I have realized this Thanksgiving, more than any other, that the things we have to be thankful for are not at all necessarily things for which we actually are thankful, and many of the things for which we are thankful do not deserve the appreciation. Emotion prohibits rationality, and rationality hides emotion, which is why the confusion between what there is to be thankful for and what we are actually thankful for exists. There is really no way to decide which is supposed to take priority, emotion or rationality, but I always choose rationality. Unfortunately, though, emotion won't leave me the hell alone at this time.

So what am I thankful for this Thanksgiving?

Things I probably should be thankful for, but no, I'm really not:

Things I probably should not be thankful for, I am anyway:

Most of all, I am thankful that I am here to experience all these things in the first place. I don't know my purpose in life and you don't know yours; no one knows their purpose in life (unless whatever force that put us here communicates it to them, in which case they're determined by lesser beings to be insane and deserving of permanent residence in a building with padded walls). The only guarantee that we have is that we are all intended to live different lives, each and every person's purpose is as different from mine as it is from yours. That is the foundation of my philosophy.

It's good that I have finally realized that. I guess I'm thankful for that realization too.

A few days ago, nothing happened. Seconds passed... minutes... hours... days... and nothing continued to happen. Then, when you least expected it, but only because of the extremly improbable nature of such repitition, nothing happened again.

Aside from spending time with Jenn over the last couple of weeks, I am not enjoying myself. I am finding school to be more of a hassle than ever, and my motivation is lost somewhere. (I know it was initially lost in Athens, but it's made its way back to reality. It's just playing hard-to-get.) I enjoy my political science classes and assignments, but I do not enjoy that there is no time to get them and everything else done, and therefore they are annoying me. Even worse, my IT classes are beyond boring -- I know everything I am studying in each one of them, and the homework is not just busywork, but most of it is irrelevant to the course.

(For instance, on my last test, the final question asked us to name how many categories of differences there were between one method and another. First of all, this could be very subjective, and it has nothing to do with what the actual differences are, which is what an IT professional would be expected to know. For the purposes of this test, I was aware of the differences between IPv4 and IPv6, but I had no idea into how many categories the professor had ambiguously decided to divide them. So what's the point? All my IT classes are annoying in that way, but not usually so blatantly...)

Four eight-plus-page papers due by Thursday, December 5 -- how exciting! One was due Tuesday, but thanks to bad sectors and other various problems on the old C:, I lost that paper and what little work I had done on two of the others. The best I could do was email my professor and explain my situation, but I am quite certain that I will be penalized quite normally -- I may even get an F on this paper. I don't care, though. I enjoyed writing it -- both times -- and after the second time I am quite convinced that I learned a great deal from it. (Of course, I'm not quite sure how cultural and pragmatic reasons behind strategic military decisions is going to help me, but maybe if I'm President some day...)

Or maybe it isn't school. Maybe it's Thanksgiving that upsets me. You see, I never think of myself as either extroverted or introverted, because I am really right in the middle. But when it comes down to it, I prefer spending time with new (and therefore more interesting) people than the same old clan, no matter how much love is in the room. I can't explain why this is, but family time isn't something I crave -- mostly because I see most of my closer family members, or the ones I'll be talking to tomorrow, quite regularly anyway.

I have a plan for next year. It will be my first Thanksgiving as an unrestricted adult in the US, and I think for that I am going to help to organize a Thanksgiving feast among many of my similarly aged friends with no parents or siblings... unless there are mutual friendships involved. The point is not to pull these people from their families -- they will still have Thanksgiving at home or wherever, if both locations are convenient -- rather, the idea is to have a serious, memorable occasion to celebrate without the typical, familial conversations and clich…s. If nothing else, it is an experience worth experiencing.

I know I'd catch hell for this opinion if I brought it up any where other than here, and that bothers me. (Note that I did not clarify which "that" bothers me. Does it bother me that I'd catch hell for it, or does it bother me that I won't because it's here?)

I hope you all enjoy your Thanksgiving. It's too bad I won't be seeing the Ragsdales tomorrow. They are, or were, my second family, and one person's dislike of me has taken all of them from me and me from all of them. Ah, the things we have to be thankful for...

I have determined that I have much repressed anger just itching to get out and lash out at someone. I came to this determination on my own when I realized the types of songs that I have recently grown to like, the ones whose lyrics I keep copying into my AIM buddy info. Songs like Crazy Town's "Sorry", P.O.D.'s "Anything Right", and SR-71's "They All Fall Down" or "My World"... Yeah, pent up hostility, and well deserved.

Hate is such a strong word; I am not currently capable of hate. No one has wronged me in such a way as to deserve hate, nor am I in any position that it could be earned. I'm much to accepting of human nature to actually hate anyone. But if you throw away trust, respect, and any other semblance of good feelings in blatant disregard, then you've certainly earned something hostile.

I like my mean music. It sounds better than everything else.

In October 1997, then Senator John Ashcroft took issue with the Clinton administration's views on the Internet and the use of encryption technology: "The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent... Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications." He acknowledged an "unhealthy precedent", yet he has helped the Bush administration to follow it. However, as the situation has changed, the public's answer to this question may still justify this administration's actions: is more security at this point in time worth the potential risk of illegal invasions privacy?

With President Bush purporting to sign the Homeland Security bill into law today, I would expect a varying degree of positive and negative responses. Those who ultimately trust the government will generally approve of greater security at what is perceived to be a bargain price, while those who suspect the government will generally reject the idea that enhanced surveillance capabilities will better secure our nation. I am somewhere between the two.

This week's Best of the Web (the daily feature will return next Monday) is very entertaining -- as it should be, since it will be sitting there all week. As James Taranto explains, the Opinion Journal staff received hundreds of emails in response to November 13's Best of the Web (last sub-headline), in which Taranto reported that a trio is is "writing a book about what they call 'post-traumatic slavery disorder' -- a derivative of post-traumatic stress disorder".

In response, hundreds of emails, of which my favorites I have quoted below, though it would be much easier for you to read the list on your own (you have a week):

Pre-post-traumatic reparations disorder: The present fear of being held responsible in the future for actions that aren't in your past.

Post-traumatic Big Bang disorder: Why waste time with a multitude of lesser excuses, errr I mean "disorders"? This one goes right to the atomic level and supersedes all others.

Post-traumatic paradise disorder: My ancestors were thrown out of the Garden of Eden when Eve bit into the apple, at the prompting of the serpent, both of which were placed there by the Supreme Deity. The eons of suffering and pain that befell men and women can be directly linked to this event... You might call it the "mother of all root causes".

Can I make it a post-traumatic potato/internment/slavery disorder? Especially if it will mean some really cool entitlements! Maybe going to college and earning a B.S. and a master's in order to get a job that puts me into the top 10% of taxpayers was all unnecessary! Heck, since most of the previous generations in my family didn't graduate from high school and none went to college, I could probably prove a very good case. Vindication is ours!

Post-traumatic crucifixion disorder: Because of the killing of Jesus Christ, I am forced to go to church for one hour every week, suffer immense guilt over my sins, and worry ceaselessly about going to Hell... There is no known cure.

Post-traumatic birth disorder...the pain of [which] is multiplied by the realization that it all could have been avoided through termination of the pregnancy. The added benefit of PTBD is that it allows everyone to be a member of an injured, violated minority.

Pre-traumatic middle-aged white-male disorder: As I grow older I become increasingly traumatized by the mantle of responsibility that I will acquire. It will soon be my fault that African-Americans were forced into slavery. It will be my fault that Native Americans were stripped of their heritage and lands. It will be my fault that women were second-class citizens and don't earn as much as I do. It will be my fault that Muslims around the world must face Zionist aggression (and I'm a Methodist!). It will be my fault the homeless have no home, the pro-choice have limited choice, and the poor have fewer tax breaks. And I'm supposed to laugh all of that off on the way to the bank?

I suffer from reflected white disorder. I experience anxiety when I look in the mirror and see a white, middle-aged, middle class, middle-level executive from Middle America. I'm thinking of suing myself.

I need some help. If I could just change my sexual preference, color, sex, morality and religion I'd be right with the world. Help me! I'm suffering from post-traumatic straight white guy disorder!

Bystander trauma. It would seem that [I should be able to] sue asbestos manufacturers [or anyone else] even if I've suffered no ill effects directly attributable to asbestos [or anyone's product]. The mere knowledge that people are made ill by asbestos [said product] is traumatizing to me, and I deserve compensation! Every time I think of this, I wonder how long it will be before we really see it.

Editor's note (that means I have something to say): there is a cure to post-traumatic cricifixion disorder -- stop believing in Jesus Christ as your one, true savior; become an atheist and live life as a moral being rather than a servant to some intangible, omnipresent (and therefore never present) deity that only exists to frighten you. (I've seen Dogma too many times and too many episodes of "The Simpsons" this week.)

