I found, err... Glenn Reynolds pointed me to an Internet digital clock. "It's the that graphics I like," he says. See for yourself. It's not like it tells us the Coordinated Universal Time or anything, but some deserves mad props for it regardless. I never knew telling time could be so amazing.

Haha! I bet Terry McAuliffe loves reading about losing his job (potentially) along with millions of Internet surfers. That's what you get for being a partisan! So exclusive, yet preaching inclusivity... What happened to getting rid of the double standards? (Note: I'd laugh equally as hard if it were the chairman of the RNC.)

Even worse, the news media in Massachusetts is all but refusing to mention Libertarian Senate candidate Michael Cloud, who is running against Senator John Kerry with no Republican challenger.

Despite that I feel like I am a libertarian (libertarian, not Libertarian -- there is a difference between party and ideology) at the core, I can understand why the news media would avoid third-party candidates in campaign coverage. Equal protection under the laws as delineated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has not been (and should not be, in my opinion) interpreted to require commercial entities, like newspapers and news stations, to cover any political parties equally. And why should they? They are in business for money, and they are breaking any laws if they never mention anything anyone wants to hear about. They are in business to report what they think will serve their audience (and therefore their wallets) best.

However, the purpose of elections in this federation is to provide a choice between a previously chosen candidate and some opposition -- that is how democratic republicanism works. In other words, when there is no major-party challenger involved in an election, I believe that the most significant third-party challenger should receive an equal amount of attention as the incumbent.

There is no legal or judicial precedent on which to enforce or to reject this of which I am aware, so I think now would be a good time to set one. Obviously, it is too late for this election, but it is never too late for litigation! One negative side effect of a successful lawsuit, though, would be that no major party would ever again refuse to challenge a candidate for any office simply for fear of allowing a third party too much press time, and therefore a dent in their popularity.

Yay for third parties!

Do you think there's a liberal media bias in Massachusetts?

As if you need to be any more disgusted with Democrats in Minnesota, this Fox News story explains quite well exactly why the political rally at Wellstone's memorial service was a political atrocity:

It was billed as a memorial service, but it was a planned political rally. [Democrats] can act any way they want, I am not commenting on that.... I found [it] so offensive...to anyone who is not necessarily going to vote for Senator Wellstone who still respects him and came to pay their respects....

The Republicans aren't trying to play morality police, because anyone is allowed to act any way they please. But to uninvite Republican guests and to boo Republican Senators for partisan reasons is above and beyond cruel and unusual for such an event. Senator Paul Wellstone would have gasped in horror if he could have heard his constituents booing his colleagues.

This just frustrates me. Remind me never to move to Minnesota.

Why does Paul Wellstone's campaign chairman take responsibility if it was not his intent? There were thousands of others making it a political rally, not just him. The event "was not scripted and the comments of individual speakers were not previewed. Organizers simply asked participants to speak from their hearts", says Blodgett.

Then he says, "I regret if people took offense..." -- stop! Typical of a bleeding-heart liberal, and Wellstone's liberal heart bled quite profusely in that ultra-emotional, anti-offensive way, so it is only natural that his campaign chairman be someone of a similar breed. So never mind this post -- let him take responsibility and even be punished for simply being honest. The truth only hurts those who are afraid of it.

No, not really. But what they're doing is, like I said, sickening. What was supposed to be a memorial of remembrance for a great man instead culminated in a furious series of partisan speeches -- "For Paul Wellstone, will you stand up and keep fighting for social justice? Say YES!" -- "If Paul Wellstone's legacy in the Senate comes to an end just days after this unspeakable tragedy, our spirits will be crushed, and we will drown in a river of tears. We are begging you, do not let this happen." -- It is just sickening that they can treat tragedy so coldly.

Last night I was curious about why the Wellstone family asked Vice President Cheney to stay away. Today I learned, as I had suspected, that they feared "his presence might overshadow the event". Well, of course! If the Republican Vice President were there, you could not have turned it into the most greedy, sickening display of partisan politics I have ever known!

I suppose it makes perfect sense that this is the "legacy" of one the most outspoken, prehensile liberals ever to serve as a United States Senator.

I am having trouble figuring out why Paul Wellstone's family asked Vice President Dick Cheney to stay away from the late Senator's memorial service. "There was never any thought of President Bush attending Wellstone's memorial", and it is suggested that the motivation is purely political. If that be the case, how utterly sickening. If Wellstone were as well loved by politicians on both sides of the political aisle as recent reports have suggested, then why on earth would his family keep prominent Republicans from his memorial service on political grounds?

I should have known better (see round 1), but how was I supposed to know that I was going to really get slashdotted ... it's the third story I've had posted in a week, and only the fifth in two years! At 8:06am, Glenn Reynolds was leading about 2500 to 900. As of 8:06pm, slashdot is leading about 11,000 to 2500. So much for a fair fight... Sorry Glenn!

Really, I wouldn't care about counter statistics if there weren't traffic spikes. Hopefully, slashdot will resume its usual position of ignoring my story submissions soon. I'm running out of ideas worth posting, and I would hate to drag slashdot into my world.

Quote of the here and now, because it's my site and I said so: "The eternal truths that have inspired religion(s) have survived its frequent institutional follies." That quotation is slightly modified from the words of Hudson Smith in his Illustrated World Religions, and this is what it means to me:

I received an interesting response to an email in which I made a comment about this. Tommy says:

I have likened the "towering truths" to the Great Pyramids. Absolute spiritual truth is at the apex, so we as mortals strive to reach it. From all sides of the pyramid, we can see and hopefully seek the apex. We just can't see the other sides. The goal is the same; there is just a different path to the goal.

So each side of the pyramid represents a different yet similarly aimed path toward the same goal. As I have immersed myself in the philosophical roots of many of the world's major religions (in fact, I am reading the Bhagavad Gita now, which I would think is the Hindi "bible"), I find it very easy to agree. Judiasm, Islam, and Christianity could in many ways be considered a single religion, while Hinduism, Buddhism, and other lesser known religions still advocate the same moral clarity and goodness as any others. The words may not look or sound the same, but the goal is simple: live peacefully and justfully.

There are two reasons why I identify most closely with Christianity. First, I was raised a Christian, so now that's obvious. Second, I have read Micah 6:6-8. (Thanks Andy. I understand that now. The rest of you, don't worry about my message to Andy.) Sure, I understand the rationality of atheism, especially if it is an honest conclusion drawn from a lack of better options. Micah's purpose, among others, was to assert that more important than your spiritual convictions are your moral convictions. How you live your life on this planet determines the life you live hereafter (if there is a hereafter, you say).

As for go so far as to admit belief or disbelief in the hereafter, I can not for the illogic of declaring such an absurdly bold position. It is impossible to prove or to disprove, and my human mind in this physical universe can not comprehend a heavenly ever after, nor deny that it can exist. Sure, you hardcore Rand-ian objectivists can deny that any afterlife exists, but I say that it can not be proven or disproven any better than the original, creationist force that set life, the universe, and everything in motion.

I have been auto-slashdotted last week and semi-auto-slashdotted again this morning (and a third story of mine was posted, but someone beat me to it), but none of the traffic spikes have measured anything close to the one I measured after the link from InstaPundit. The "InstaPundit effect" blew away the "slashdot effect"...

Of course, this does not take into account that the slashdot effect may have potentially cut off HTTP access to my web site for a short period of time due to an unnatural flood of traffic, nor does it consider that people actually visit Glenn's site to click on links (whereas people visit slashdot to read geek news and occasionally comment on it).

Either way, it is worth noting that, as it always has been, this web site is primarily for my benefit, not yours. If you enjoy or find use of what I put in this space, then that's wonderful, but it is intended to be my weblog first and my web portal second. I am not in this for the web traffic, but it is very much entertaining to analyze it on occasion (especially when significant foreign sites link to me).

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, former president of France, has published a draft for a new constitution for an enlarged European Union that would essentially form a federalist union of its member states not too dissimilar from the United States of America. Three names are said to be considered for the new body: European Community, United Europe, and (as one might have guessed), the United States of Europe. The BBC, Independent News, Financial Times, and New York Times are reporting, among countless others I'm sure. (I wish the bloggers were awake for comment.)

