

Ready or not, here it comes. I don't suppose anyone else has noticed that we do have the United Kingdom in our corner? Ooh, I have an idea. Maybe if we ask really nicely, Saddam will just stop! Or maybe not.

Link.

Not that you care, but a Spider-Man / Men In Black II double-feature will appear in about 2000 theatres this weekend, hopefully priced as two-for-one everywhere that it's showing (since that's what "double-feature" means). For Maconites like me, you'll be happy to know that they are playing at the AmStar.

This semester has been enjoyable so far. Three of my IT classes are going to be relatively easy, and the fourth would be much easier if I had my own digital camera. Still, learning how to shoot, capture, process, and edit digital video is fun stuff. But for my GPA's sake, if I'm not going to make at least a B by drop date, I'm going to drop and keep going to class to play around.

The political science classes are great. Have I mentioned that I want a political science degree? Yeah, IT is just convenient right now, and it's fun to learn about how computers operate in the real world. I actually feel like I'm getting a good education. But I feel like I'm getting a better one in non-IT classes -- in my polisci classes. I can't decide which is better, the International Relations or State & Local class.

One thing is certain: our political discussion groups on Tuesdays and Thursdays are awesome. Aside from Kristi, I'm the only person with viewpoints that I've discovered without following one party line or another, so I either get really good (interesting way to look at that!) or really bad (how the hell did you come to that?) responses. I don't know if those are the highlights of my week, but I do know that Tuesdays and Thursdays are generally the best days of my week.

Maybe it's because I sleep in until 9:30 and don't have time to do homework AT ALL.