The computer was up and running again about an hour after I formatted, but it took quite a few hours more to reinstall various programs, manipulate backup data (especially for applications with no backup or restore mechanism), and just get it to feel like home again. Most painful, yet probably one of the easiest tasks because I have done it so many times before, was reloading my Outlook Express folders so as to keep all my much-too-important archived email messages safe. I would attempt to export/import it the Microsoft way, but the only time I ever tried that, I lost every message I had previously had, my address book, and quite a few contacts as a result -- so now that process is taken care of the slow, methodical, sure way.

Other than that, I am only missing my internet Favorites and an affluence of registry-packing applications that are no longer necessary. Actually, there is one that I continue to remember to install just moments before I forget when I sit down here, but it will come to me shortly when I need it.

Perhaps the most annoying aspect of this operation was that I discovered that they gave me everything except the most important thing -- the software driver(s) for my network interface card. For any other piece of equipment, I could use the network interface card to get online and download the necessary drivers; but to need the internet for the driver and to need the driver for the internet put me in an unpleasant situation. Naturally, when I got to the nearest internet-ready computer to download the driver to a floppy disk -- hoping it was the correct driver -- the Netgear web server sent the files at about a 2 kBps clip, giving me plenty of time to discuss the weather and things with my Uncle Jimmy until the files copied over to the ever-slower floppy disk.

Either way, my AMD 1.4 GHz processor is pushing a fresh Windows Millennium installation at its optimum, except for the thirty-or-so applications I installed last night. Still, that there are not forty others that have been installed an uninstalled have greatly improved performance, and some of the problems that plagued the previous installation since before I even owned the machine are now gone. (Note to self: next time, tell the seller not to load the operating system, but simply to include all the necessary software to get things working.)

It is going to be a painful process to rebuild my favorites menus. It may be even more painful to try to remember passwords for my various online subscriptions. But this is better than it was, regardless.

First and second, respectively, are to reestablish my computer's communication with the New York Times online and Amazon.com! (Naturally, the first thing I did last night when the computer was online again was check Slashdot.)

Okay, so "format C:" isn't exactly a routine operation, but this computer needs it. Multiple users and multiple applications installed and uninstalled and ... blah blah blah ... This computer was filled and gutted too many times as a youngling, and it has never quite understood javascripts properly. Various other nagging quirks have necessitated what I am about to do -- that, and sharing this computer with my sister for the next few months, have left me no choice but to ensure that everything is working properly and smoothly now so I know what went wrong when and if anything does.

I only hope that they gave me everything I need to reinstall all my hardware. I would be less than pleased to discover something to be missing... Assuming that the basic items are reinstalled successfully, I should be back online within a few hours. No promises.

Ibrahim Hooper has compared "conservative evangelical leaders" like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (whom I do not endorse or defend) to Osama bin Laden:

When Mr. Malzberg asked whether the Christian leaders would kill Muslims as bin Laden urges Muslims to kill Jews and Christians, Mr. Hooper said: "Given the right circumstance, these guys would do the same in the opposite direction."

I disagree. We would never send our fanatics flying into buildings -- our bombs are more easily directed than their passenger jets. Also, we wouldn't destroy buildings filled with innocent civilians, nor would we attack emotionally or other similarly symbollic sites; rather, we would take out particularly militant sites.

I liked James Taranto's response: "Sure, and if pigs had wings, Islamic fanatics would fly them into buildings."

You can bet that Weird Al Yankovic is locked away tightly somewhere attempting to write the perfect lyric through which to convey his satirical ideas about the war on terror and the Middle East without pissing too many people off.

To remain passive and to accept the unacceptable simply because the majority wills it to be so is a bit, well, lazy and unacceptable. To rephrase: to accept the unacceptable is not the crime, but to accept it without resistance (verbal or otherwise) and without complaint once established is. I mention this only because I am tired of Democrats blaming Max Cleland's electoral loss on everything and everyone except Max Cleland and his campaign team. Voting in America works like this: on any given election day, voters will place their votes for the candidates of their choice in that moment -- for any reason, often for reasons undetectable to the experts, which is why they blame it on everything under the sun except their candidate that didn't meet voter approval.

It is part of every American's responsibility, whether a voter or not, to accept the results of our electoral system as they stand. It is also the responsibility of the American public, the media, public officials, and everyone else to accept that there will always be a backlash to every election, and that to blame it on someone like Rush Limbaugh is absolutely ridiculous!

Point: Tom Daschle is blaming Rush Limbaugh, in a distasteful tactic not too dissimilar from the Wellstone Memorial-Rally, for inciting potential violence (note: not violence, but potential violence). Meanwhile, Tom Daschle says nothing when Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or his own state's Democratic Party Memorial-Rally stirs up far more insidious emotion with only political power and disarming capitalism in mind. Where are you, Mr. Daschle, when Jesse Jackson's hate-filled, anti-caucasian words fill the air? I don't know where, but I know what you're doing: grinning to yourself that a man unaccountable to your party is leading a blind mass of voters into your pocket with lies and impartial truths -- also known as deception.

Don't get me wrong, some Republicans do this too. Rush Limbaugh isn't exactly on the same level as the average Democrat. Sure, Rush Limbaugh is unfair -- he knows more than most Democrats can possibly imagine about how politics and the economy work, and he isn't afraid to enlighten anyone who is willing to listen. The Democrats' only defense against Limbaugh is to disarm the truth by attaching emotive, hateful slogans to it. Limbaugh lures Democrats and others to the Republican Party by reporting factual information. Democrats lure Republicans and others to the Democratic Party by distorting those facts and making others feel guilty for being anything else. And the Republican Party itself is too laid back to actively pursue voters on its own, and that's the beauty of it -- in this last election, Republicans gained and Democrats lost because (a) Democrats failed and (b) influential Republican supporters helped to expose the Democrats' failures and deceptions.

Of course, if I had my way, neither Party would be in the majority. If I had my way, the Libertarian Party would be slightly reformed so as more to represent (more similarly) the classical ideals of liberalism, and it would attract masses of voters from each of the current major parties to split the country in three. Even better, all non-Democrats and non-Republicans would -- for the purpose of elections and having their voices not only heard, but their policies enacted -- band together to form a de facto centralized third party. This goes against what I believe in many ways, but insofar as it would destroy the two-party duopoly over American politics, my purpose would be served.

Once the political party structure of American politics is divided, the American individual would necessarily have to wake up and pay attention -- simply voting Democrat or Republican would mean nothing if neither is in the majority.

This is more-or-less a response to C.A. Wolski's review at Box Office Mojo.

First, Die Another Day is not the worst Bond song of all time. Sheryl Crow's "Tomrrow Never Dies" (along with most of that movie, excluding the opening sequence) is very weak. I actually dislike most of the older Bond songs when contrasted with the new ones, but my tastes tend to remain always contemporary... The wit and charm of classic Bond movies is great, but I prefer my (action) movies to at least look realistic -- even if what is happening on screen is completely fantastical, it needs to look real. One scene where this was not accomplished was the parachute-surfing scene.

Second, as for your Cold War story hangup, the script was already written and the movie was in pre-production by September 11, 2001. The cast and crew were mostly in place -- there wasn't time for a new-world rewrite of the script. I would hold off on that complaint until the next Bond movie. If it isn't addressed in some way by 2005 (maybe Brosnan's last attempt at Bond?), then I'll throw in some complaints as well.

Other minor complaints: (1) Choice of words was less intelligent in this film. Some of the one-liners were just as corny as always, but such everyday clichés that not only could I see them coming, but the average eight-year-old could as well. (2) The car chase-fight was a bit over-the-top. (3) Q was much to scarce.

James Bond, to me, is a realistic assassin set out to thwart the fantastical plot of an unrelentingly power-craving villain. His knowledge of languages, cultures, weapons, gadgets, history, and everything else that can be imagined is so mind-bogglingly expansive that it borders on being an unrealistic plot element, but then again, he is in his mid-thirties, so he's had many years to train his mind and body for such things. What Die Another Day has done is expand on that -- and not only did it show us more gadgets and more of Bond's abilities, but it also got us closer to Bond... and to Moneypenny.

Overall, this Bond film has a better first impression than most, although I believe that The World Is Not Enough and Goldeneye were each slightly better. However, Hally Berry played a much stronger Bond girl than any Bond girls I've known from the past, and the wit and charm of the film were exactly what they needed to be. Overall, a good Bond film -- and since I just love James Bond movies, this gets an A from me.

What happens when Rush Limbaugh attacks those of us in public life is that people aren't satisfied just to listen. They want to act because they get emotionally invested. And so, you know, the threats to those of us in public life go up dramatically, and on our families and on us, in a way that's very disconcerting.

Daschle then likened violent fundamentalism in foreign lands to the "shrill tone" of "Rush Limbaugh and all the Rush wannabees". It's good that people aren't afraid to defend Rush, although he certainly didn't need any help.

Just another example of Daschle's Democrats trying to shift the blame from their inadequacies to some (any) thing that alleviates them of any responsibility for what they did wrong. Daschle's argument would be much more compelling if one of his own, Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, didn't repeatedly question the Democrats' blame-shifting.

Zell Miller knows what happened; he knows what's wrong. And he's being ignored. This can't be good for the Democratic Party, but it could be even worse for America if it keeps up.