The political implications of this are potentially huge; a unified European power would not only challenge the international power structure, but it could also motivate coming together in other regions (the Middle East, perhaps?). I can not imagine a scenario in which hundreds of millions of lives are not significantly affected by a "USE".

Fox News is running a story that asks one of the best geek questions of our generation: who win if Superman and Batman fought one another? The last this topic was big was during the Spider-Man/Star Wars rush in May. I distinctly remember a particular essay that compared Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, any Jedi (particularly Yoda), and James Bond.

Brandon Wiley's white paper, Curious Yellow, explains how "a superworm -- a worm that coordinates it actions among infected hosts and launches a massive distributed denial of service attack on any hosts it can't infect using those it can" (via disLEXia, a weblog by Maximillian Dornseif). The "doomsday scenario" frightens "even us", says Dornseif. An accompanying discussion rebukes Wiley's article a bit. Aaron Swartz's light-hearted take is rather entertaining: "So go read it now and find out how you can take over the whole Internet. And if you're going to, could you give me 24 hours notice?"

The Washington Post reports that Intentia International has filed criminal charges against Reuters PLC for "for obtaining an earnings report from a Web page it considered private". (Announcements on Intentia's web site blatantly accuse Reuters of breaking in, which could be considered libel if they lose the case.) "The report was available to anyone who typed the correct Web address... [but] ...not available through normal channels on the site." The question to be resolved, therefore, is: Is publicly accessible information public? Paul Szynol opines, "It will be equally interesting to see which nation's laws will, in this case, make that determination."

My personal opinion should be obvious, considering my advocacy of the free use of information. There is an infinite supply of differences between use and abuse, but in this case, I do not believe that Reuters has crossed any boundaries. Intentia published a report to the Internet knowing very well that anyone who typed in its URL could view it. Someone at Reuters found it, and as it is Reuters's mission to report the news, they reported the news. There was no lying or misrepresentation of facts involved; no harm, no foul.

I don't see what the problem is, and I think Intentia ought to lose this case. Nevertheless, Szynol brings up an interesting point. Under whose jurisdiction will this case be settled, and how will that work if either side disagrees with the ruling on grounds that American law and Swedish law are incongruent?

It's been a busy weekend on the airwaves: the sniper is caught, over 100 hostages were killed by their attempted saviors, a well-liked Senator has died (forcing the uninviting task of considering his replacement), and much more that I do not have time to consider. And in each case, there is far more to assess than simply the headline. Each story has a tangled mess of consequences that are being prodded, and I'm here to take my own stab at some of them.

Oh, and not only is Hillary evil, but Hilary is stupid! Even worse, the Jackass movie has apparently grossed about $35 million this weekend, nearly twice as much as The Ring. Pop culture is being flushed down a New York City subway toilet. But most of us already knew all that.

Senator Paul Wellstone, his wife, his daughter, and three staff members, and two pilots were killed in a small plane crash this afternoon. With election day so close, inevitably people will want to discuss the effect the Senator's death will have on the race in Minnesota. I will not talk about it any further than what I have written here. I share Glenn Reynolds's opinion on the matter: "I find his death very sad. The [Torricelli] affair was farce; this is tragedy." Glenn also links to the relevant Minnesota statute(s) concerning the electoral effects of Wellstone's death, but I don't want to think about that much more today.

Richard Harris, 72-year-old Irish actor best known to children around the world as Headmaster Dumbledore in the Harry Potter movies, also died today. He had battled with Hodgkin's disease. He appears in next month's Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

This particular topic has been dominating my conscious mind for some six weeks now, and has always been a constant, underscoring presence. I always have, but I never have, enjoyed the idea that people worth loving may freely enter and exit anyone's life at any time. It is comforting to know that people can be there, but it is stressful to realize that they may not be, or worse, that they're already gone. Worse, and better, still, it is bittersweet to remember the time shared with those lost friends and acquaintances -- some of whom I will see again, most of whom I will not. It is comforting that life provides the faculty of memory; it helps to stretch time that would otherwise be lost. But it sometimes hurts to lose what we wanted to hold so close, and I can never explain why it is necessary to part when either of two parties wishes to remain close. Shouldn't we all strive to cling to that which has provided so many happy memories?

Liz's most recent post prompted this post. I haven't paid much attention to the emotional, sensitive side of things in quite some time, and now that I'm picking up on it again, I'm enjoying discussing it and sharing others' analysis of potentially similar ideas and situations. Some of Liz's thoughts:

Its funny when you look back and remember all the people that have come in and out of your life.... You never notice until after they are gone how much of an impression some of them make even though they only appeared for a fraction of a second in your life time.... How could someone who only came into our lives, just as fast as they left, leave so many footprints behind? They can usually be defined as the people that all of a sudden appeared, made you see yourself for who you are, and then once you realize this, they are gone.... Maybe the only way to thank the people who have entered your life for a short time is to hope that you have done the same to others. How often do we really think of the effect we leave on people we meet? How many people do you think could say this about you?

I think about it all the time, so much in fact that in many ways it shapes my life. My primary purpose in life, as is everyone's, is to please myself -- ultimately, to be selfish. But as we all derive happiness in different ways, one can not expect that being selfish simply means complete disregard for others. You see, despite the potential happiness that material wealth has to offer, I have received the greatest happiness through the happiness of others, particularly when I contributed to that happiness. Is this altruistic? Maybe, but I have read and I believe that altruism really does not exist. My motivation is completely selfish. I try to make you feel good, to leave a good impression of me with you, because it makes me feel good. That is what I mean when I promote considerate selfishness.

And as for thanking those left behind, I agree, but I'd like to add one thing. It isn't necessary in every case to recipricate that which has been given to you, because at some point you simply won't have the ability for that. But perhaps the best method of giving thanks is simply to be appreciative, and to enjoy warm thoughts such as this occasionally, and -- most importantly -- to utilize all that has been given to you to maximize your utility in life.

Stephen Wolfram, scientist and author of A New Kind of Science, has emphasized ideas from his book in an ongoing lecture tour, the most captivating idea being that 'the most basic computer code can reveal complex patterns in nature'. The New York Review of Books challenges Wolfram to put his theory into form that could be proved or disproved; Graeme Philipson of The Age wonders if Wolfram is the next Newton; and PhysicsWeb presents Wolfram's 'new kind of science' as one of the most important scientific discoveries ever. I have two questions for that: Will the future agree? And how will society cope with the idea that nature may be so simply formulated?

I find it simply amazing; how valuable people can be when dealing with issues at putting things into perspective! (Ahem, Claire. :-) I was talking to Dalila about recent personal events, fate, and such, and despite already being in a good mood, I am now in a better one. The resulting concept of accepting life for how it is goes something like this:

Even in the worst of times, I get through life fairly well because I understand that we are all meant to experience different things. Maybe there is a reason for it, and maybe it is purely random, but no one is meant to live the same life as anyone else, and no one is meant to be happy or sad all of the time. Emotions, good and bad, are a part of the complex process that we each must experience.

Maybe what happened with my previous relationship was simply a sign that we needed time apart. If we are meant to be together, then we will be -- that is not a reason for splitting, but it is a very true statement whether we are together or apart in any given moment. If in the future we will be together, then we will be, and regardless of who the other person(s) in "we" may be, serendipitous moments will naturally be involved. The moments will stack up as they will and lead to that inevitable, unknown result, regardless of what I have to say about it.

The only comfort anyone may have with the unknown is how they approach it -- do you fear it and avoid it, or do you challenge it and cherish every new experience? The latter describes me best, and it is my goal that it describes me exactly.

On a related note, I would like to share the five qualifications that a girl must meet in order to be my wife. Naturally, as there are many girls who fit these qualifications, there is a selection process involved, but there are no specific criteria for such a process -- I handle that on a case-by-case basis as I am allowed. The qualifications:

I hate the concepts of libertinism, frivolity, guilt, and jealousy. All are wasteful, and above all I hate the concept of wastefulness. Given my various philosophies and conceptions, one should understand how the above qualifications may be appropriate. Naturally, they are broad. Getting close to someone should not be difficult. Being intimate is moderately more difficult. Making a final, permanent decision to be with someone is the ultimate, most difficult decision. You'll know it's right when you consider every possible alternative and it's still a no-brainer.

