In an interview way back when, Peter Jackson explained that he was "contractually obliged" to provide a two-hour cut of The Fellowship of the Ring, as if the three-hour cut wasn't cut up enough. That's a scary thought, isn't it? One third of the movie would have necessarily been removed -- but which third?

THE LORD OF THE RINGS:

THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING

in two hours

THE END

I hope they had enough sense not to ask for a two-hour cut of The Two Towers after the success of The Fellowship of the Ring, but I can imagine there might be a sequel to this abridged version of part one anyway.

Below is a list of the ten most significant happenings over the course of the last ten months, according only to my determination. This naturally means that I will miss something, but that's a part of the process. Feel free to contribute your own favorite (or not-so-favorite, as the case may be) moments and perhaps I'll add them.

I agree with the implication made by Kevin Lyles in his December 30 letter ("One valid point"), that prayer did not need to be and should not have been removed from schools. To withhold any individual from speaking words of prayer is a direct offense on every individual's freedom of speech, for as soon as there is freedom is abridged for one, the door is opened to abridge freedom for all.

I also agree with his implications regarding oppression of the minority and of the majority. Our winner-take-all electoral system combined with our federalist government and two-party political system is set up to prevent the majority from simply dominating any minority, and more importantly to prevent any minority (such as the economic or political "elite") from ruling the majority.

This means that the will of the majority is not necessarily the will of the nation. For example, a Christian majority in America does not make America a Christian nation, nor does a plurality of the popular vote in a presidential election determine who shall be President. Our government was designed to prevent unfairly biased agendas from being pressed by and/or onto the American people, and the design has mostly held true to its purpose.

However, I fear that as government grows, innumerable statutes and a vast bureaucracy are whittling away at that design more and more, slowly altering what the Constitution means to fit diverse and ever-changing needs. But our Constitution was provided a means for changing: it's called Article V. If the Constitution requires a new interpretation or an expansion, then Article V provides for that. Any other means by which any part of the Constitution is hindered or altered is unconstitutional.

I have so many thoughts on the various subjects I have briefly touched upon above that I could easily spend another hour expanding what is currently a letter to the editor into a full-length essay advocating the various political ideals that I believe would be most beneficial to my country. As it stands, the letter contains generic statements that could generate response from any of a number of angles, as well it should, if it is printed. I do not think that it is my job or that it is within my ability to "enlighten" anyone to the correct path, but I do believe that sharing my point of view if it is different from others' will at least provide them with another path from which to choose. That is all I ever hope to gain from any argument.

Jackson Diehl writes for the Washington Post that America, through time and as a result of previous events like the near-fall of Europe during World War II, has become an Accidental Imperialist. It is because of events like Germany's failed attempt for world domination that the United States was forced out of its preferred, isolationist role and into its controversial, father-figure-of-the-world role, says Diehl.

By that account, the conflicts that will shape this difficult winter of 2003 were mostly inevitable. It's just that, as half a century ago, Americans were slow to understand the threat, and reluctant to take it on -- until inaction seemed the worst choice.

The Bush administration is not the first to understand that waiting to retaliate against a growing threat is not the best policy decision. Harry Truman in World War II knew that dropping the atomic bombs in Japan was extremely controversial and very aggressive, and that it could be interpreted so as to label the United States a "bully". But no one doubts that in the few hundred thousand lives lost when those bombs were dropped, perhaps millions of others were saved, not to mention the potential global economic turmoil, if should the war have continued.

In today's example, the American President knows where the threats lie and is stopping at nothing to remove the threat. That does not require war if the threats comply and disarm, but as they seem reluctant and even defiant, war has thus become almost inevitable. It is better to fight a small war, to strike first to prevent attack on innocent citizens of any nation, than to wait on the enemy to mobilize and perhaps create a war much larger and longer.

Note my use of the word "inevitable" as opposed to "necessary". War, in my opinion, is never necessary. There is always an available diplomatic or other solution. There is always a nonviolent means of settling any conflict, no matter how difficult it may seem. Man's inability to come to such conclusions is roughly proportional to man's impatience, and perhaps also to some degree a lust for bloodshed. We are still a world of savages, not yet and probably never to be truly civilized...

Apparently, a new translation of Beowulf by J.R.R. Tolkien has been discovered and is scheduled for release sometime next year. I'll be in line for that! What else has he translated that has yet to be released/found?