What do you think of the first new tower to be built in the space formerly occupied by the World Trade Center? Important note: this building, which will be 52 stories tall, completed by 2005 (which means 2007), and only a small part of the redevelopment plan for the World Trade Center site, is a replacement for the 7 World Trade Center tower that collapsed only because of the overwhelming damage caused by the debris resulting from the collapse of the first two towers.

For those interested in financial aspects of the project, the "new building is expected to cost about $700 million" and "will be paid for with about $800 million in insurance proceeds". Any further expenses will be privately financed, "likely through the Liberty Bond program designed to help New York recover from the attacks".

Click on the image to quadruple its size.

It does not surprise me that young Americans are flunking geography -- I consider myself to be politically savvy, and not until my comparative politics class in which I am currently enrolled (I have completed half of my undergraduate studies) did I become aware of where most nations and significant cities around the world are located. My knowledge of Africa and the Middle East (Eastern Europe and Western Asia) were particularly poor, though I could generally find my way to the Middle East just by putting it between the East (Eastern Europe) and the Far East (Eastern Asia, Japan). Logic serves me well, but I perceive that logic is failing in the world, so it makes perfect sense to me that kids don't know where anything is in the world.

Some nice facts from this study:

Well, I could have told you that. I have long known that one side affect of American capitalism is that too many Americans confuse our isolationist foreign policy with not-needing to know about the rest of the world. This, among other things that I occasionally highlight, is why America is getting worse, despite so many parts of it getting better.

Brutus, our older dog, a Yorkshire Terrier that was almost eight-and-a-half-years-old, died about fifty minutes ago in my sister's arms as she carried him into the vet's office to have him put to sleep. He was diagnosed with Cushing's disease far later than he should have been, and the medication only helped to ease his suffering. He was able to resume a reasonably decent quality of life before his body gave out on him.

He was always a good dog. I remember him as a pup; he would fetch toys and tennis balls, play tug-of-war, and chase us and his younger brother Rascal around the house. He pranced around with his smoothish fur as if he belonged in one of those Kennell Club dog shows. He had the cutest little way of begging -- rolling over onto his back and putting his front legs together and pawwing into the empty air...

He never whined -- except for food, which was his main purpose in life -- even when the pain was almost certainly to the point of being unbearable. Over the last twenty-four hours, he did not sleep; he could not lie down because he needed his stomach muscles to breathe, and that's how we knew it was his time. Throughout the day today, he would start to close his eyes and nod off, only to catch himself before he allowed his head to hit the floor. He was exhausted. I suppose one good thing to come from his passing is that we are left knowing that it really was his time to go -- we don't have to feel guilty or wonder about having done the right thing.

Brutus was a wonderful pet, and the first dog I ever had. I'm going to miss him:

Arnold Schwarzenegger as the next governor of California? Despite that he has yet to hold any political office, that he will bring down the Democratic machine in California is considered a possibility. "The body-builder-turned-action-hero deflects questions about his political ambitions, but many Republicans expect -- and hope -- he will run for governor in four years." Apparently, he had considered running against Gray Davis in this year's election, but could not because of contractual obligations for his role in next summer's Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (watch for the first trailer this winter!). He may or may not be a shoe-in for Republican nomination if he chooses to run; read the article if you're really that interested in his politican potential.

John Terranova of Fenton, Missouri, sent a letter to the editor of USA Today titled "Accept the 'liberal' definition with pride", which can be found on page 14A of Monday's paper, or here:

Ahem. Prepare, Mr. Terranova, for you have earned your retort.

• Point one. Liberalism, as you have defined it, is classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is the original form of the political philosophy as founded by John Locke, and is today referred to as libertarianism. If you are proud to be the type of liberal that you just defined, then you are not a liberal at all by today's standards -- you are a libertarian. Liberalism in America today is characterized by a trend toward socialism. Socializing health care, paying higher taxes to take care of those less capable -- that is socialism, or contemporary American liberalism. That has nothing to do with the liberalism you just defined.

• Point two. It isn't and shouldn't be your responsibility to take care of anyone else. Think about it: if it takes all of us to take care of everyone, then wouldn't it make entirely more sense if we each just took care of ourselves in the first place? By advocating that it is our moral responsibility to take care of the "weak", you are relieving them of any responsibility that they should have -- because they know it is your responsibility to care for them. This ideal of liberalism only promotes laziness and more poverty.

• Point three. I agree with you on abortion. Abortion should not be political at all. It should be a last resort, but it should always be a guaranteed right -- or a privilege, at the very least. Abortion has no reason to be outlawed completely.

• Point four. Okay, you can have one. But I hardly see how just one bomber or battleship (which one?) is going to make any difference. You have just saved every family in America perhaps one dollar. Or, well, actually you haven't. You have actually saved us nothing, because the money is only being deferred to the lazy, ignorant poor who refuse to work for it. No, most of them are not incapable of work, but most of them never will because they know that Big Brother (guided by people like you) will always be willing to pay for their meager living and never give them any real excuse to work like the rest of us.

• Point five. There is nothing wrong with protecting the environment, but "at the expense of industry profits"? Are you stupid? Do you realize that you just took a shot at 50% of the country? I bet even you work in some industry or another. But wait, here's something you don't understand: no one really profits from anything, because regardless of where the money goes on paper, it is always spent, and therefore returned to the economy as it should be.

• Point six. With an attitude like that, you have just given yourself two excellent reasons never to better yourself. First, as you become more "fortunate", you pay more tax dollars to help out even more people less fortunate than you. Second, if you become less "fortunate", then you help out those less fortunate even less and may even qualify to be helped out by the more fortunate!

I think it is absolutely absurd that people like you think it is okay to steal from the rich (who do most of the work) and give to the poor (who generally do not even try). Certainly, the system isn't perfect. There are those that don't get enough help that have legitimate need for it, and there are those that get way too much for not enough effort. But as long as neither of those problems greatly outweighs the other, then I will hinge my decision on morality: and it is absolutely immoral to take what anyone has earned just to give to someone else.

If you truly believe in your ideals for the less fortunate, then (1) you would advocate removing wasteful government functions and institutions that require far too many of your tax dollars; (2) you would advocate the abolition of the income tax entirely in favor of a consumption tax (we should pay for what we buy and use, not for what we earn -- the rich, more involved in business, would still be taxed at an exponentially higher rate); (3) you would advocate personal responsibility and lose the idea that it is your and my job to work for those who are unwilling to work for themselves.

A society that figures out how to vote itself free stuff is a society that will not last very long. This hatred for the "upper class" has destroyed societies for millennia. In this "New World", I find it incredible that we still are on track to make the same most significant mistake of all our predecessors in history. Keep it up, America! At this rate, we'll be split by 2050!

The very liberal Senator John Kerry (D-MA) is prepared to step down from his Steering and Coordination Committee chairmanship, and the even-more liberal (I didn't know it was possible until I just thought about it) Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is supposedly the next in line for the job. Kerry is planning to step down to focus his efforts on his 2004 presidential campaign, while Clinton will probably hold the post for about four years before also stepping down to focus on her own presidential campaign -- that is, if Kerry doesn't actually win in 2004. A few remarks from Democrat insiders:

Nobody better understands the resources that the right has mustered [the truth, which the right uses] to clobber Democrats. From the money to the media manipulation, she gets it [all done for us].

She can articulate our needs and goals better than anyone.

News flash: their needs are the same as everyone else in America, but they refuse to admit it; their goals are complete control over the government and the complete obliteration of the opposition [or their right to be heard]. They hope to achieve this goal by misrepresenting the truth, which is the ultimate tool of any good politician (which generally includes neither Democrats nor Republicans), and by bringing up irrelavant facts from their opponents' past in order to lower public opinion of them.

Proof that Democrats still don't know what hit them or just want to lie to their supporters in order to further them from the truth:

"It is not so much changing the message," said Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). "It is just that people in America haven't been hearing what we argue all the time."

"The conservative establishment in this country really has a lock on the airwaves," said Senator Dick Durbin (IL), the assistant Democratic floor leader.

Bull! Dan Rather was quite emotional and quite peeved on election night because of "Bushification of America". I heard on CNN, MSNBC, and CBS at least one news personality that criticized the election results as "unfortunate for America" or because "America had lost touch with its democratic roots". The airwaves and the print media are dominated by a liberal majority. The only medium through which Republicans carry the majority is talk radio, and the left-of-middle crowd is seeking to "equalize" even that! (By equalize, I mean that they wish to center it over their perceived center, which is their leftist point of view.)

Another Democrat aide said:

Republicans did a masterful job of blurring the differences on key Democratic initiatives such as education, health care and the war on terrorism. This allowed the president to tack to the center and pick up Independent voters.

What the hell? That is so incredibly not true. The Democrats blurred the differences on the key Republican initiative, the war on terrorism, which allowed voters to choose the party that stuck to what it has always believed in -- a high-priority defense and a refusal to submit to threats, as opposed to a party that really had no unified identity in this election. Democrats had no message except whatever was opposite what Republicans said, unless it was about the war, in which case they said nothing -- agreeing with the war would be a very Republican thing to say, and disagreeing with the war would be a very unpatriotic thing to say and unrepresentative of their constituents.