Glenn Reynolds links to several stories about the arrest of two in the sniper case. John Allen Muhammad is a 42-year-old Gulf War veteran was "named in a federal arrest warrant for firearms violations ", and his 17-year-old stepson John Lee Malvo, a Jamaican citizen, "were taken to an undisclosed location in Montgomery County and questioned".

I am guessing that no one on the outside of this investigation and the sniper(s) knows for sure whether Muhammad and Malvo are/were it. Of course, if we aren't, this is when the sniper may start toying with us, lying low for a while to see if popular hysteria can have one or both of these (potential) patsies convicted, then start shooting again. And, of course, if Muhammad and Malvo are really only wanted as witnesses, and are not actually suspected of being the sniper(s), then the killer is still at large and could strike again at any moment, or wait a while (as I suggested) as the story develops.

Now for comparative media analysis: I have gotten all of the juice details I could find from the CNN story from which I have quoted so far, but this Fox News story goes on to say that a gun was found in the suspects' vehicle, Muhammad was being charged on a federal gun violation, and Malvo as a material witness. One law official "close to the investigation" claims that these two are actually the sniper suspects. (See, CNN either had to be politically correct and not report things like that, or they just didn't know.)

The facts seem to add up: the car police were looking for, sleeping at a rest stop (always on the move, eh?), and "Sources told Fox News that they had received an earlier tip on Muhammad from a friend of his who said Muhammad had described one of the shootings with details only the shooter could have known." The Fox News story is rather detailed and includes images and a list of dozens of its recent, related stories.

About forty-five minutes after this morning's post regarding music on the Internet, slashdot posted it to their web portal/site/thing. This web site was then unavailable for nearly an hour. That was likely a direct result of the "slashdot effect", which happens any time slashdot links to any site with server incapable of handling a few thousand hits per minute. But that's not why I'm here.

By viewing slashdot's version of this article, you also gain access to the hundreds of topical responses to it. Some of them think the world of my opinion on the matter; others point out many of the facts I either missed or didn't mention. I had my own responses to several of them which you may find interesting, but probably only if you're interested in the Internet versus the Music Industry topic.

For statistical purposes: This is the third slashdot-accepted article in about forty attempts. The first, a news article reporting that Iomega was offering rebates to millions of customers with defective zip drives (I was one of those customers), was posted on April 14, 2001. The second, a feature article about illegally downloading software (including MP3s and very expensive applications), was posted on May 12, 2001 (interestingly, the same day that Douglas Adams died). As typical, the third article will have a permanent link on my written words section. (That reminds me: that page needs a considerable update; my school section has been devoid of content sense last December.)

I'll be honest, and this is potentially flamebait, but flame away if you must; but the truth never hurt anyone, only bad responses to it.

I do not like to vote for Democrats because they are ideologically too close to socialism for my comfort. I do not mind them in Congress, in the White House, or in courts, but I do not like it when they have unchecked authority of any of those branches of government, or just about anything else. Democrats are more prone to demagoguery, as opposed to pedagoguery, and in my experience they seem to distort the facts quite a bit more often than, say, Republicans. But like they say, you can't judge a book by its cover, and even the most horrible of books usually have good pages or passages.

In the race for Georgia's Third District seat in Congress, I have been very much surprised. Until I noticed the debates and ads for each major candidate, I had decided based on political blanket statements that Calder Clay, the Republican, was an easy choice over Jim Marshall, the Democrat. (You should know my political views by now, or could look them up on this web site, so I assume that you can understand why.) It seems, however, that where Clay's and Marshall's views differ, from what I have deduced, I am on Marshall's side. (How Marshall would vote may be another story, however, if he wishes to gain power in a liberal Democratic Party.)

They agree on most of the important things, including economic and privacy issues. Surprisingly, Marshall ardently defends the second amendment right to bear arms. I actually wonder if Jim Marshall, perhaps similarly to Zell Miller, is a Democrat because he grew up in a Democratic Georgia only to see it shift toward the Republican Party in recent years. From what I have read of the Democratic Party's mission, both politicians seem dedicated to being great Democrats. It's the socialists in Congress that caucus as Democrats that concern me...

Calder Clay's political principles are worth voting for, but I have been embarrassed by his campaign. At first I supported him and his politics, but now I only support his politics. He has not campaigned for himself, but rather against Jim Marshall. His ads have misrepresented the truth about Jim Marshall, and even worse, prove that Clay either misunderstands how Congressional politics works or that he's banking on his voters not knowing. The latter reason there scares me, because I always thought it was Democrats who used scare tactics and attack ads to steal votes from an ignorant electorate.

Don't worry, I'm not turning into a liberal. I am liberal when it comes to some issues, but what makes me a libertarian Republican (well, not really, but that's the closest label that would fit) is that I believe in freedom, capitalism, truth, and love. Security is only as necessary as the lack of truth and love allow it to be. Socialist ideas work in isolation, but capitalism is the tie that binds it all together. Avoiding truth can occasionally be better in the moment, but it only creates problems in the long run. No good can come from hate.

Either the attack on the Internet was only a warning of or test for some larger, or the attacked Internet servers are still "crippled". I have trouble believing that they would not be back up and running again, or at least have temporary replacements (some sort of contingency plan), so it seems to me as though a second wave of attack has occurred. I can not access several web sites.

I can blame static (routing) technologies for that too. Dynamic technologies would recognize failures and find the best alternatives. Sure, network congestion would slow down these alternatives, but slow service is better than no service, especially when I'm paying for it all the same.

I have developed the idea recently that the restrictions on personal campaign contributions are not only somewhat limiting on the freedom of speech, but on the freedom of peaceful assembly as well. The First Amendment isn't safe! Okay, it's a stretch, and it's interpretive, but it's no more of a stretch than calling spending a form of speech. The collective pooling of our efforts in support of any cause or another, if peaceful, is a form of assembly that should be protected by the First Amendment.

During any given campaign, many of us are far too busy to actively participate in the rallies, debates, and other goings-on relevant to the campaign. However, those of us with spare change and no time to voice our views often wish to pay a hefty sum in support of one candidate/party or another. Last year's CFR law limits how much we may contribute, though. I am in support of that, but I recognize the limiting effects that the law has on the First Amendment, and that has thrown up a red flag in my mind. How will that be abused?

Individually, limiting campaign contributions is an "assault" on the freedom of speech. Collectively, it is an assault on the freedom of assembly. Granted, it isn't as strong as the speech argument -- because speech is just "more important" than assembly in today's disassembled society (read Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone) -- but it still adds strength to the anti-CFR argument.

I dare someone to apply my objectivist, libertarian values to CFR to persuade me to love it or hate it, because right now I am mostly indifferent.

Janis Ian, nominated for nine Grammys since 1967, writes, "RIAA's claim that the industry and artists are hurt by free downloading is nonsense." She wants the industry, artists, and consumers to work together 'to make technology work for all of us', something I've advocated all along. Record companies were to provide a means for exposure; now that the Internet provides near-universal exposure at comparatively no cost, the record companies' utility has expired. Musicians and songwriters should be awarded, not the suits-and-ties that want to choose what we hear, for what we, the consumers, enjoy.

The big three campaigns that I am watching most closely in Georgia are those for the US Senate, US House of Representatives 3rd District, and Governor of Georgia. I plan to vote for Saxby Chambliss (R) over Max Cleland for Senate, Jim Marshall (D) over Calder Clay (R) for the House, and Sonny Purdue (R) over Roy Barnes (D) for governor. Despite being a Libertarian at the core, no Libertarian candidate has ever won me over in a campaign; a peculiar stance on one issue or others always throws off the Libertarians, and I usually find myself leaning Republican. I almost never prefer a Democrat over a Republican, especially when supporting a Democrat undermines my support for a Republican majority, but I would rather have Jim Marshall serving my district in the House than Calder Clay. I stick to principles, not party lines.