Mark Steyn of the Chicago Sun-Times has written a nice political-year-in-review article, essentially expressing how Republicans have underperformed, but Democrats have done worse. Bill O'Reilly's latest column is a short-and-sweet recollection of the villains of 2002. And, as per her usual, Peggy Noonan sends her holiday wishes in the form of a reflection on the year's events, and on what is hopefully to come. James Klurfield and Steve Chapman also have written worthy year-in-review columns, as have countless other journalists I would imagine.

I do not plan to write much before January 6. I have barely a week before the next semester of my schooling life begins, so I would prefer to spend it out in the world, doing stuff with things and people. I'll certainly share some thoughts here and there, but I don't expect I'll have anything extraordinarily important to say for a week or so, unless something in the news really grabs me.

Enjoy the rest of your holiday, as I shall try and do the same with mine.

For quite some time, I have listed countless political heroes of the past and present in an attempt to indentify, mostly for personal reasons, my own personal idols -- those political heroes whom I try to be most like. I have neither the time nor the energy to devote any great discussion to my conclusion to this point, but here are the few at the top of my list at the current moment:

Hmm. They're all America, and three of them are very recent. Perhaps this is because my political views are represented by theories only recently developed into coherent ideologies, and therefore only very recent figures can match them. This list will be altered. This is just a good start.

I have read many articles, stories, and selections from books recently on President George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, and their potential wars of agressions on the other. I have read criticisms of the Bush administration going too soft on Saddam, being much too subtle and allowing Iraq breathing room and time to hide its unmentionables. I have heard the opposite, criticism of Bush being too hard on "Iraq, the stabilizing force of the Middle East". I have decided that I should probably chime in on the issue at some point, and there is never any time better to act than the present.

The point of view that I would argue is most similar to mine is represented in Sam Tanenhaus's editorial in Friday's Wall Street Journal. It was the first article on the subject that I had read that did not push the opposite point of view, that Bush is an imperial American president using September 11 to promote the White House. Every other opinion article I had read on the matter had asserted that Bush (and/or the Republican Party) was a power-hungry, warmongering bigot, intolerant of the ways of the rest of the world. Just once, I'd like to see some of the people making these assertions try to live their lives the way they should have them lived without Presidents like George W. Bush who use their power in that office for the American will -- to preserve the ability to lead such lives.

Tanenhaus outlines many presidents before Bush who have exercised their executive powers to preserve the American way of life when external forces had threatened it. For over two centuries, the rest of the world has fought and conspired to thwart American capitalism and force our freedom to be betrayed for a higher quality of living that they would never realize, for their own leaders would never allow the quality of their own lives to diminish for their sake (or it would have happened by now). It does not take an American failure to stimulate the rest of the world. As so many of us have realized, when America falters, the rest of the world pauses and cringes. The world, as it exists today and as it has existed for decades, hinges on America.

After running a search for "Bush Iraq Imperial" in Google, I find it quite humorous that every single hit is a very liberal news publication, essay, or weblog. Only those who absolutely despise George W. Bush and/or Republicans dare to call him imperalist, just as only those same political enemies dare to call Trent Lott and other Republicans "racist" when spokespersons for their own party (such as the Reverend Jesse Jackson) are the epitome of racial division.

Does anyone else see the irony?

It's so easy to find distraction on Christmas morning; if I'm not playing fun new games with various family members and friends, then I'm playing new video games or putting together some other new object for the first time. Christmas is always a good time of the year, and each one seems to feel better than the last -- but that's probably because the present replaces the past, and as an optimist, I live for a better future.

Anyway, here's a truncated list of my Christmas goodies. The things left out are not things I like less, just things that (a) I couldn't remember at the time, (b) I wouldn't expect you to recognize, or (c) I couldn't describe without taking too much space. So whatever. My loot:

PlayStation 2: Grand Theft Auto III

PlayStation 2: Max Payne

DVD: Men in Black II

CD: Saliva - Back In Your System

CD: Die Another Day soundtrack

clothing: hooded sweater, reversible jacket, flanel/pajama pants

AM/FM radio tuner

two-way radio set

shave kit

precision screwdriver set

webcam

$220 cash from various sources

There are various other things, like a nice blanket with my name sewn into it, a cool thermometer that I have no idea how to describe (for determining the temperature in my hotter-than-the-rest-of-the-house room), a road-side emergency light... I'm sure I've left things out, but the things aren't that important. The important thing is that the people I love care for me and made sure I know it.

This holiday season will certainly not have the finale I had once planned, but thinking of the happiness it could have created still makes me smile. I've realized now that there are things in life that can be taken away that can destroy my happiness, but I also know that happiness can not stay away for long ... especially from someone as selfish as me. I make my own, you see. And maybe one day I'll feel like I think I should feel again, when I've gotten it back. Maybe one day.