The Democrats were lost in this election, and they are making every effort now to blame it on Republicans when all Republicans are guilty of is having a clearly defined agenda that was true to their party and to America.

So I just drove to 623 Lok Chappe to visit Carmelita, Ally, and Riley one last time. Unfortunately, the only one (besides Corinna, who is never there) that I wanted to talk to, Carmelita, was not yet home, so I left her a, erm, note. Maybe we'll get together for dinner or a movie sometime soon, but I would almost rather not be reminded of how wonderful that family really is. I don't want to be reminded that I was once a part of it.

Of everyone I've known there, I can't decide who I'll miss the most. I think, most accurately, that I'll just miss the whole lot of them as if there were no other way to take them. I mean, as how I knew/know them, there was no other way to take them but all-or-nothing. One of the group seems to be hoping for nothing, and by the nature of the arrangement, if she wishes it, then it must be so. If she does not, then I have no power to do anything for it without her expressing such. I am generally optimistic, but I am never an idealist -- and I know better than to expect that in this situation. Either way, the key is left on the counter. I am finished with them unless I am invited back, which is not a very plausible idea.

UPDATE 19:31: Carmelita just called. She's in tears. That doesn't make the emotional bit any easier, but it helps to know that my motivation was never wrong or unclear. It only hurts that my motivation figuratively self-destructed, leaving me sprawled in darkness attempting to find my core again. I think I've rebuilt myself, but I know that I can't know for sure for quite some time.

I feel the same as I felt my junior year in high school -- virtually alone, shut out from all I love except the only few real friends I've ever had, and searching for some motivation besides myself and my own well being, which I know should be the only motivation I should ever have. (Amazingly, whenever I do feel as I should, that I am rightly my only motivation, I am derided for my selfish contempt and disregard for others, when in reality my selfishness is quite opposite of contempt and disregard -- respectful, in fact.)

I have tossed around a very uncomfortable thought in recent days -- that Claire has, in my mind, been reduced to the same quality of those who turned against me in high school. All the same qualities are there -- except this time, the only person who understood my side of the argument in the past is the one person that bridges the gap between her and me, and therefore he is useless in that capacity.

I am being torn between two versions of myself. In the movie Riding in Cars with Boys, Drew Barrymore's character says (paraphrased), "life is just a few significant moments that change everything". Well, while my rationale is unaltered, everything about how I apply it socially is affected. I do not act entirely different, but I feel as though a friend caught in the middle is going to be lost -- and she is much closer to him. He and I are much more professional about such things, and I am sure that we will behave quite normally -- if not cautiously -- in coming weeks or months, but I am aware that there is a very real possibility that he and I will drift apart. That is never good of best friends, but then again, Claire was the closest friend I have ever had, and she snapped her fingers and left me out to dry without sufficient warning or even discussing it before she, erm, did what she did.

And yet, I am still the bad guy. The only "bad" thing I have done is wish for it to be righted again, or if it can not be, then wish for all unnecessary reminders of it to simply vanish from my life. I do not run from the problem -- the problem ran from me. And if the problem is not to be confronted, then I refuse to dwell pointlessly on a problem that will never solve itself. This is why this is the complete and utter end of relations with Claire and me -- she will never regain my respect if she does not do the one thing that she said she would do so many weeks ago. She will not remember, nor will she think I am even worth it. So -- the end.

(Regardless of my relations (or lack thereof) with her, her family, or anyone else caught in the middle, the end result will be the best result because it will be the only result, and it will be impossible to compare to anything that was not the result. (Get it?) Jenn and I are hitting it off quite nicely -- in fact, very similarly Claire's and my beginning, except that Jenn, like me, loves a passionate debate about anything under the sun -- she loves to learn, she loves to talk, and she actually visits me at work when she doesn't need a book. Come to think of it, the most significant difference between my relationship with Jenn and my relationship with Claire is that, with Jenn, the relationship isn't one double standard after another!)

I had initially in this space written an update of my life without Claire, but as it included a couple of veiled shots at her, I decided to hide it. If you know where it hides and/or if you care enough, then you'll read it. If not, you won't.

This still makes me sick: "Microsoft was found guilty of illegally maintaining its monopoly in personal computer operating systems in 2000."

Illegally!? Should it really be illegal to develop a product that is worth buying? Should it really be illegal for consumers to buy what they want when and if it is available to them? Should it really be illegal for a company, no matter what advantages or disadvantages it may have over any other, to make internal sacrafices for the sake of other businesses?

Guess what: that's communist. Public intervention in economics is socialist; government intevention in economics is communist. Leaving economics the hell alone except to preserve the existence of the nation itself -- which is in no danger of economic collapse -- is libertarian and the only morally correct choice to make.

I found this article via North Georgia Dogma: amazingly, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial staff advocates that the Georgia legislature redraw the district maps -- "Republicans have the opportunity to avoid the overreaching of their Democratic predecessors and create a legacy of districts drawn solely in the public interest". There is much more for which the AJC staff, which endorsed mostly Democratic candidates before election, rips into obstructionist Georgia Democrats:

I agree entirely that politics should be removed completely from the apportionment process. There should be zero bias whatsoever. Districts should be rectangular in shape and their borders that are not along state boundaries should run parallel to the imaginary lines of longitude and latitude. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided in Davis v. Bandemer (1986) that political gerrymandering is legal as long as both discriminatory intent and effect can not be proven -- the "effect" is only qualifiable when it "consistently degrade[s] a voter's or a group of voters' influence on the political process as a whole". This in no way justifies political gerrymandering, but it does not forbid it, hence why it continues. I think a geometric apportionment plan would reduce the bias to near-zero and solve nearly all of our districting problems. (I say "almost all" because some cities, and even neighborhoods, would indeed by split down the middle in unlikely ways, but that is neglegible as the electoral process would be nearly perfectly fair after that.)

Saddam Hussein has threatened to attack Israel if the US attacks Iraq, opening a two-front war that would almost certainly result in a much quicker and easier US victory than previously imagined by the Bush admistration. First of all, Israel could probably take on Iraq by itself. Second, there is no question the US could. Put those together, and Saddam may as well pack his things for the afterlife is he is planning on provoking anything. (Somehow, I don't think we'll kill him unprepared -- he has to be smart enough to know what position he's put himself in.)

I'm not quite sure what to think about the Bush administration potentially reviving the nuclear testing program that Bush's father ended in 1992. On one hand, nuclear weapons are just plain bad. On the other, if someone else has them and is threatening to use them on us, I think it is important that we have something with which to fight back. I wrote a paper on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty about five years ago, and given that most of the only countries who haven't signed the treaty are trouble-makers anyway, I don't like it. It's like disarming a population -- take the guns away from the law-abiding citizens who registered them, so the only ones still in circulation are the unregistered ones that you don't know about in the hands of criminals who feel more confident about using them. It is important to have a strong defense prepared, so for now, there is nothing wrong with a little nuclear testing.

Robyn has raised over $1600 so far, and more than $1200 of it is going to charity for breast cancer research, all by showing us her boobies. It's funny how that worked out -- she showed her boobies for money, then someone else showed their boobies to help her raise money, and suddenly a lot of people were showing a lot of boobies to help raise money. More than was needed was raised, and so the excess boobie money was decided to be donated to boobie charity. Then even more boobies showed up for even more donations. So go see some boobies, and go donate some money!

It's weekends like this that I wish I could be in Athens -- wearing my Auburn tshirt, jacket, and cap. Only a few minutes into the fourth quarter, Auburn is up 21-17 over UGA. I've been struggling to understand why Auburn has been out of the top 25 all year long, having just as good a season as Florida or Florida State. Maybe if Auburn beats Georgia, then Alabama, they'll gain a little more respect -- not in time for good BCS standing, though.

It's funny. For the last several years, Auburn and Georgia have been my two favorite college football teams, and it has always been an inner struggle to choose one over the other. This year, however, the choice has been easy. When UGA loses, the entire town of Athens is depressed (except the few who are smart enough not to care about a stupid football game) -- that's something to cheer for!

According to the Washington Post, Judge Robert Hodges Jr of the US Court of Federal Claims has ruled that lawyers at the Justice Department "who routinely work more than 40 hours a week are entitled to overtime pay under the 1945 Federal Employees Pay Act". Critics of the decision claim that "paying the lawyers for their overtime work could harm the 'professional atmosphere' at [the Justice Department]". Judge Hodges agreed, but asserted that it doesn't matter: "Attorneys in the class are covered by the Federal Employees Pay Act and are entitled to overtime if they meet its requirements." Essentially, he means to say that the law is the law.

Glenn Reynolds' reaction:

I think that this is a good thing. My government-lawyer friends will likely agree, of course. But if you think the Justice Department is overreaching, then something that forces it to weigh priorities can only be a benefit.

Definitely. Hopefully. Forcing the government to cough up more money for its overreaching will either result in less overreaching or more taxes. I hate to guess which, but I am comforted by a Republican Congress -- comforted, not comfortable.