I still have several items that belong(ed) to her, and I owe her roughly the equivalent of a nice dinner. I've decided that I'll pay my dues when she pays hers. She owes that to herself. That said, I expect that it's safe to write my name on these things, because I'm not expecting that she'll ever be here again, not alone anyway.

I still can't help but think, because she was dumb enough to say it (whether she meant it or not), that she's putting me through this just because I had never experienced it before. Maybe she was jealous of the semi-charmed life I had led to this point and felt that I deserved misery. That would be an impossible thought to consider, except that I have gotten almost no respect from her since Labor Day, not counting the weekend that we got back together, only for her to break it off again... after her parents drove me up to Athens and I had to spend the next five hours with her and her family pretending everything is okay. Then I had to ride for two hours back home, with her parents, and somehow carry on like I was okay.

I have one comfort now: it's over. She's crossed too many lines now. I don't want her back. If that was her goal, she can stop now. Mission accomplished.

I am going to hate the month of September for the rest of my life. Thanks!

This is not the type of news I expected to find this morning. Apparently, there is reason to believe that the remains of James, brother of Jesus Christ, may have been discovered in Israel recently. I was oddly intrigued by this article; I found myself not skeptical of the claim that it could be the brother of Jesus of Nazareth, but skeptical of the reasons why it couldn't be. Among reasons to believe:

Well, why not? Skepticism is to be expected, as any discovery of this magnitude would necessarily be doubted until proved beyond doubt. Besides, I think a discovery like this is good for us once in a while. It reminds us that, while our lives are short, our memories are not.

Wishful thinking? Maybe, but I don't know why for. A discovery like this won't actually help anything, except that its proof could at least dispell the skeptics' belief that Jesus never even existed. Still, skepticism won't go away. As the truth fades further into history, doubts will rise again.

From everything I have gathered between September 11 (what a day for it!) and now, it seems as though I have lost her forever. At this point, I can not imagine anything better ever coming along. From the first moment that I realized I had an idea for "my type of girl", I never knew that she was the perfect fit until twenty-one months ago (minus two days). It remained that way until just recently, when she shattered that perfect image of herself with hypocrisy and deceit, willfully at that.

Worse still, she shattered another childish dream -- childish because it is residual from my childhood. Since the age of seven I have dreamed of living in Seattle, not because of any experience there -- I have never been -- but something about the name always sounded right. My travels to the west coast have reaffirmed my desire to move out there some day, and my growing base of knowledge of Seattle continues to reaffirm my desire to live there.

So naturally, when Claire's father accepted the job across the bay from Seattle, lights began to turn on in my head. She and I even planned, somewhat tentatively of course, to move out there after acquiring our undergraduate degrees at our respective schools. Relatively soon after, we celebrated the last monthly anniversary we would celebrate, and we had a great Labor Day weekend, staying glued to each other for over three days. Not a week later, without warning, without my having a chance to even fight against it, we were through. Dream girl, gone. Dream town, gone. Any more dreams worth taking? Well, of course...

Losing Claire isn't the difficult thing here. She not being who I thought she was, I no longer feel like I am in love with Clarissa Ragsdale. I am certainly very much in love with who she was for those nineteen-plus months that we were together, because she always showed strength, courage, and a very lively emotion to everything. But then it all changed on September 6, only I didn't know of the change until September 11, or why until September 13. I was lied to, deceived, and not even given a chance to defend myself or us. She made all the decisions and forced me to accept them under false pretenses, so that when the truth finally was revealed, it was too late to take it back. That was not the Claire I knew.

The most difficult thing that I face is not that I have lost Claire. I can deal with losing other people, other things. But I feel as though I am losing myself, and that I can not handle. The biggest difficulties are the philosophical and spiritual conflicts that have resulted from this situation. (I may discuss this further later, but I do not wish to now.)

I have learned a valuable lesson from all of this. It is a painful lesson, rubbing the salty realism of life into an open wound:

"Dreams were never meant to come true -- that's why they're dreams."

Can you see what this has done to me? I have been an optimist my entire life, and she's turned me into a fucking pessimist. Not because she left; relationships go bad all the time, so that isn't the problem. The problem is that this one didn't go bad. Our only problem was complacency, and because we had never fought over anything, I suppose that made it easier for her to walk out without questioning me first, because she was afraid of starting our first fight. Well, that's fine, but the opinion that she is a runner, not a fighter, is almost universal among friends I know, and my only goal in trying to hang on to her was to rid her of that label ... even if I couldn't hang on to her in the end.

But it's too late. She only ran faster. She was my dream girl. Given that I still dream about her almost nightly, I guess she still is. I will always love her. There is a place in my heart permanently reserved for her. But our time together in this lifetime seems to have run out. I will never get over her, but I will move on, probably more quickly than I would like to.

I took the Cassanova Quiz because I could, and I scored right in the center of the "Chick Magnet" range:

If you don't get laid a lot, you're doing something else wrong, because your grasp on women is solid. You know that the romance we're after doesn't have to be planned to the last detail, and that a romantic gesture is one that shows you were thinking about us rather than what you think women think is romantic. Unlike a lot of guys, you aren't too stuck on yourself to care if we're in the room, and you're not too bumbling to get us in the room in the first place. Even the bedroom. Sure, you've been blown off without a clue, but who hasn't? At least it doesn't happen to you as often as it does to these other two jackasses.

I always knew I was a well-rounded guy, but I never quite could understand why I had a hard time attracting the ladies. Then I realized that every time I tried, either I wasn't really trying or I was trying too hard. (Of course, that was a long time ago.) What I have found out since I was "set free" (euphemism) is that I am, now more than ever, quite capable of doing a lot of damage if I apply myself to it. I have found all too quickly that I can (will?) be quite the ladies' man if I choose to be -- apparently the girls around here like a reasonably good-looking (I said "reasonably"; I'm nothing spectacular) guy who knows his stuff. And, naturally, since I'm not nearly as comfortable with new people, but nor do I care what they think of me, I manage to sound a near-perfect blend of know-it-all and thought-twice without even trying. And then, because I had nothing to lose, I discovered that doing that on purpose allowed me to effectively manipulate the situation into my favor, which was effectively our favor.

Well, I don't agree with Maxim; I am no "chick magnet". Sure, as the quiz results suggest, I may know a thing or two abuot what to do for, with, and/or to a lady, but I also know that some of that has to be good guessing or timing, and a lot of that is luck. Besides, I'm a tall, skinny IT major in Macon fricking Georgia -- it's not like I've got the social atmosphere to really flex my game muscle (not that I'd feel safe trying in an environment like, say, UGA).

A particular song lyric abruptly derailed my train of thought. Luckily, the lyric is an appropriate stopping point. From "Short Stories With Tragic Endings" by From Autumn to Ashes (I played this for you last time you were here):

...this table for one has become bearable
I now take comfort in this
And for this I cherish you

Despite my comfort in my new situation, I still experience an emotional twinge every time I look her in the eye. Unfortunately for me, her eyes are indefinitely etched into my mind.

Also, to whom it may concern or otherwise interest, I have finally discovered exactly what type of girl is "my type". And no, I'm not sharing it with you. That's an intimate detail that you have to work for. Of course, I only share such intimate details with those that are "my type", which probably excludes you.

I am home for the winter. Oregon was fun. I survived. You may exhale.

If any one was wondering, I was not able to check my email while in Portland. I could send email just fine, because I have made it possible in, um, my own special way, but I can not access my email account(s) away from my computer lest an email I wish to archive should be downloaded on the wrong computer. And I can't access my default account without being connected to the internet via my ISP. So, like I said, I couldn't check it. Sorry. I did miss you all dearly, if that is of any concern to you, but just one in particular. (No, not her, if you must know.)

I'll spare the details of Portland for now, except to say that I did not see Creed, or Sevendust, or 12 Stones, or Cinder. I was disappointed, sure, but the concert tickets were free anyway, and my only purpose on this trip was to get away for four days: mission accomplished. I will also say that Jenny's friends rock! Particularly Crista, but maybe that's because she's the only one I really got to know, or maybe she just rocks.