Sorry, but I could not resist. I had settled down and I was ready for sleep, and I was reading the editorial page of Monday's Macon Telegraph, when I came across Gary Blome's letter to the editor ("Libertarianism demands individual restraint" -- bottom-right, above the cartoon on page 9A of print edition, or the last one on the web page to which I just linked). I can not find Frank Gadbois's article to which Blome refers, but if I do, I'll let you know. Here is most of Blome's letter:

I contribute to the editorial pages of various print media publications quite often -- whenever they accept my contributions, in fact. But never have any of my contributions so succinctly and powerfully expressed what Blome's letter did in only a few hundred words on Monday. Unfortunately, it will go relatively unnoticed. Would anyone like to forward this to Neal Boortz or Bill O'Reilly? Someone who they'll listen to?

I baked my mom a birthday cake for her birthday (December 22), and it was one of the best birthday surprises she had had in years. How often can a mother say that her young-adult son baked her a birthday cake? Probably more often than my family realizes, but that might be why it was so special. And it was good, too! Happy birthday, Mom!

And to you and everyone else, Merry Christmas! I'm heading to my grandmothers now for dinner and such. I shall stay the evening at my dad's when that's over, and then I'll be back here sometime tomorrow afternoon, though my loot may keep me distracted from the Internet. I hope you all have a happy and safe Christmas, and I'll see you on the other side.

Senator Bill Frist will focus on the racial controversy based on Senator Trent Lott's remarks, and he believes that it "will transform what has occurred in the last few weeks, what has occurred at the moment in history, into a catalyst -- a catalyst for unity and a catalyst for positive change". Frist is urging the Republican Party to move forward on all fronts, most importantly on "terrorism, the economy, and prescription drug benefits". It's the first time Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress and the White House in decades; this should be an intereting two years, especially if Noemie Emery is right.

Jakob Nielson has released a new top-ten list: the Top Ten Web-Design Mistakes of 2002. I have actually corrected a couple of them recently without realizing how horrid the mistakes were. Unless your computer is so old or your settings so bizarre that your screen resolution is still less than 800 pixels wide, then horizontal scrolling is not an issue. Just two days ago I fixed (and yesterday I finalized) my font-size settings so as to ensure that the user can resize them at will; this was because fixed-size text can be incredibly tiny with a very large screen resolution, or incredibly large with a very small screen resolution. None of the other mistakes affect my web site.

At the bottom of the page are Nielson's previous top-ten lists, which are quite useful. One problem with my web site is that I can not stick with an appropriate title. I'm thinking that putting my name and location in there might help to distinguish it from the rest and bind it to me, but that would not explain what it is. Any ideas?

I think I am going to add the Alertbox web site to my list of favorites. It's entertaining and educational!

Mmmmm-m-m-m... MATRIX! Lord of the Rings, as good as it is, can't hold a candle to The Matrix from my point of view. I wish I didn't have to wait until May! This Newsweek article is full of information, including spoilers, so read it at your own risk.

Barton Gellman has written a LONG article on the continuing threat of terrorism. There isn't much to say about it here, except that if you're interested, you should read or scan the article. There is nothing specific, as there never is, about any new terror attacks, although it is suggested that it is not a matter of if, but when, they will occur.

US: We can fight two wars at once, you know.

THEM: Yeah, well, we can destroy the world!

As tensions between the US and North Korea heat up alongside the heating-up tensions between the US and Iraq, you know who will be there every step of the way to bring you up-to-the-second coverage! And it isn't me! Watch the news. I'll analyze the good stuff.

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee has been elected Senate Republican leader for the 108th Congress. The Associated Press has put together a simple, adequate timeline of events leading to Frist's election.

Looks like I squeezed a letter to the editor into the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Saturday. Okay, so now I've reached the state. And last week, I had a letter printed in the Sun Herald in Biloxi, Mississippi, so I'm getting my word all around the Southeast. Next, nationwide! Then the world! *Sinister laugh*

In case you're (wondering about, celebrating) the (hideous, glorious) font that now displays on this web site instead of the old one that I preferred, you have yourself to blame. I have decided that my web site shall allow the user -- that's you -- to choose your own font. You can do that by adjusting system and/or browser settings. I figured it was kind of rude of me to force you to look at my font. So there. I don't suppose you've noticed any other changes lately... It seems I hit my 2002 New Year's resolution just in time for 2003!

Now tell me: is the font-size just right or too small? Be honest. If you say it's too big you will be ignored. That's my bias.