Someone should tell this guy that the devil's hand is in everything. Evil is only corrupting if the individual submits to it. Christianity preaches this, yet conveniently forgets any time something "morally incorrect" appears. Censorship is anti-democratic. This is another good reason why church and state should necessarily be kept separate.

By the way, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was very good -- much scarier than the first one! That is not to say that it was a scary movie, but it had its jumpy moments, and the little kids are going to be creeped out. The special effects were great, the acting was much better (naturally, as the kids have grown into their roles), and the story is only getting more interesting. I am only disappointed that I must wait another year or more for the next Harry Potter film.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets gets an A– in my book. Sneaking into the theatre earns bonus points!

That low minority-voter turnout is a civil rights problem is an absurd notion. A civil participation problem, sure. A civil rights problem, it is not. Whether they saw the need to vote or not in this last election is not the rest of the country's problem. If they found it as important as I did to get out and let my opinion take a part in this country's functions, then they would have gotten out and votes. That they did not is only further evidence that they would rather have things done for them rather than do it themselves.

A list of some suggestions to increase voter turn out are "Election-day voter registration, public financing of political campaigns, instant runoff voting, restoring voting rights to former prisoners, and an election day holiday". Now let me tell you one-by-one why they are bad ideas.

Election-day voter registration is bad for several reasons, but four stick out. It a puts a large burden on the elections division to develop a system that not only registers voters but provides a means for electioneers, who are usually volunteers with little to no knowledge of how to run an election, to verify voters. Similarly, election-day registration is insecure as it does not provide adequate protection from fraudulent registration. It allows anyone who pays no attention to any campaign to vote the way [insert peer here] tells him to for reasons unknown. Finally, and probably least important, it requires a much more delicate and involved process to verify not only election results, but election-day voter registrations as well -- finding fraudulent registrations means discounting their votes, which is much more difficult and even impossible in some states. Sure, election-day voter registration makes it easier to vote, but I do not believe that electing the officials who operate the entire country should be taken lightly. Election-day voter registration is a bad idea; if you wish to vote, register well in advance -- at least then you're more likely to know for whom and what you are voting.

Public financing of political campaigns is actually a good idea in my opinion, but I have not worked out the kinks of my proposed public finance plan yet. All plans I have absorbed to this point are flawwed in too many ways, but some are still better than the current system. As I further develop my campaign finance ideas, I will let you know of them.

Instant runoff voting is a strange idea. How would that work? It is impossible for a runoff vote to be instant because it is impossible to know which candidates would be in a potential runoff. To include potential runoff matchups on every ballot would horribly inflate the ballot and further disenchant potential voters. Instant runoff elections are a horrible idea, but I believe that no more than two weeks (long enough to certify election results) should pass between election day and any runoff elections, except under rare circumstances (like a recount).

Restoring voter rights to former prisoners is a questionable proposition. I actually have read the law in Georgia concerning this, and I agree with it: I believe that most felonious acts automatically forfeit one's right to vote. After completing one's sentence, a certain amount of time (ten years is good) must pass before a felon can reclaim the right to vote. I like the idea of a good behavior rule, even for the most serious of crimes. Perhaps time without suffrage after one's sentence has been served should be expressed during the sentencing process -- and never less than a state law's minimum requirement.

An election day holiday is just stupid. For one thing, people with extremely involving jobs (surgeons, business owners, etc.) would not benefit from such a holiday. Hospitals and criminal investigation units are among those on a very long list of places that never sleep that would not benefit from election day being declared a holiday. I have a better idea: move election day to Saturday. Most people stay home (or at least they aren't at work) on Saturdays in November, which indirectly provides that most occupations on the list that would not be helped by a Tuesday holiday would be helped by a Saturday election day. Besides, the stock market sleeps on the weekend.

How did I do? Are you convinced? Whether you agree with me or not, it is infinitely more important that anything I say only heightens your interest in the subject. I don't mean to brainwash you -- if you disagree with me, ask yourself why! To be able to defend your own beliefs with reasons will lead you to higher understandings of many things.

For all the bad reasons in the world for Democrats to have lost the election, this a conservative media bias had never crossed my mind. Check Bernard Goldberg's toilets for bricks. This is further proof that the majority of the left wing believes that they are the center of the universe. If that were the case, they wouldn't be the "left" wing, but they would be the centrists. American liberalism could fit as centrist only in the presence of communism.

It's funny that the media would accuse themselves of being the reason why they lost the election. That should make them even more liberal! New theory: it isn't the Republicans' victory that will spawn a more liberal left to oppose the majority right, but instead it is the new media's falsely self-incriminating allegations of a conservative bias that will bend them on putting the right wing in its place.

I will find it so much more gratifying in two years when they realize that the right wing's place is in the White House, in the legislatures, in the courtrooms...

Okay, so there are plenty out there, but they are so few-and-far-between that they are incredibly difficult to find! I mean, I actually had to visit the Washington Times online to find this one!

Supposedly predicting the Republican victory is not what makes it an intelligent article -- that makes the Republican Party very intelligent for accurately predicting election results, and doubly so for not letting on that they expected to win, this leaving their voters with a motivation to really get out and rock the vote. Rather, what makes this article intelligent is that its author, Ralph Hallow, accurately describes George Bush's role in the election results as merely encouraging turnout on issues for which voters were more likely to lean Republican. Bush's encouragement neither guaranteed Republican victory nor directly influenced it -- had he guessed wrong (on issues, candidates, or any of a number of other things), the election could very easily have gone the other way. But it didn't, and at some point, he and others figured out that it wouldn't.

That point was probably within twenty-four hours of the Wellstone Rally, although some others were predicting bad things for Democrats after a failing Democrat dropped from his New Jersey race, essentially allowing the Democratic Party to win a race in which the people's candidate was losing. I, on the other hand, had predicted a two-seat pickup for Republicans as early as September, though I hardly had any solid reasoning to back it up until the election neared. The lack of reasoning is explained easily: the electoral environment is too volatile to be accurately predicted from such a long way off. I merely emphasized that, at the rate things were going (based on my sociological interpretations and expectations of the populace), there was little room for the Democrats to make any moves.

One very important fact of which Republicans need to be aware is this: this election does not represent an overall shift toward the Republican Party. True, I believe that this country is currently trending toward the Republicans, but that trend will reverse itself very quickly should Republicans act swiftly to promote sweeping changes across the board. Subtlety and peaceful relations with bickering Democrats should guarantee electoral victory for Republicans in 2004, and in each successive election the Republican agenda could pick up steam. But only in moderation can the Republican Party expand, and only in aggressively pushing their agenda can the Democrats take power back.

At least, that's the way I see it. No matter how right or wrong I am about it, I base my predictions on two key factors that help or hurt parties: playing fair and getting things done. And remember, appearance is unfortunately much more important than reality in politics. That only encourages the hypocrisy of American democracy and politics.

This is horrible news:

A jury has awarded the widow of teacher Barry Grunow $1.2 million from a gun distributor. Pam Grunow's lawsuit accused Valor Corp of distributing a gun that was "unsafe, defective and lacked features that would have prevented a minor from using it."

I stopped reading after that. First, any minor can use any gun if the minor knows how to use it, so that's a really horrible way to lose a lawsuit. Second, the precedent that this case hopefully did not set is that people are not responsible when guns go off, but the gun distributor is!

You know, if we're going to use that train of thought to determine who is guilty when a gun goes off, then the only logical solution is to place blame on the inventor of the first gun. After all, guns would not exist without him. It's all his fault, because he made every shooting death possible!

What should we do? Force his descendents to pay reparations?

Even worse for democracy, the school board and the gun's owner were held to be responsible for the shooting. According to the results of this case, the kid who pulled the trigger is not responsible in the least -- the school board and gun owner take most of the hit, and the distributor is 5% liable.

I didn't kill him. I just pulled the trigger.

Welcome to the fold. We have reached the beginning of the end of democracy in America.... Okay, well, the beginning of the end is barely a memory. But you know what I mean.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has a funny way of playing politics. When his party was in power, he thought bipartisanship was a joke and even accused Republicans (ad nauseum) of not playing fair. Now that the tables of turned, of course, he claims "more than ever" that both sides "need to work together". He then called Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) a draft dodger:

He supported a man, for example, in Georgia who was - well, the best way to put it - was a draft dodger who attacked Sen. Cleland on his patriotism. And the president joined in that. Sen. Cleland lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam. But the man who avoided the draft several times won. Now, it's going to take a little bit to get over that kind of partisanship.

First of all, Patty, being a war veteran does not guarantee being a patriot. Certainly, it qualifies Senator Cleland, but to oppose "patriotic" measures that Georgia voters wanted passed was an easy target for challenging his patriotism. Besides, just because he's a "decorated war hero" and Saxby Chambliss has never been to war does not make Cleland the better candidate for Georgians. You need to get your ideas of democracy straight -- the general population, not the coworkers, choose who they want to fill those Senate seats. You don't really think the party in control of the Senate should be allowed to choose who replaces Senators and when, do you? I would call that aristocracy or plutocracy, which is something I thought Democrats were against.