Don't worry, I'll let you know how the entire trip went, day by detailed day, but not now. I have an eight-page paper to type by 11:00am Tuesday morning, and I haven't read the article yet. It's a good thing I'm used to staying up until 3:00am Pacific time, or I'd be screwed!

Also, because I feel like sharing: I have read about 170 pages into Atlas Shrugged. Based only on character and story developments (and Ayn Rand's ability to write brilliant socially, politically, and philosophically commentarial passages), the first 170 pages alone have convinced me that Atlas Shrugged is the best book that I have ever read. Such wonderful characters. Such wonderful dialogue. Such wonderful didacticism. I can't figure out if I'm Hank Rearden, Francisco d'Anconia, the male version of Dagny Taggart, or some combination of all three. Some would probably say that I'm Jim Taggart -- I shudder. I suppose I should read the rest of the book to find out what happens.

A hint at how good it is: I often mark or cite passages from which I may wish to quote at some later date. My bookmark is an index card, and I have completely filled both sides with page and paragraph numbers for eventual quotational usage (format: "p 1 par 1-6, 8, 12-13. p 5 par 0-3.", not actual passages, and the zero indicates that the paragraph began on the previous page). And I am barely an eighth of the way through the book! It will be another novel's worth just to re-read the selected passages!

Now you know my method, and now you know that I really like this book. Thanks, Mom, for buying it!

My plane takes off for Portland in about five hours, which means I need to be there in less than four hours, which means I need to leave in about two hours. My flight returns about the same time on Sunday evening, which means I won't get back here until about three or four hours after that if I'm lucky, which means I'll probably make it back just in time to register for classes at midnight. (If I don't, chances are good that one or more of my classes will be filled before I register them.) Either way, expect word from me around the turn of the week.

Tomorrow night I should be at the Rose Garden to see Creed, Sevendust, 12 Stones, and Cinder. Creed has been one of my favorite bands since I first heard Human Clay shortly before high school graduation. Sevendust has been climbing my charts since I first heard "Angel's Son" about a year ago. 12 Stones is one of my favorite up-and-comers because their music sounds good... and their lyrics fit my mood at the time. I have not heard Cinder, but I don't think much can go wrong, given their company. Tomorrow night should be a fun night!

Other than that, I have no plans, except maybe to work on that eight-pages-typed comparative politics article that must be turned in Tuesday.

Some links to keep you busy, in no particular order:

I'm sure you are much better at choosing where you want your browser to browse than I do, but I couldn't resist making a few suggestions. Humor me. Try one. Particularly the first one (that stuff is so much fun to talk about)!

Don't be a stranger:

EMAIL

Okay, so I saw this first on InstaPundit, but that makes sense since it is a comment on Glenn's article -- he should be the first to notice comments on his own stuff, right? Anyway, Peter Koren immediately picked up on an important detail regarding the relationship between Big Media and webloggers (and talk radio, etc.):

Successful talk radio and Internet bloggers are conservative/libertarian because they represent the error signal in a negative feedback loop, correcting left wing bias.

Peter's full comments only elucidate that point and give a particular example. Something tells me I knew this all along, but it comes as no surprise to me that it took me till now to realize it, which is yet another benefit of the Internet -- not just spreading information, but also highlighting that which we already know but of which we are not always aware.

You know, it was always okay before, but in this picture, Chelsea looks almost as hideously ugly as her mother. I think someone needs to start floating that month-old pleasureful picture of her again just to keep this one from imprinting itself too deeply on our minds. Man, she's like a cross between Hillary and Madonna... No offense, Madonna, it's just that she apparently idolizes you and is trying really hard to escape her hereditary shape.

UPDATE 12:00: Oh goodie. It gets worse!

Thanks to a month of depression (comparatively speaking), my grades are suffering. No longer am I expecting six A's; no longer am I expecting even six grades -- I have dropped one course, and none of the remaining five seem like easy A's anymore. I suppose that feeling of great loss reduces anyone's ability to concentrate, but when it's someone's first great loss... Damn.

The Networking Media and Message Routing classes are back to back and are taught from the same book. Both classes are very straightforward and mostly easy, but only because I really enjoy learning about (or playing with) networking computers. My final grade in either class will be heavily weighted by our group projects/papers. The projects are 10 and 20 pages typed, respectively, including graphs, charts, tables, and whatever other supplementary material we can shove in there. We simply have to prove that we know what we're talking about. I must compare and contrast four or five network operating systems for the paper that I have chosen to dominate; Matt took the one on copper wiring versus fiber optics. Naturally, we'll switch off and add the group touch before turning in the fnial work... I hate group projects when a paper is involved.

The ASP class is very easy; I made a C on the test, but I didn't miss a single question concerning the code, and Dr. Adams's questions get down to the finest of details when it comes to code. No, I only misses the "logical" questions, where he put asked us to answer using his language questions regarding the purpose of certain objects. I know how to use them perfectly well, but to explain them in writing on a multiple choice exam with several similar choices is different. Another problem with this class is that I am simultaneously studying PHP outside of class, because my server utilizes it, so while I pick up on the concepts of server-side scripting very easily, I lose a bit of the detail here and there because I'm taking so much in from two different places. (I initially thought that learning two similar technologies would make the class easier.)

The two political science classes are just fun. I like discussing the theories and history of politics, and even the projects are somewhat fun. The comparative politics project requires students to review two quantitatively qualitative articles from any serious political science journal(s) (like the American Political Science Review). The idea is that students should learn to think like a political scientist through an understanding of the statistical analysis of a political science "problem".

In the state and local politics class, the project is to write a brief of a Supreme Court case of my choosing. I have not chosen yet, but I will have it written before it is due on October 29... I am hoping to find a major decision that isn't too long with which I happen to disagree -- I want something to argue about!

And other than that, life is fortunately okay again. I have learned (involuntarily) that there are other girls that I could be with, and that has helped to put me at ease, and also upset me at the same time. But my personal philosophy (which revolves around the Gump slogan, "shit happens") helps me to deal with that sort of thing, and I simply go on with my life as I always have. I have always been the guy to "go with the flow"; I'm not exactly indecisive, but I don't always know what I want either, and when I'm not sure about something, I rarely jump into it unless I know the resulting outcome would be no different than if I had chosen differently.

Unfortunately, this is not one of those times. I am at a point where, no matter which decision I make (or is made for me), there is potentially no turning back. I have always enjoyed keeping my options open, but not so open that I had no idea where I was going, nor so closed that I had no real options. But decisions that will be made relatively soon will likely block off an entire side of me forever, and I am not sure that I am prepared for that.

But things happen as they will. It's just up to me to see that the way things will be fit the way I want them to be.

Life is a game: you win some rounds, you lose others, but there is no reset button. In other words, no matter what happened then or what happens now, you can't change it. You can only work with the knowledge of the past to provide the best present and future for yourself and those around you. Or, at least, that's what I try to do. I don't try to rebuild the past. I try to build a better future.

Glenn Reynolds's latest TechCentralStation column compares the Big Media to the blogosphere, particularly where money is concerned. The difficulty in profiting from online journalism, he suggests, is that almost everyone can afford an online presence, making it near impossible for any single one to profit over all others. And news publications by virtue of the business have an advantage over the news-gathering, and by necessity must force their online presence, even if it isn't a very profitable one, simply to preserve their readership. Reynolds, whose own blog (InstaPundit) is considered the "New York Times of the bloggers", believes that the dynamic relationship between the blogosphere and news media should provide "a kind of symbiosis that may leave both sides better off".

I would rather believe that the Internet was neither (very) costly nor for (much) profit, but rather for the increased availability of a wider variety of information, goods, and services to those who would otherwise not be exposed to it. I would like to think that the Internet is out to prove that money is not what makes the world go 'round.

As you may or may not have noticed, my site has always been void of any means for personal profit. I do not care to use this web site for monetary gain, nor have I cared (yet, because I haven't been forced to) to even pay for this web site, other than the computer and other devices I use to access it. My web presence here is simply an effort to relate my thoughts to the free world where anyone who cares to may get involved or uninvolved at will; mostly, this web journal is for my looking back when I am old and gray and want to remember what it was like growing up. I can only hope that it/I will be around that long.