In last Thursday's Best of the Web, James Taranto delivers incisive criticism of Bill Clinton, the left, and the racial divide in America:

Democrats were the party of segregation for a century, from the Civil War through the 1960s... Republicans dominated American politics for 70 years, from 1860 through 1930. During that time, they won 14 out of 18 presidential elections; their majority crumbled, as Emery notes, only with Herbert Hoover's "implosion." FDR formed a new Democratic majority, which included the party's longtime segregationist base, and this led to a period of Democratic dominance that lasted at least three decades. Democrats won seven of the nine presidential elections between 1932 and 1964, and the peak of Democratic dominance--LBJ's 1964 landslide--coincided with the start of Dixie's move toward the GOP.

Quoth the Weekly Standard's Noemie Emery:

The great Democratic party of the mid-20th century, and the post-1980 Republican party, were not built on racial repression. They were both tainted by it, but each got its big break with the total collapse of the opposing party, and cemented its gains with solid successes on the foreign policy and war-making fronts. Southern voters--and, yes, some racist voters too--were in the coalitions assembled by Reagan and [Franklin] Roosevelt, but over time became smaller parts in them, overwhelmed by the influx of new kinds of voters, with different and other concerns. Eventually, each party reached the stage where its remnant had become so greatly outnumbered that it was able to move out from and beyond it. This happened to the Democrats in the mid-1960s. It is happening to the Republicans now.

I'm with Glenn: build a baseball stadium at the WTC site.

What's more American than a baseball park? And what's cooler than one right by Wall Street? That's double-barrelled Americanism. And it would help bring people to Lower Manhattan at night... Okay, it's a dumb idea -- but no dumber than a lot of ideas I've heard. And it would be cheaper, and you could get hot dogs there.

The only problem: who would play there? I don't think the Yankees want to leave Yankee Stadium, although it's probably nearing a good time for them to do so. The Mets aren't as nationally significant as the Yankees, so America wouldn't go for that. Besides, what about the World Trade Center? Could we put the stadium on top of a forty-story building that covers the entire site, thus more than accommodating the World Trade Center once more?

Then again, a forty-level parking garage would be pretty damn American, and pretty damn accommodating for New Yorkers, and a lot cheaper.

John Dvorak's December 17 column, Microsoft, Innovation, and Linux, is a challenge to Linux developers to be more innovative, alleging that Linux is becoming too much like Windows. Dvorak does not aim to insult Linux, but rather to encourage innovation in new directions. He also highlights my reasons for sticking with Windows:

You'll discover that all the flavors of Linux and the open-source software that runs on it are getting more and more like Windows... Linux may be more efficient and faster, but if you're going to play the features game, you're bound to lose. That's Microsoft's real specialty.

I have never considered myself to have an unhealthy bias favoring Windows or opposing Linux. I have used Windows since 3.1, and I have used Linux (though significantly less) since Slackware 3.5.

While there are certainly many advantages that each has over the other, the biggest advantage that Windows offers to me is insanely greater practical interoperability -- the type of interoperability that connects me with the people I want to be connected with. People I know use Microsoft Internet-ware. My school and place of employment use Microsoft Office. Everywhere I need to be on my computer, Microsoft can get me there. I'm not operating a server, nor will I from a cable modem.

Certainly, Windows is the most popular. Just as certainly, Linux is gaining ground in the home desktop market. But I think Linux/UNIX systems are and will remain dominant in the server market, and Windows systems will remain dominant in the home market. And as long as I am not operating a business that needs 24/7 secure operation, Windows does everything I need it to do, and then some.

And I can't underestimate the bias generated by familiarity with scores of Windows-based applications...

Do you want to know what one leftist calls a black Republican in the House of Representatives: a "house nigger".

Mmmm! Aaahh! Can't you just smell the mouthwatering aroma of the black bias? (Yes, that was a racially charged statement, but well deserved.) David Ehrenstein believes that, because J.C. Watts is a Republican, he is not "free and proud", but is instead brainwashed by the white man. I can not say anything more than what Ehrenstein himself already said. What a bigot and hypocrite.

Also, take note that I am not implying that Ehrenstein's horribly inappropriate comment represents the "moral failure" of every black person in America. No, that I shall leave to the Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. Go get 'em, Jesse!

When writing about the duplicitous Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton yesterday, I was looking for a transcript or some other means of acquiring the exact words that the New York Senator used yesterday, which I heard on Fox News. Neal Boortz heard them too, and he quoted them for me in a rare Saturday update. She said:

Republicans can't cleanse themselves of their constant exploitation of race. They just had two Senators who were elected in the South on the Confederate Flag.