Second, why is it okay for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and other prominent figures on your side to run around the country and stump for candidates of their choice, but then it is not okay for George Bush? Just because he is President? If the Republicans had lost, you would have been thrilled to death that Bush had done what he did, because it would have effectively been a political suicide -- evidence that people do not respond to their president. You know as well as I do that no Democrat, except the good ones, would let the President live such a thing down.

I think you're just upset because you're losing your Judiciary Committee chairmanship. And you're behavior suggests that you're quite the sore loser. This is why I hate voting for Democrats, even good ones: they simply expect to win, so they raise hell when they don't because there was obviously cheating involved.

It's your job to make you happy. It's my job to make me happy. If what makes us happy overlaps, we will be together. But that does not mean that we should alter what we want just because of the other's feelings. We're not there yet.

This is something I've told Claire several times since we broke up. I had thought we were "there" in the previous months, but I was corrected of that on September 11. I only share this now because I think it should apply to everyone. Until you are actually considering a lifelong relationship with a "significant other" (even in only the tinest way), you should never make decisions based on how they will react, but instead make them based on how you will react. To the degree that you are actually considering relational permanence, you should proportionally consider your partner's desires -- to a point. Regardless of the love two people share, if one is not happy with the other, then they should not be together. I am not suggesting that we should all match exactly with our significant others, but instead that we should feel happier with the person than without, as though the significant other adds something significant.

I felt that with Claire for nineteen months. The twentieth month all but ruined it. I do not believe in absolutes, no I naturally believe that life with Claire is not impossible. However, to the degree to which she believes it is impossible, it is, because nothing between us is ever possible without both deciding on it separately. But because Claire does not have an open mind, or at least expresses to me that she does not, I know that -- unless she changes significantly -- she an I are through with each other.

When the person to whom I have felt closest for two of the best years of my life struggles and only gives in to invite me to be with her on her only 21st birthday, arguably the most significant (and most dangerous) birthday of anyone's life in America, I realize that to continue communicating with said person is a wasted exercise until or unless she decides to hold true to her promise that we should be "friends". She does not want me around, and because of that, I do not want to be around her. Just as any and all negative feelings I have toward her are directly resultant of harsh treatment (deception, lies, plain meanness) I have received from her.

Friends do not exploit another's weakness(es) or imperfection(s) in an attempt to justify their own and to alleviate their own responsibility for their actions, especially when those actions are to such a comparatively higher degree as to render them inexcusable. Rather, friends accept responsibility (partial or full, whichever is appropriate) and work toward the solution. Claire has refused to do this. The only way she can earn forgiveness from me is to make a genuine effort. All relationships require two parts, and one part of this one is dormant; this is no longer a relationship.

In short, unless she purports to accept the reality of the situation and work toward some solution, I am gone from her life. I refuse to work with those who are so afraid of the truth that they refuse to deal with the occasional burdens of life and instead run from them. My Christian upbringing taught me that life involves suffering, and that we must endure it and work to overcome it -- not run from it only for it to catch up again.

This was intentionally vague in many instances for very good reason -- I do not (yet) feel like exposing what really happened. Those of you that know will understand this. I do this not out of respect for Claire; she has lost my respect. I do this because I have not yet decided if she is even worth helping any more. I can not know for sure, but I am reasonably certain that she would not understand my purpose or hers, and therefore she would hate me for what I have done, when really it would be for what she has done and for what she has not done. In fact, she will read this now and believe that I do not know of what I speak. She will not even consider that I could be right.

Well, that is all I ask. In all your distaste for all that I am, Claire, I only ask that you consider the possibility that what I suggest could help. You know as well as anyone that I mean no harm. Face your fears on your own, Claire. Life is more gratifying when you confront and defeat your fears. It is depressing and stressful when you avoid them and allow them to consume you.

I genuinely want Claire to be happy, and I want her to overcome this weakness. (Don't accuse me of being arrogant -- she admits that it is a weakness.) But she has made it very clear that I will take no part in it. Whether she really wants me there or not, I shall never know unless she tells me directly. Somehow, I do not believe she will ever communicate anything to me directly, and I question whether she ever has. I will miss the Clarissa Ragsdale that I once loved. From this point forward, it is her responsibility to contact me should she care for our relationship to continue. The engine of my efforts has stopped, and only she can start it again. If it's worth anything to her.

Good-bye, Claire.

The event was initally started to simply help raise money for a plane ticket so a friend of the blog wouldn't have to spend Thanksgiving alone. Because of overwhelming response so far, the excess donations will be given to a breast cancer charity. Momentum is building and I think if the word gets out it could raise a nice amount of money for a breast cancer charity to be determined.

The Boobie Blog, actually titled Ain't Too Proud to Blog, is perhaps one of the best fundraising web sites in existence. Nothing fancy, nothing under the table -- just a good way to make money and an unselfish way to use it. What better excuse for showing off your breasts than to donate for breast cancer research? (The passage above is Lauri's.)

If you or anyone you know has the Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition DVD released on November 12, you'll want to try this. Both of these surprises are excellent; you should not be disappointed. Go into the Scene Selection menu on disc one, and head to the final page where you'll find the "Council of Elrond" scene. Highlight that scene and press "down" on your remote to find an image of the Ring. Press enter. Then on disc two, go to the Scene Selection menu, and head to the final page where you'll find the fan club credits scene. Move the cursor to the numbers on the far right of the screen, and when it's on "48", press down to make an image of the Two Towers appear. Press enter. I won't spoil the surprises here, but if you wish to know what they are, TheOneRing.net will tell you.

Marvel signed a deal to give Stan Lee 10% of any profits from his characters used in films and television shows.... Marvel has reported millions of dollars in earnings from [Spider-Man] but has told Lee the company has seen no "profits" as defined by their contract.

I'm finding it difficult to believe that a film that cost (including marketing) $220 million less than it netted in theatres -- this does not count DVD and video sales -- has made no profit. By my estimation, that's a $220 million profit. Give or take a few costs that we as consumers don't really see, and it's still over $200 million. Stan Lee, according to his contract (according to what the news is reporting), is owed $20+ million. Nuff said.

I picked up the story from Yahoo! News, but then quoted the MSNBC version that I found via Slashdot. So you know.

Police raided a fundraiser and charged 445 people even though only three were found to have drugs. (Three people with drugs on them out of nearly 450? I doubt you'd get that low a percentage if you frisked the House of Representatives.)

Get the rest of the story if you're interested.

What did I tell you? Democrats lose in an election, and somehow it was Republican wrongdoing, because they just aren't supposed to win -- I mean, this country didn't actually elect Republicans to office, or anything. Impossible! For Republicans to actually win in a purely popular election, there just had to be foul play involved! I mean, there's just no way that Republicans can ever win an election fair and square!

Someone should tell the state of Massachusetts what gerrymandering is. More importantly, someone should tell the state of Massachusetts that the Republican Party exists. As far as I'm concerned, any state that can elect ten Democrats to zero Republicans is in far worse shape democratically than any other in the nation. What Garrow needs to realize is that political gerrymandering is a good thing for a reason -- without it, a state's minority party would have no voice in the national government. Because the United States rejects the idea of a proportional representation system, some political gerrymandering is necessary in order to ensure that, for instance, Republicans in California even get a voice. (And just how fair would it be, Mr. Garrow, if every California election were evenly distributed so as to ensure that the Democrat won with a slim majority every time? Would that be democracy? Hell no!)

Someone should also explain to Mr. Garrow the concept of urban and/or metropolitan entities as essentially Democratic-voting machines. He complains that gubernatorial and Senatorial elections are decided by extremely slim margins while some district races are, as a result of "gerrymandering", are decided by unnatural landslide victories. Um, Mr. Garrow, you're forgetting that, more often than not, this type of "gerrymandering" provides a Democratic majority in a district. I'm not going to explain why this is so; I've done so many times, as have others who are more knowledgable of the subject.

In effect, I agree with Garrow's idea that our form of popular election is not accurately representative of the voters' intent. But that's just too bad -- the Constitution never said it had to be. Popular majority does not always reflect what the people need, and our government is arranged in such a matter so as to prevent tyrannical majority opinions from ever taking hold -- at least not without a very large majority. This way, no matter what happens, as long as the divide is not too great on any particular issues (such as majority party versus lead opposition party), there will always be heated debate and reasonably close elections.

In short, however, I have to say that Garrow's editorial is an idiotic piece of anti-Republican propaganda that is unfortunately clever enough never to mention either party. It is aimed to stir up distaste for the unnaturally conceived Republican majority in the House that is so obviously a result of Republicans' gerrymandering. Unfortunately, the facts are not on Garrow's side. When reapportionment took place in 2001 after the Census results poured in, Democrats had control of a majority of the state legislatures, and especially the larger, more urban states with all of the seats in Congress. It was Democrats who were gerrymandering in hopes of taking seats away from the Republicans. But, lo and behold, Republicans still took seats away from Democrats! If this is not a truly wonderful sign of Democracy defeating political corruption outright, then I don't know what is.