Claire's current theme song.

My current theme song.

I'm near the point of drawing a line and daring it to be crossed.

Knowledge is strictly empirical. We know everything we know as a result of experience. What we think about everything else that we absolutely can not really know (such as how we got here in the first place) is a result of logic, based on experience. Anything our minds are/were capable of without experience to provide direction is reflexive or instinctive, and may either be quantified by mathematical theories or not by chaos theories -- neither is practical, though, because one doesn't give answers, and the other we know too little about to even ask the right questions.

Before our experiences develop our minds so that we are capable of deductive reasoning, we are limited to emotional, physical, psychological (is it all the same? biological) reaction -- reflex, instinct, whatever. "The ability to form concepts is the primary function of the faculty of reason, the possession of which is the essential difference that sets humans apart from all the other animals" (Full Context). It is by reaction to experience that concepts are formed and rationale is developed. In no new situation can any future moment be certainly predicted; rather, deduction based on prior experience may allow the best prediction. In the event that there is insufficient prior experience to make any "educated guess", one could say that the mind is truly imaginative -- it has a truly original idea, a creative thought. Still, there is some prior knowledge that forces the decision in some direction or another.

Thus, despite the paradox, fate and free will coexist within and for us all. We genuinely are allowed our own freedom, as that is in the nature of our being, but all freedom we enjoy is limited to some degree by prior experience. Oversimplified proof: try to imagine a color not in the spectrum of visible light, or try to imagine life without the sense of sight, or even try to imagine life as a different creature (a bat, for example). In each case, the effort is fruitless because, without the necessary background information, the mind is incapable of handling such requests. Of the three, certainly imagining a life with no vision would be easiest, because we all are able to close our eyes. But how can you imagine the conscious life of another creature having only experienced life inside the body of a human? And how could colors beyond violet and red possibly exist?

The example gets me off track. I simply mean to emphasize that life is entirely a causal learning process. Every event has its cause, and every cause has its effect. The idea that my life is controlled by "fate" is not a comforting one, but when I consider that it is impossible on my plane of knowledge and understanding to possibly comprehend every miniscule variable that factors into each successive moment, I know that life is entirely unpredictable from one moment to the next, and in fact our free will does govern our lives as far as we are concerned -- we have no way to comprehend otherwise, but only to accept the possibility that we are not in control.

"Not Enough" by Our Lady Peace:

There's nothing you can say
Nothing you can do
There's nothing in between
You know the truth
Nothing left to face
There's nothing left to lose
Nothing takes your place

When they say you're not that strong
You're not that weak
It's not your fault
And when you climb up to your hill
Up to your place
I hope you're well

There's nothing left to prove
There's nothing I won't do
There's nothing like the pain
I feel for you
Nothing left to hide
Nothing left to feel
I am always here

When they say you're not that strong
You're not that weak
It's not your fault
And when you climb up to your hill
Up to your place
I hope you're well

What you want
What you lost
What you had
What is gone is over

What you got
What you love
What you need
What you have is real

It's not enough
It's not enough
It's not enough
It's not enough, I'm sorry

This song would mean nothing to me if it didn't sound so damn good. Otherwise, I would never have heard it enough to hear the lyrics.

Thomas Bray's Tuesday op-ed in the Opinion Journal outlines, more or less, why Republicans should be losing seats in this November's election -- "the party that controls the White House almost always loses seats in Congress in midterm elections" -- but why they probably won't:

I have thought all along that, with even a liberal-biased media predicting at best close results this November, the Republicans would manage to nab an extra seat or two. I think that Saxby Chambliss is going to defeat incumbent Max Cleland here in Georgia (Cleland's campaign has been sloppy and virtually nonexistent in many areas of the state), meaning if incumbent parties win everywhere else, the Senate belongs to the elephant.

But there are several other reasons directly regarding particular issues that point to a clean Republican victory next month. The war on terrorism is an obvious one, and George Bush's backing of several Republican candidates contributes to their election bids. The Democrats are virtually split on everything thanks to Al Gore, who is free to speak his mind because he currently has no constituency. Gore is essentially splitting the Democratic Party down the middle, dividing them into leftists and further-leftists, because those prominent Congressmen who have ambitions for a certain office in two or six years don't want Gore stealing it from them. They have to speak up with their anti-Republican agenda, but because the people mostly side with Republicans right now, that only alienates the Democrats.

I made an absurdly bold prediction about six weeks ago that, for various reasons, the 2002 midterm elections would land about 230 Republican seats in the House and 52 Republican seats in the Senate. Even preserving current numbers is a victory for the Republicans ("the party that controls the White House almost always loses seats in Congress in midterm elections"), so anything more than that is huge for Republicans. I do not consider myself a Republican by any stretch of the imagination (I hate feeling the need to reiterate that so often), but in choosing one party to be the majority over the other, the Republicans are right for me.

"A pistol-packing woman accomplished with two bullets what Pittsburgh police had been attempting to do for days: to stop the man suspected of a string of sexual assaults in the city's East End.... Police said Charmaine Dunbar, 42, fired her licensed .357-caliber revolver in self-defense on a Homewood street when Wesley came at her with a rifle, possibly intending, they said, for her to become a seventh victim."

I wonder why this isn't getting more attention *cough* media bias *cough*. Beginning with the paragrah near the bottom that begins "Police believe...", the story gets good. As it turns out, Dunbar was determined to go out on her walk, and in her second attempt at it, perhaps to settle the score with her would-be attacker. After escaping once previously, she dared walk back out into the darkness with her own weapon, and her predator was stupid enough to try it again. (Note to all would-be sexual offenders: if you fail the first time, you can only be stupid to try again. Why the hell would she go back out there if she didn't have something, like shooting you, planned?!)

I don't know if Neal Boortz has seen this, but I know how he would feel about it, and I agree with him. If Dunbar is charged with a crime, I would like to move to her community for the chance to be on the jury that makes sure that she is not convicted.

For all of you anti-gun zealouts who think the government can take better care of you than you can, look at the British and Australian examples. Because of knee-jerk anti-gun legislations in those nations and others, citizens are left defenseless and vulnerable. Law-abiding citizens who acquired their arms legally were forced to give them up because the government had registration records. The only people left with arms were those who did not register them in the first place, criminals -- criminals with the new knowledge that the law-abiding citizens no longer had the means or the liberty to defend themselves.

The second amendment is there for a reason: every individual has the intrinsic right to protect himself, his loved ones, and his property. To remove this right of the people is to fight off liberty in favor of a government whose policies we would no longer have the means to oppose (should it become oppressive). Taking away guns makes it easier for criminals to commit crimes and for government to ignore the will of its people.

A defenseless people is a herd of sheep.

Jessica Zietz does not like Avril Lavigne's music, and she has problems with most people who say that they do. Not because liking Avril Lavigne makes them less human, but because most of them are not intelligent enough to accept criticism or to debate the points made. Most would rather scream profanities and insult the author of such criticism. Well, not me. I simply responded to Jessica's article point by point:

Not that it was necessary, but I had to write it for a particular friend of mine who chooses not to like Avril Lavigne. :-)

For years there has been talk of removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and for years there has been widespread support for his removal despite very loud arguments against it -- specifically, arguments that the leader/regime that follows Saddam could be worse. Well here's an off-the-wall analogy: everyone enters a monogamous relationship hoping for the best, but in reality, almost every relationship ends badly, and many leave both parties in worse shape than before their relations. Obviously, there is a much greater chance of success in Iraq than there would be for just any prospective relationship between two persons, and an even greater chance that the end result in Iraq will be much better than the current situation. That said, of course there are risks and unknowns, but they are not good reasons to endure Saddam Hussein.

Not that I agree or disagree with their opinions (you can interpret my opinions of their opinions on your own, if you like), but Jim Duensing and Martin LeFevre raise good questions (despite only one objective reality, the variety of perceptions are all very subjective and objectively real). Duensing's point really hits home, I think:

America must be prepared for the consequences of being the aggressor against another nation. America will not have the moral high ground to condemn any other nation for attacking any other for any contrived disagreement. Iraq, Iran, Egypt, et al can attack Israel with the same moral authority America will attack Iraq with. China can attack Taiwan with that same moral authority. Far from bringing global governance, this...could very well lead to the final world war.