I only wanted those exact words, because I wanted to make the point that the Republicans are the ones who are ignoring the division that skin color once caused, while Democrats exploit it at every possible opportunity in hopes to turn a racial divide into a Democratic Party majority. Watch them! Anytime a Republican says anything that could possibly be construed as a racist remark, the Democrats pounce on it and call the entire Republican Party a harbor for racism.

As for the Confederate Flag remark, I wish I knew what she was talking about. I voted Republican and Libertarian this year, and I helped to elect Senator Saxby Chambliss and Governor Sonny Perdue here in Georgia, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the Confederate Flag (in fact, replacing it was a good idea, and the issue never deserved the attention it received). I vote Republican because their fiscal plan is more responsible than Democrats', they would prefer a smaller, more limited government if it were possible, and they still include the right to the pursuit of happiness as one of those "unalienable" rights endowed to all people that they serve to protect, whereas Democrats limit us only to life and liberty.

I find it very humorous that, in sentence one, Hillary accuses the Republican Party of racial exploitation, and then in sentence two, she exploits the potential racism of supporting the Confederate States of America. Hypocrite, perhaps? And arguably the most popular Democrat in all the land, at that...

Words from Trent Lott in an AP interview today:

I don't think there's any use in trying to say I'm disappointed in anybody or anything. An inappropriate remark brought this down on my head. There are some people in Washington who have been trying to nail me for a long time. When you're from Mississippi and you're a conservative and you're a Christian, there are a lot of people that don't like that. I fell into their trap and so I have only myself to blame.

Finally, Lott's words represent qualities of a good leader, but only after demotion. He never seemed to me strong enough to be the Senate Republican leader, nor did he ever get results electorally until this year, which arguably can be attributed to an outbreak of anti-Clintonism as much as anything. Still, I think Trent Lott has been a good Senator, and I am glad that the waters seem to be settling.

Democrats will not stop playing the race card, much to their detriment. They have a history of hypocrisy and applying a racist double standard against the Republican Party, and that policy has a history of backfiring on Democrats, though in subtle and indirect ways. People simply get tired of hearing it, and after a while the Democrats just appear to be mean; people don't want to vote for mean politicians. When Republicans have moved on and are focusing on issues of substance, Democrats are still clamouring at Republican X's racist remarks from six months ago. Meanwhile, not a word is said when the prominent Democrat Y makes a potentially racist remark... I wish someone knew the definitive reason for that.

The Washington File (U.S. State Department) has the best and most informative recount, as well it should, of the situation regarding the Senate Republican leader. Some interesting selections from the article:

The vote for a successor to Lott is set for January 6, but some senior party members have asked that the election be moved up, with Pete Domenici of New Mexico calling for Frist's confirmation "by acclamation"...

Senate historian Don Ritchie said that Lott is the first Senate party leader, majority or minority, ever forced from his post...

On the Democratic side, Thomas Daschle of South Dakota, the party's leader in the Senate, termed Lott's resignation "the right decision for Senator Lott and for the Senate." But, Daschle added, the new leader must "do more than merely disavow Senator Lott's words. He or she must confront the Republican Party's record on race and embrace policies that promote genuine healing and greater opportunities for all Americans."

Do you see why I don't like Tom Daschle? For decades, the Republican Party has been doing exactly what he calls for, and Democrats have used their government-expanding agenda to persuade (though it was not the Democrat's intention) Republicans to vote against many bills that otherwise would likely serve America well. The Republican Party's record on race is unfairly slanted by the Democratic Party that all but coerces the Republican Party to vote against progressive reform because it is impractical -- the well being of our country as a whole is more important than the well being of any part of it.

Without the whole, no parts can stand. The Democrats understand this, but the people they represent do not, nor do the Democrats want them to. My suggestion: destroy both parties and bring on the reign of Libertarians. Liberty and justice for all, not just those the parties need for votes!

I followed a link on InstaPundit to a New York Post article called The Celebs We Love to Loathe. (Here is a better version of the article from PageSix.com.) I only bring this up because I find the comments about Tom Brokaw interesting: "There's something about this guy that makes you want to reach for a sharp object..."

How long will it be before Brokaw and his media army (need I suggest any bias that links them?) allege that this article represents a potential threat to Brokaw's health? How long before the New York Post or the article's authors are sued for their potentially harmful "poor choice of words"? And the horrible bias is obvious; just look at number one on their list, the celebrity they "love to loathe" most.