I'm sorry, Mr. Garrow, but you've qualified for "idiot of the day".

The Washington Post reports that a coalition of thirty states has taken "the first step toward building a national framework for taxing items sold over the Internet.... The voluntary program would take effect when at least 10 states representing 20 percent of the U.S. population have amended their laws to implement the program. Participating states would then be free to ask Congress to approve a mandatory, nationwide online sales tax regime. It's unclear, however, if Congress would go along with any online sales tax proposal." It is also unclear whether Congress gives a damn about the idea that all tax proposals should be subject to popular referendum before taking effect (see item #10).

I like the idea of a sales tax no matter what you buy, when you buy it, from whom you by it, and from where you buy it. You should be taxed for what you buy/use. That said, we are overtaxed by a plethora of other types of taxes, chiefly income taxes (those are communist by nature because they are redistributive). In other words, I don't mind the Internet sales tax; I'm just letting you know that it's coming!

Something slipped my mind when I was speaking of Bush's domestic agenda yesterday. I mentioned that "the Ashcroft-side of the domestic agenda might include overturning Roe v. Wade (bad!) or otherwise extending the scope and strengthening the muscle of the Morality Police™", but I did not mention that I highly doubt this to be the case. Certain moral values will certainly become issues from time to time, but for Roe v. Wade to be overturned would not only require a conservative Supreme Court, but it would also require a Supreme Court dumb enough to accept the case, which they wouldn't. I'm pretty sure that, out of nine justices, six of them would decide that the issue is non-justiciable for various reasons, not the least significant of which is that the issue does not deserve political attention or government regulation.

Moral issues such as abortion and gay marriages highlight the idea that conservatives do not necessarily support a smaller government or deregulation. Conservatives will regulate and federalize anything that fits their agenda, just as Democrats would, only the Democrats' agenda simply seems to be to federalize things! The conservatives' agenda is actually political first. The Libertarians on the other hand (and libertarianists* in general) push for smaller government and deregulation.

My political philosophy is founded on independent, individual thought, but is deeply rooted in libertarianism. I am beginning to think more and more that neither the conservate nor liberal labels fit me at all, because the more I understand about libertarianism, the better it fits me -- fiscally conservative, culturally not, with a few quirks (naturally).

* I have decided to coin the word "libertarianists" to separate libertarian theorists from members of the Libertarian Party. Too many people seem to be confused when the only distinction is a capital and lowercase letter, and part of my goal is to convey my message accurately, even if I am only conveying it to my future self so I can laugh at me.

The New York Times is a bit behind with this story, but it is just as entertaining. I am really liking Senator Dean Barkley so far. Before he had decided to sit alone in Congress (for, um, two weeks or so), he was having a difficult time deciding with which party he would vote for the remainder of his term. He said of the two parties:

The Republicans are becoming more conservative, and the Democrats aren't sure what they are. Neither party represents the small-business man. The Republicans insist on poking their nose into the abortion issue, school prayer, all that stuff that I don't think has any business in politics. The Democrats have never met a government program they didn't like.

Addressing his newly acquired power to shut the federal government down with a filibuster, he said, "I've been battling the system for 10 years, and now I am the system. Is this a great country or what?"

The first question asked of Senator Barkley was the all-too-familiar question of any retiring Senator of how Washington had changed since arriving as a freshman. Barkley replied, "The weather has improved. It was cold [yesterday] and today's it's nice."

This is just great: "Mr. Barkley said he might resign shortly before the end of the year so that his elected successor, Norm Coleman, could take office early and gain seniority over the other freshman senators." Asked to list some of his career achievements, he mentioned the $175 senatorial lapel pin that opens all doors on Capitol Hill -- ah, our tax dollars at work!

Do you ever just wish bad things upon people?

About 163 passengers aboard the Port Everglades-based cruise ship Amsterdam reportedly fell ill from a foodborne virus on a trip that ended Monday. The passengers reportedly were ill from Norwalk virus, an intestinal illness that is passed by the feces of infected people. New victims get ill by eating feces-contaminated food or water.

I don't.

I think Republicans had control of the Senate whenever I became co-sponsor of the Bush tax cut.

- Senator Zell Miller (D-GA)

It's like he's just daring them to give him a reason! For years, Zell Miller has had a reputation as being one of the more conservative Democrats in the country. Rumors, that he's consistently denied, that he was planning to switch to the Republican Party have been dispersed throughout the American political landscape on more than one occasion. Let this not be a rumor -- there is no evidence to suggest that he has any intention to switch, largely thanks to the fact that he truly believes in the dogma of the Democratic Party. That sad thing is, as I have reported before, most other Democrats in America are now too liberal for their own party. It's time for a new name or a rewrite of for what the party stands.

Of course, if Zell were to switch, he wouldn't be the first Georgia Democrat to do so. Just four years ago, Sonny Perdue switched to the Republican Party. You see where that landed him -- in the governor's mansion, Zell's old office. I'm thinking that Zell Miller is going to get Georgians' vote no matter which way he goes, but for tactical reasons I would suggest that he remain a Democrat at least until he is elected to a full term as Senator; then he'll have six years to prove that he can be a good Republican!

Further more, this is the first time to my knowledge that Miller has openly (even if indirectly) referred to himself or his action(s) as promoting the Republican cause. It's as if, while it may not have been his intention, he was very well aware of it (as any Senator would have to be) and was proud of it. If there ever were a time when Zell might consider a switch, I think there is a better chance for it in the near future. I won't bet on it, but there's always wishful thinking!

Hell yes! Now this is what I've been talking about! This is how democracy should work! Get a third party in there, and if you're not a member of either major party, then don't caucus with them! This isn't a French-style coalition-based government! You are who you are, not someone else!

Dean Barkley chose the best of three options, one of which I was unaware even existed. I mean, I have advocated it all along, but I was never aware of the rules -- I asked and received no response, and I could find no confirmation that the party divisions in Congress were either regulated or required.

Dean Barkley's statement:

Across the board, their advice was: Keep your options open, and stay true to yourself, your principles and your constituents. / I am an independent, the governor who appointed me is an independent, and I believe the best way to serve the people of Minnesota is to remain independent. Rather than adding to the partisanship that so often characterizes Congress, I would like to focus on bridging differences and helping to move important legislation forward.

Good job, Mr. Barkley. Hopefully, this ignites the third-party trend in American politics. Realistically, if it does, it will be a very long-burning fuse before any third party explodes onto the scene. Ideally, it won't even be a third party -- I'm hoping most for independent politicians! (Ideological labels are fine, but I wish they could be more broad and I wish party loyalty was less intrusive upon politicians' ability to make their own decisions.)

Mickey Kaus suggests in his 1:56am post ("What Bold Bush Agenda? Part 1") that President Bush is beatable in 2004. I could not disagree more, but I also can not discount the potential of policy failure, scandal, or some other political tragedy between now and then. Mickey says:

The truth remains, I think, that Bush doesn't have a scary, right-wing domestic agenda. He has closer to no domestic agenda, the major parts of his 2000 platform -- education reform, tax cuts -- having already been enacted. That's why he's beatable in 2004.

I disagree. That perception is why he's not beatable in 2004. Republican presidents are notoriously popular when dealing with foreign threats, and the absence of any serious domestic issues will make it that much easier for Bush to run away with the election of 2004. Take a popular, wartime, Republican president and give him a stable economy (stable insofar as its bouncing hovers around the same general mark), and there's no way he can be beat. Add an economic turnaround, and he's one of the best presidents in modern history.

But George W. Bush has a domestic agenda. The idea that he doesn't has been popularized by Democrats and other Bush opponents for months, but it simply isn't true. There is Homeland Security (which, contrary to apparent, popular belief, is domestic just as much as it is not), which is perhaps the primary priority of the Bush administration. Second and third on the list, though I'm not sure which comes first, are judicial confirmations and making permanent the tax cuts. (Yes, I know that Congressional "authorities" have said that the Republicans are toning down the tax cuts -- if they are the politicians they said they were, I don't buy it for a second. If, however, they are just as greedy as Democrats and used tax cuts simply to get elected, then we're no better off with either party -- bring on the Libertarians! As much as I would love to see Libertarians dominate, I believe that the tax cuts will be a big issue again in less than a year.)

Other things that may be on the Ashcroft-side of the domestic agenda might include overturning Roe v. Wade (bad!) or otherwise extending the scope and strengthening the muscle of the Morality Police™, and that is not exactly appealing. However, it's better than having taxes raised. I just wish there were a third alternative that did neither -- oh, wait! Libertarians and independents!

Why don't conservatives care about what happens to the poor, weak, discouraged, and outcast?

If conserving is a good thing, why isn't ecology a conservative cause?

How do libertarians differ from conservatives?

What do all these things called "conservatism" have in common?

I am a libertarian conservative, by the way -- or more accurately, a conservative libertarian (a libertarian with conservative tendencies, as opposed to a conservative with libertarian tendencies). I am only moderately conservative in that I rely on theory as well as experience and history as my guide -- the by-the-book conservative relies only on experience, tradition, and history.