Again, not that I agree or disagree, but this perception is very real and widespread and needs to be considered, as I am sure it has been. Whether Bush (read: America) is right or wrong in pursuing regime change in Iraq, any militarily unprovoked attack could very well provide the moral bridge that other nations need to take their matters into their own hands. It will also provide for the argument that America (like any human being) is a hypocrite and holds itself to different standards than it holds everyone else.

Still, I think the Bush administration has this covered. In last week's address, our president clearly stated that our goal was simply to disarm a madman who, by resolutions adopted at the end of the Persian Gulf War, should not have been allowed to arm himself as he has. The only way this leads to war is if Saddam Hussein's Iraq does not allow inspections and then responds violently when we force inspections. It was made very clear that the initial use of force, should it be necessary, would only be used for purposes of weapons inspections. Only if Iraq responds violently, for which we unfortunately have no reason not to be prepared, will we attack. And in that event, it is not unprovoked, which essentially would debunk Duensing's argument above. (Still, things never are carried out according to plan, so Duensing's argument is still very much a live concern, as it should be.)

LeFevre's concern lies not so much with the potential global reaction as it does with the American reaction to itself:

Will an even more technologically advanced US military succeed once again in asserting American dominance and control over world events? Or will a political, economic and spiritual breakdown of unprecedented proportions occur worldwide, with the possibility of something truly new arising from the ashes? We cannot stand by and wait for the conflagration to begin, since it will be too late once it does. The ensuing chaos will be followed by an implicit, American-dominated international authoritarianism. The genuine alternative is the ending of psychological tribalism and the beginning of global citizenship. There is still time to move in that direction.

Such concern is certainly worth a little of our time, but I do not believe it to be a practical concern. I have read several dystopian novels (my personal favorite being We by Yevgeny Zamyatin [Ginsburg translation or Brown translation -- I've read Ginsburg's], and my understanding of totalitarian regimes (as fictional as Orwell's and others' may be) has me all but convinced that nothing that the United States does in the next century, at least, will lead to any such "international authoritarianism". Or perhaps I have misinterpreted LeFevre, and what he speaks of is not the same as what Orwell, Zamyatin, Bradbury, et al have written about. Perhaps LeFevre is simply against the type of unification that leads to such world orders.

I will offer no opinion but this: A universal power structure without a universal moral foundation is doomed to collapse.

Oh, and in case there was ever any doubt, Bush and Hussein could have been golf buddies. But no...

Paul Weyrich has written a nice article on the virtues of having a lead opposition party, as the British have, and for the most part I agree with him, so my beef with his article is not with his argument. Rather, my beef is with a statistical representation that most people will not even notice, and for which even fewer will care. But in the name of "fairness...and accuracy in news reporting", what Weyrich should have said in the first line of paragraph four is "...(a far greater percentage in Britain than here)...". The attentive population in America greatly outnumbers the entire population of Britain -- I just wish to clarify the difference between a tally and a percentage.

This would ordinarily be no big deal; I can expect this sort of thing from just about any news organization or publication. But when the mission of said organization is to promote and unleash "fairness" and "accuracy" in their reporting and in others', they need not bend statistical comparisons, even if unintentionally.

If you were skeptical, like me, of Anthony Hopkins's final effort as the delectable Hannibal Lectre because of the relative mediocrity of last year's film, then let your anxieties fade and your fears flourish: watch this film. I actually can not remember seeing Silence of the Lambs (did I ever see it?), but I knew its story before going into Hannibal, and I simply did not think much of Hannibal. Sure, it was a good shock flick, and the acting was generally good, but that movie was used more for shock value than anything, just as an excuse to show us really disturbing things that did not advance or excite the plot much or enough. In other words, Hannibal would have fallen into my "typical movie-going experience" category -- sure, it's a good movie and is better than average, but I avoid watching the bad ones and try only to see the best ones, so Hannibal was a disappointment.

Red Dragon, on the other hand, was not. In fact, because of Hannibal's disappointment, Red Dragon was actually surprisingly good; I had expected little better or worse than what I had previously seen. The opening sequence and title credits locked in, though, and from there the story's mystery (along with the occasional laughs when you know you shouldn't be laughing) kept me highly entertained. (Aside from that, any movie that centers itself in any way on the work William Blake needs recognition.)

The best thing that I can say about Red Dragon that reflects why I enjoy it more than the previous Lectre film is that, unlike Hannibal, Red Dragon is more of a mystery-thriller than a shock-horror-thriller. Don't misinterpret that -- the movie is still bloody, scary, and downright disturbing, but this movie seems to focus more on telling a good story than showing the audience the gruesome abilities of Hollywood's special effects teams. Or maybe it's just that I'm growing insensitive to it as I further lose my innocence...

Either way, if you're not the squeamish type and have enjoyed previous Lectre movies, I expect that you can enjoy Red Dragon. It probably will not land in my collection upon DVD release, but it was very much a good film.

I am a big fan of Jimmy Carter and I am pleased that he has been recognized for his efforts with the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize. But for the Nobel committee chairman to admit that Carter's recognition is "should be interpreted as a criticism of the...[Bush] administration" is absurd. Sure, Jimmy Carter's methods may be more peaceful, hence the award, but that doesn't make his methods best, nor does admitting the "slap-to-the-face" reasoning behind awarding Carter with the prize make him feel any better. I'm sure some have already asked the former president how he feels that his award was given to him perhaps in order to criticize Bush.

I have always liked Jimmy Carter and I have never thought that he was a bad president, mostly because I agree with most of his ideals. Politically and philosophically, from what I understand of him, I think very much like him. That is enough for me to approve of his methods in many cases, but that does not mean that I believe that his methods (or my own) are the best course of action in every situation. Naturally, what should be and what actually will be (as a result of popular stupidity) are often very different, so what I believe would be best often never is simply because people are too stupid and stubborn to accept change for the better.

Jimmy Carter deserves the award. The Nobel committee chairman has tarnished that by making Carter's award a political statement. I only hope that Carter doesn't turn around and use this award to further fuel any political message he may wish to deliver. I am certain that he is capable of that without stooping...

I can breathe a sigh of relief... Creed had to cancel twelve shows because lead singer Scott Stapp had acute laryngitis. I received the email a few days ago and took in a deep breath -- the only reason why I didn't panic is because the Portland show that I am supposed to be attending next Wednesday had not been removed from their tour schedule... yet. Well, I just received a second email notification with their revised tour schedule; my show missed being cut by two days! But it's still on, and that's good, because I can't just fly out to Portland some other time, you know...

For obvious reasons, I did not tell my sister that the show *might* be cancelled; I figured it would be better only to tell her when I knew for sure, because needless hysteria between delivery of the potential and the definite would only have frustrated us both. But no worries Jenny, the show is on!

I think I'm just as excited to be seeing Sevendust and 12 Stones as well. Sevendust is the only rock band I know (maybe I only have limited exposure) that has a black lead singer, and 12 Stones is a fresh new band that simply rocks... It's going to be a fun night and a good weekend! I only hope that I get my homework done... Hah!

The Senate yesterday passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. I count twenty-three good, detailed reasons (the clauses beginning with "Whereas...") why the authorization of use of force against Iraq was necessary -- and most of them are actually written in fairly plain language without references to other bills and laws that would only confuse the average American.

But we all know the reasons. What is important about "House Joint Resolution 114" is what Congress has specifically allowed the President. Most interesting to me is that, by Section 3, subsection (a),

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq [and] (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Despite the conditions of this authority delineated by Sections 2, 4, and subsection (b) of Section 3, Congress has effectively -- once again -- given full support to the President's judgment, just as they did last September when the war on terrorism began.

Fox News expounds a bit on what this resolution actually means and how some of the arguments stack up. Here's how the party vote lined up:

See the resolution's web site for more detailed information on the bill's history, who voted for or against it, etc.

"Ugh! You are such a boy!"

(Yes, I am talking to her, and she should know exactly what it means.)