Anyway, some celebrities on my "Love to Hate" list are: O.J. Simpson, Jesse Jackson, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Trent Lott, Britney Spears (because she refuses to sign a deal with Playboy), Jennifer Lopez, Jerry Falwell, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein (I'm sure I missed several). You can not deny the celebrity status of Osama and Saddam; so how can Ann Coulter be worse than either of the world's worst terrorists?

Oh yeah. And any "star" of the entertainment industry, especially Barbra Streisand, who expresses their political discontentment ad nauseum without anything so much as resembling knowledge of facts of the situation. Ignorance is acceptable as long as you don't influence the ignorant masses with it. If you don't have any idea what you're talking about, keep your mouth shut!

I really hope the conservative news personalities don't try to emphasize this. The headline at the Drudge Report currently reads (with the link), "Bold Byrd: Senator with KKK Past Stars as Confederate General". Just last night on Fox News, a conservative guest on At Large with Geraldo Rivera commented that no Republican could get way with playing a Confederate general in a Civil War movie. Um, I beg to differ: although the story does not specify what roles they play, Senators Phil Gramm (R-TX) and George Allen (R-VA) are also cast in Gods and Generals, the prequel to 1993's Gettysburg. My first reaction when I heard Geraldo's guest was, "Uhh, but two Republicans are getting away with it right alongside Byrd!" Of course, I have now realized that Gramm's and Allen's roles are not specified in the story, so for all I know they could be playing old men in a tavern.

I am disappointed that so many Americans place such heavy emphasis on the abandoned views of the past. If we are to ostricize anyone who ever held a belief which is culturally unacceptable today, then we must not only apply such logic to Senators Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd, who were previously in their long lifetimes segregationists when being such was the norm for southern white men, but we must also apply it to our great founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, etc. -- who each in his day owned slaves, or at the very least supported those who did. We can not change the views of the past; history can not be altered. However, our maturity as a society can improve and we can learn from past mistakes. I suggest that we stop dividing and deriding those against us, and that we start attempting to learn from and of each other in order to work for a better future.

The Bill of Rights has been condensed. The ninth and tenth amendments have been scrapped, and amendments five through seven have combined to form the super fifth amendment, "the one about trials". The President says, "Ten was just too much of a handful. Six civil liberties are more than enough."

Go up to the average citizen and ask them what's in the Bill of Rights. Chances are, they'll have only a vague notion. They just know it's a set of rules put in place to protect their individual freedoms from government intrusion, and they assume that's a good thing.

This, among other things, is why I like to stick my nose into The Onion on occasion. I laugh so hard that it makes me cry! This article is definitely worth a read if you're as hopelessly involved in American politics as I am.

Matt, you're a young adult male in America -- how can you not like Lord of the Rings? I can understand a distaste for Eminem, rap, and putting them together in a movie. And I can understand a distaste for "bad fantasy movies". But Lord of the Rings fits in neither of those categories. Either of the two Lord of the Rings movies that I have seen so far could qualify as the best fantasy film of all time, especially if you combine them and treat them as a single entity! How can you not enjoy these movies? Really, I only ask because I would like to know. It confuses me. Thanks for web space! :-)

Okay, I understand that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly affirmed that she is not going to run for president in 2004, but I have to wonder: with poll results declaring her the people's choice, and virtually no hope of any other Democrat beating George W. Bush, do you think she'll allow her colleagues and constituency to entertain her with their infinite ideas for a run in 2004? Maybe she will, and maybe she won't run, but I can guarantee you that she wants to be President Hillary Clinton, and if she thinks she has a legitimate shot at taking out Bush, she'll go for it.

Off topic and no one cares: I updated the copyright and disclaimer page.

The duplicitous Senator Hillary Clinton of New York has said, "Senator Lott's remarks represent a symptom of a much larger problem his resignation does not solve", and that replacing the majority leader does not cure the Republican Party of its racism. She lies straight-faced, and half of America believes her. She says that the Republican Party is the party of racial division, yet it is the Democratic Party that continues to emphasize it! It makes me sick. Republicans never call anyone racist unless its undeniable fact; Democrats sling the world around as a political weapon of mass distraction anytime it suits their petty desires.

In other, more interesting news, polls show that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate for president if she ran in 2004, but a poll shows that President Bush would beat her in her own state. I say let her run now! The campaign would be bitter, but if she's defeated now, maybe she'll be destroyed as well by what I'll call the "Gore Effect".

Meanwhile, another Senator, Patty Murray in Washington State, is praising Osama bin Laden, suggesting that America should follow his lead:

[Osama bin Laden has] been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that. How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?