The political philosophy of libertarianism argues that governmental authority cannot justifiably extend beyond the defense of private property, keeping individuals from harming each other, and the defense of the nation as a whole. Everything else that a government does is illegitimate and abusive. Libertarians believe that the free market is the basis for a free society and that the government should not interfere with how the market operates -- thus, a laissez-faire system of capitalism is best.

In contrast, conservatism is the political philosophy based upon the idea that society needs to "conserve" traditional structures of authority and morality. Conservatism as it is understood in the modern era is a product of the French Revolution - specifically, a product of the reaction to the French Revolution by those in society who felt that changes were happening too quickly and going too far.

Conservatives tend to oppose changes in society which, they argue, will only cause a breakdown in traditional beliefs, traditional morals, or traditional social structures. It is a basic premise of conservatism that whatever has worked well in the past should be assumed to be good enough to work just as well in the future, unless very compelling counter-arguments can be offered. Even so, changes which do take place should do so gradually and as an outgrowth of the natural order of things.

Conservatism is ultimately based upon a generally negative and pessimistic view of human nature. The preference for traditional authority systems to maintain social order is premised upon the idea that humans are basically selfish, unreasonable and even violent. These baser instincts cannot be allowed to run rampant and the only defense against them is a strong government and traditional values - they have, after all, managed to preserve society thus far. This can be contrasted with the perspective of liberalism in which human beings are, to one degree or another, "perfectable" providing the right environment is created (usually through some form of social engineering).

Conservatism is often mistaken for the doctrine that government should be small and should not interfere too much with people's lives or with the economy. This is fundamentally incorrect and the error seems to be caused by the fact that conservatives in the United States often campaign on a platform of smaller government. However, closer attention to what they actually support will reveal that they only advocate limited government powers in certain areas, but not in others. For example, such conservatives will favor less government involvement with welfare, but more government involvement with regulating sexual activity.

Thus, it is important to realize that Conservatism is not inherently for more or less government power and authority. Conservatism supports whatever policy will be most likely to support or reinstate traditional forms of morality, authority and social structures. If less government will mean that traditions stay strong, then that is what conservatives will likely support (for example, welfare programs are opposed because they are believed to lead to a breakdown of traditional family structures).

On the other hand, if it takes more government involvement to keep traditions strong, then conservatives will likely support that (for example, laws banning certain private sexual activities are supported because those activities are also believed to lead to a breakdown of traditional family structures).

At an emergency open session of Iraq's parliament in Baghdad today, Iraq's parliamentary committee for international affairs recommended that Baghdad reject UN Security Council Resolution 1441. This is by no means a final decision, as the Parliament in Baghdad has until Friday to announce its intention to comply before it is forced upon them.

From the Belfast Telepgrah:

Significantly, the Arab nations are urging Saddam to comply with the UN resolution, and this should have a bearing on today's emergency debate in the Iraqi Parliament. Saddam appears to be more isolated than ever. He must know that the only way to prevent a new offensive is to finally end the cat and mouse game he has been playing with the West for years.

From the BBC:

Salim al-Koubaisi, head of the Iraqi parliament's foreign relations committee, as the 250-member assembly began a special debate on the UN Security Council resolution / has urged the country's parliament to reject the tough new United Nations resolution on weapons inspections.... other speakers also strongly condemned the UN resolution -- a surprising development, as it had been assumed that parliament would reluctantly accept it.

From the Associated Press via Fox News:

Iraq's parliament condemned a tough, new U.N. resolution as full of lies and ill intentions during a special session Monday in which a senior lawmaker urged rejection of the Security Council directive -- a prospect that could prompt an attack by the United States and Britain. President Saddam Hussein has used the rubber-stamp parliament as cover for difficult decisions in the past, and the tough language does not necessarily mean parliament will reject the proposal.

Do they want us to go to war with them? The idea that little Iraq could pose a considerable threat to a significant number of American lives is frighteningly possible, but calmingly implausible. That their chief argument seems to revolve around the infringement upon their nation's sovreignty suggests to me that it is not defiance for the sake of going to war. Rather, it is macho in a much different way -- they want to let us know that they're not afraid, even though they really are.

Hey, Iraq: if it makes you feel any better, a few million Americans are afraid too. We don't want to fight a war that we don't have to fight, and we'd really like it very much if you just complied with the resolution and took credit for the world peace that ensued. Sure, the intelligent persons around the world would know that you submitted to the authorities because you broke the rules, but those intelligent types are in the minority. The less-intelligent would only acknowledge that Iraq contributed to peace.

As if any Iraqi officials will come across this.

Methinks the Lord of the Rings should replace Star Wars as the geek-favorite film trilogy, although it's much too soon to tell since there are still two installments of LOTR to go. Entertainment Weekly reviews The Two Towers in this week's issue, and part of the article focuses on MASSIVE, "software produced by Jackson's team [WetaFX Ltd], which allows armies of digital creatures to battle independently. Instead of each fighter's moves being programmed, orcs and elves can identify friends and foes on their own and attack accordingly." I can neither confirm nor deny that December's Popular Science has an article about the use of MASSIVE in The Two Towers.

An appropriate story for Veterans' Day 2002: Persian Gulf War Veterans Discuss Iraq, War. Some suggest that we should have finished the job the first time, which highlights a common complaint: "The U.S. was given a limited mandate that did not allow them to depose Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein when they had the chance." Veteran Steve Robertson says, "When I left in 1991 in June, there wasn't one person in my unit who did not think we would be back -- it was just a matter of when".

A few notes on the Persian Gulf War: It lasted from January 17 to February 28, 1991. Of about 400,000 America soldiers (about 600,000 total), only 148 (240 total) were killed and 458 (776 total) wounded.

Since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the UN Security Council has passed eighteen resolutions demanding that Iraq comply with orders to disarm, beginning with President George H.W. Bush's demands in November 1990 that Iraq leave Kuwait by January 15, 1991 (he didn't, obviously). This November, the eighteenth resolution demands that Iraq disarm itself or be forcefully disarmed once again by a US-led coalition, only this time we have a warplan to set up the infrastructure for the establishment of democracy in Iraq.

Robertson has some reservations about this new mission, though. When it had nothing to do with the democratization of Iraq, it was a good idea to take out Saddam Hussein. Now that we actually have an ambitious plan to right the powder keg of the Middle East, he isn't quite so sure: "We achieved that limited mission of liberating Kuwait, and then the next mission was maintaining the no-fly zone. Now we are looking at a new mission and that will probably put a lot more troops over there to defend the country." I can understand the concern for American lives, but I think a few more million lives, and not just Americans', would be indirectly threatened by not going back into Iraq.

But here's my idea: let's stop labeling the war effort as simply good or bad and start constructively criticizing it. If Iraq has no intention to comply, then the war is already upon us, so it should not be a matter of deciding whether it should happen, but how we're going to handle it in the best way possible. That requires constructive thinking and criticism, not just making up problems without solutions.

Finally, a patriotic moment:

Robertson said he too understands the complaint of sick and neglected veterans, but "if we operated under that premise, we would never have an independent country," adding that with the exception of WWII, veterans from every war were treated negligently by the government. "The most important part of this war is going to be the American people. They have to make sure, whether they agree or oppose the plan for going in, they have to support the soldier. They are doing what every American should be doing, serving their country. Never, ever forget that."

I have always supported the American soldier (as long as my local jurisdiction is not under martial law, heh). They are out there doing what I refuse to do except as a last resort, and I admire them inordinately for taking care of the business of which I am pyschologically incapable. My gift is in my writing and my mind; I am here to defend the American cause. But to fight a literal war on a battlefield is something that I will do only when my life is directly threatened so as to leave me no other choice. (Note: by threatened, I do not necessarily mean the threat of losing my life. Threats on my freedom, my loved ones, my home... those are all threats on the life that I live. If some foreign force decides that my life is worth invading, I may find it in my best interests to defend myself.)

Evidence and deductive reasoning suggest that Senator Dean Barkley will caucus with the Democrats when he is sworn in tomorrow. In an emotional meeting with Paul Wellstone's staff, he told them that he would "do all he could to ease the transition". It will only be eight weeks or so before the 108th Congress begins, and freshman Senator Norm Coleman takes his place. Whether the Republicans have control of the Senate between now and then is not of much concern to me, except that I wouldn't mind seeing evidence that the wheels of the conservative agenda are rolling.

The 107th Congress includes perhaps the most bizarre Senate in history: Election 2000 brought about a 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans, giving Republicans a de jure majority as Vice President Dick Cheney cast the tie-breaking vote. On May 24, 2001, Republican Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont announced his intention to leave the Republican Party to be an independent, a move that would give Democrats a 50-49 majority plurality, giving Democrats control of the Senate and chairmanships of the various Senate committees. In exchange for his betrayal of the Republican Party, the Democrats offered Jeffords the chairmanship of Environment and Public Works Committee (he is the ranking Senator on the committee, and he caususes with the Democrats, but he isn't a Democrat, so it had to be offered -- no dirty tricks there, he just wanted to make sure). His switch became effective on June 6, and Trent Lott's