Do I still love her? Yes. Do I think that she and I can work things out and can share a very happy life together? Yes. Do I believe this will happen? No, because I believe that right now she is entirely unwilling, and after a month of dealing with it, I am getting there. And as that reality sets in, I can only recognize a diverging trend. In other words, no matter how close we are as friends, the longer she pussyfoots around without actually opening up, the less I feel like it's worth the effort.

So here's the situation. I'm single, and I'm okay with that. I'm not afraid to accept reality, and I am not uncomfortable with reality. I am uncomfortable with many of the reasons for this situation's coming about, but what's done is done. I have no choice but to accept them, so I have no problem doing so. And it's not that I am afraid of the unknown -- I never have been -- but I am much more comfortable when I know the direction in which my life is going, as opposed to piloting blindly through the Bermuda Triangle.

So how am I really dealing with this? I am stable but frustrated. I am perturbed by school. And, you know what? I am annoyed by her. Not angry, not sad, but annoyed. To say anything more about that would be overstepping bounds I have set...

As a result of typing this, I have realized that talking about Claire has served its purpose. I understand the situation, even if I do not understand why she allowed it to come about, or further more why I was allowed no say in the decision when she did it because she "thought it was what [I] wanted". But talking about her has served its purpose, and I have realized that now I must stop talking about her.

Unless, of course, she gives me another reason to talk, which I am not anticipating at all.

On a side note, I am aware that my willingness to pursue other options and explore being single leaves me open to make many mistakes, especially in the wake of a relationship that should not have ended. I have taken into consideration that decisions I make could be a result of a temporary hormonal imbalance or a result of the "rebound instinct". I don't want to get hurt again, and even less do I want anyone else to be hurt by me.

In other words, I am aware of the potential hazards of my situation, but that doesn't mean I am going to sit back and lie dormant while the one I love doesn't want me. If someone else does want me, there is no reason why I shouldn't at least entertain the thought. After all, I have been set free...

If you can't be with the one you love
love the one you're with.

I hate thinking about it like that.

The roller coaster of life is usually quite an entertaining ride, but sometimes the twists and turns can be a bit too much. I know, I've been there. Sure, the roller coaster is occasionally intimidating, but never when you're feeling on top of the world. And then you ride the wrong one, or maybe you're just too confident in your own ability to manage yourself through a crazy ride, and before you know it you're sick as a dog and wondering what in the hell just hit you.

But every time, you get back up, and often you're riding again before enough time has passed even to have any significant affect. But once in a while you're shaken up badly enough that, well, maybe it's just better to watch everyone else enjoy their rides while you take a break until you're ready again. It's not that you're afraid of the ride; you know it can't hurt to give it another try. It's just that you aren't mentally, or perhaps physically, prepared to give it another go just yet. And when that's the case, just walking around and admiring each roller coaster for the magnificence of its complexity, for its incredible potential (both good and bad), and for the thrill of potential danger every ride, no matter how tame, involves.

But then there's the ride that you didn't expect -- the perfect ride, or so it seems. And even though you're still not up to it, you can't help but wonder if you can't just pass it up, because you can't just come back to the park tomorrow. So what do you do? Do you give the ride a go? Or do you sit it out and wait for your inner details to work themselves back into working order?

This was a very strange weekend. Claire and I have certainly had our ups and downs, and I have mostly been confusing my wishful thinking with what will actually happen, and combining that with being stuck in the very non-social atmosphere of Macon with no roommate and no close friends within thirty miles is very, very depressing. Given that, I was quite excited to be visiting her this weekend. I had thought for months that having a girlfriend at UGA would essentially be my ticket into having a fun social life with her and her friends while still focusing on my education in the serious, laid back atmosphere at Macon State. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that I no longer have a girlfriend, so while I was perfectly okay in the boring Macon State atmosphere a month ago (because I had the happy thought of being with Claire in my mind nearly all the time), now being at Macon State is almost entirely miserable, because my closest "friends" are thirty miles away in Warner Robins, Claire is two hours away and we are no longer together, and I essentially have no other social life (yet).

It is not that I can not adjust to this; I know that I can and I will. But what I (we?) wanted and what will actually happen are suddenly beginning to take different paths, and it frightens the hell out of me. It isn't so much not having Claire that disturbs me, though that is certainly the most devastating factor, but it is that right now, I have no one to turn to except mom! And as wonderful as a mother always is regardless of the situation, a guy in college needs companionship outside that of a mother-son relationship, and I unfortunately do not have that option right now.

Basically, I just want to cry, or sleep, or have someone here with me. I need a roommate, or someone to share something fun with, and I have no one. And, as easy as it may sound to just go out and find someone, Macon State College is not conducive to such. It is a commuter college: people show up, go to class, and leave; there is no social atmosphere at Macon State College, or it is very, very diluted. In other words, my best hope for an enjoyable junior year in college is hanging in the balance right now, dependent on my ability to somehow deal with this.

What I want, at least right now, is to still be able to hang out with Claire and party at UGA as we had originally planned. Things will obviously be different being her guest at a party rather than her boyfriend, but until I can make other attachments or arrangements with others at UGA, she is my only ticket into what I had my sights set on for the next two years.

I suppose it's a good thing that Claire and I make sure to put the friendship before everything; that makes it a lot easier for the two of us to be around, even given our situation. Of course, put me in an uncomfortable situation and get me drunk, and I've discovered that I can get pretty needlessly angry.

For the greater part of my life since the beginning of high school, even before the album was released, Creed's Human Clay has been the one album that has summed up in so many ways exactly how I feel about the world and my place in it. For the greater part of my life since the beginning of college, even before the album came out, Dave Matthews Band's Everyday has been the one album that has summed up in so many ways exactly how I want to feel (and I think I felt) for that special someone. And now, since for the greater part of my life since September 11, 2002, Lifehouse's Stanley Climbfall is the one album that sums up in so many ways exactly how I feel, how it feels, either (a) to have lost something so great that you've temporarily lost your way or (b) that you haven't founded it yet and you're trying to find your way.

Lifehouse's sophomore album is perfect for a semi-spiritual journey through one's own being -- "spinning, turning, watching, burning" -- trying to sort out the meaning of life's mess of events. Every song on this CD relates to me on a personal level, and every song is uplifting in its own way. I suppose that's because, at least it seems to me, the lyrics are written so that they may be interpreted as relating to a relationship with God or with another person (the same was true of their incredible debut album, No Name Face). Methinks this should generate massive appeal.

If I were to share the personally meaningful lyrics with you, I would probably include something from every song. Let me just tell you that seven of thirteen songs are on repeat simply for their meaning, and two more are included simply for their sound. "Out of Breath" and "How Long" probably most accurately describe me right now, while "Spin" may be the most uplifting when hearing the lyrics and the sound together, but "Empty Space" is the perfect song for me to hear right now. I like to combine that song with "Out of Breath" and "Spin" and put the three on repeat. Despite the semi-heavy rock, it's amazingly soothing.

My friend Tommy subscribes to a few email lists that send him interesting or inspiring quotations on occasion. At 1:36am last night, one minute after my previous post, he received these, which he thought to be somewhat of a coincidence (although some of us are hoping not):

It was an overconfident belief in that last quotation that messed me up in the last couple of weeks, but that doesn't mean I've screwed up for life. It only means that it's time for a different approach -- doing things her way. The interesting dilemma with that is that what may actually result from this may be something completely unexpected. Regardless of what really happens, though, it's time to accept Forrest Gump's two most famous slogans:

Ain't that the truth. Thanks, Tommy.

Claire, I am sorry for putting so much on you in the last little while. I don't think it really compares to what I have been put through, but that doesn't matter. I still could have handled it better. I could have listened. But despite all the signs, I thought differently. For once in my life, I am going to accept that things simply are not meant to be my way.

My hands are trembling as I type this, but I just want you to know that I am at peace with this. I knew before tonight that this was likely to be the result of any further discussion of the issue, and my accidental decision to push it tonight was simply a mistake. But my goal was only to clarify decisions already made, and that has been done.

I only hope that my reactions to a harsh situation have not unfavorably altered your opinion of me. You know who I really am. Good night.