Yet I am not hearing the Democrats screaming to oust Miss Murray. It seems to me like these comments are much more direct than Senator Lott's, and there is absolutely no excuse for praising the most dangerous terrorist in the world, especially our country's number one enemy, especially when you're a Senator. Patty Murray's verbal crime is much worse than Trent Lott's, yet the duplicitous Democratic Party is silent about her. Can you explain this?

This statement, which Murray issued after her original, supportive comments of Osama bin Laden, should have been what she said in the first place. The fact that she can come out and allegedly support the world's greatest terrorist, or -- even worse -- suggest that the American government is worse than Osama bin Laden, is anti-American and much worse than anything the Mississippi Senator has said of late. And yet she barely gets a slap on the wrist.

It is also interesting that Republican leaders in the Senate are reluctant to give up a committee chairmanship for Trent Lott. It seems as though he may be out of luck. I think giving him a chairmanship at this point would only add fuel to the fire already engulfing him. Let him remain as Senator, but his unfortunate, knee-jerk reputation has rendered him incapable of helping the Republican Party should he be chosen as one of its leaders.

According to the New York Times, it's official: Bill Frist is the Senate Majority Leader for the 108th Congress. The senior Senator from Tennessee had never voted until 1989 and was elected Senator, having never before run for political office, in 1994 as part of the Republican Revolution. Many Senators are crediting him with responsibility for the Republican majority in the Senate, suggesting thus that he should take the position he made possible. Frist is a highly capable Senator and a more moderate Republican than most in the Senate. He had attained leadership status in the Senate after 40 years as a political outsider; not bad, I say. I hope he does well.

Update 13:48: The official vote for Senate Majority Leader will be held Monday afternoon (December 23) at 2:00pm, says Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. As Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, it is his job to call for such an election, among other things. The chief responsibility of the Senate Majority Leader is to determine what legislation will and will not make it to the floor for debate and vote. For that purpose, I think Frist is an excellent choice.

Glenn Reynolds:

Unlike the Democrats with Clinton, the Republicans have purged themselves of someone who didn't belong in the office he held. The failure to do so cost the Democrats greatly. I think that the Republicans, meanwhile, will reap benefits from their action.

That's right. Not only has the Democratic Party failed to get rid of embarrassments and bad apples of the party, but they also have fought feverishly to rid the Republican Party of the one thing Democrats could take advantage of. By forcing Republicans to remove Trent Lott (and Newt Gingrich about eight years ago), the Democratic Party has only proven that the Republican Party does not stand for whatever Democrats alleged Trent Lott stood. On the other hand, by embracing Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, and others, the Democratic Party has shown us time and again that they are the party of moral failure.

I still do not understand why there is such a big deal about America going into Iraq just for the oil. Never in the history of the United States have we forged a war for any similarly petty reason (although the war for Texas was pretty silly). President Bush and his administration would not feel so strongly about entering Iraq if there were not very good reasons to believe that Saddam Hussein and Iraq posed a significant threat to the United States, whether directly or indirectly. Secretary of State Colin Powell reiterated this point on November 21: "This is not about oil. This is about a tyrant, a dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against the Arab populations."

From the same article:

The article goes into detail about the economic (lack of) benefits of invading Iraq simply for its oil. Check it out. It won't hurt to have one more weapon to add to your polemical arsenal, on whatever side of the fence you sit.

Ricky West posted a very interesting and objective political quiz on his blog, North Georgia Dogma, this morning. It is borrowed from Thomas Oliver's "@ Wit's End" column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and was found via Neal Boortz. As you can see by the graciously shortened list of links to the left, Ricky West's web site is among my few favorites that I try to visit often -- mostly because he's intelligent and not culturally distant.

Among questions on the quiz:

There are many more questions from which to choose, including some by Ricky, and the answers shouldn't surprise you. The only question to which the correct answer is (b) is number five. Even today, the only party that strives earnestly to create a political divide by emphasizing racial differences is the Democratic Party. Say what you want about Republicans who appear to do nothing about it -- they are the ones trying to encourage everyone to earn everything equally, while Democrats are trying simply to pass laws which legalize stealing for the sake of "need".

Sean Noonan got it right in his letter to the editor of the New York Times, printed today:

Affirmative action programs, no matter how carefully drawn, are contributing to a "turning back the clock" on race... By pursuing "diversity" over "color-blindness", we deepen racial divisions. Any program that judges people by the color of their skin in order to give preferential treatment will only foster resentment in those who feel they are being treated unfairly. [emphasis mine]

There it is, ladies and gentlemen: Trent Lott has stepped aside, and it looks like Senator Bill Frist (TN) is going to be the Senate Majority Leader during the 108th Congress.

In the interest of pursuing the best possible agenda for the future of our country, I will not seek to remain as majority leader of the United States Senate for the 108th Congress effective January 6, 2003. To all those who offered me their friendship, support, and prayers, I will be eternally grateful. I will continue to serve the people of Mississippi in the United States Senate.

Lott has received quite a bit of support from fellow Republicans on the move. Democrats, meanwhile, must be dumbfounded. If the Democratic Party were an intelligent party, they would not have pushed this issue nearly as hard as they did. Think about it: Lott, forced from his leadership position by his own party, can no longer represent the "moral failure" for the entire party as some Democrats have suggested ... because they just renounced him! The Democrats outfoxxed themselves, and by November 2004 they'll wish Lott was still the Senate Majority Leader.

The nominees for the 2003 Golden Globe Awards have been announced. The 60th Annual Golden Globe Awards ceremony will be broadcast live on NBC on Sunday night, January 19, 2003, at 8:00pm. Several of the films nominated I still have not seen, and I have only a month left to see them. I do not enjoy watching movies alone, and the person I always watched movies with has left me... So I suppose I'm screwed, in that regard. But among those that I have seen, these are my favorites, highest-ranked first:

No matter what the category, I choose my preferences for the award based on the list of preferences above. As I see more movies on the list, my preferences my change. This is of no concern to you.

The New York Times reports that nonviolent criminals are walking out of prisons in Kentucky and elsewhere in order to help reduce the states' collective budget crisis.

I agree with Governor Patton. For many years, criminals have been kept in prisons far longer than necessary to "keep us safe" while we barely maintain our economy. Granted, the September 11 attack was the most significant factor in our economy's sputtering, but paying millions upon millions of dollars to keep criminals imprisoned is absurd. Set them free and hope they've learned their lesson, and establish a more harsh penal code for those who continue to break the rules. Depending on the crime, the first offense should warrant a slap on the wrist, so to speak. A second offense earns a much harsher penalty. A third offense earns the maximum penalty.

And, while I do not find capital punishment justifiable in every case, the death penalty is earned much more often than it is issued. If capital punishment were utilized more frequently to discard the worst examples of humanity, not only would we be saving hundreds of thousands of dollars per example, but we also would be allowing humanity a higher potential of exhibiting good behavior, as the bad examples are not only gone, but those who may become bad examples would have much more compelling reasons to think twice.

Electronic monitoring of criminals is a cheaper alternative as well. Let them walk and live as free men, but keep a permanent eye on them. Set geographic boundaries on them. You break certain laws, you forfeit certain rights. There should be no questioning the law in such matters.

For a nation of persons who take wealth so seriously, I am amazed that so many Americans promote so many wasteful government functions.

I have begun to find what I am looking for. This should only be the beginning. This is from an Associated Press article from July 14, 1948:

The South had sought, while joining in support of a general civil rights plank, to have the [Democratic National] convention declare that states have jurisdiction over the legal processes governing those rights [jurisdiction over "their own internal affairs and police powers" regarding implementation of civil rights legislation].

The Southern governors who were threatening political rebellion had accepted the civil rights plank, as long as the states' rights were not infringed upon -- as long as each state had the ability to enforce civil rights legislation at its own pace. The purpose was not to oppose the civil rights movement itself, although that was certainly on the minds of many Southerners, but it was to oppose an ever-expanding government from forcing its will upon those smaller than itself. The Dixiecrats' revolt was essentially a slap in the face to socialism, and socialism's victory in this case, a partial victory in the history of the United States, is a much firmer slap in the face to individual liberty and states' rights.

Now, I am only twenty years old, and it took me no time at all to find this information. (Setting the time aside to sift through it was more of a challenge, but if it were my job to do such, I would have found it days ago.) Why can neither journalists nor advocates states' rights have this argument be heard? I can tell you why:

A leftist media in favor of an all-encompassing government is responsible for allowing our voices to be heard nationally. Unless a person has acquired his own means to have himself heard by many, then his freedom of speech is all but usurped by the national media's socialist bias.

Remember, there is a founding ideal of this nation that is being raped as we speak: we must resist the oppression of the minority by the majority. Not only are blacks in the minority, as are Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and so on, but so is every American individual, as are the rich. Guess what -- the poor are the majority in this nation, and they are the ones attempting to, through a select few rich who only want power, steal from the rich and give to themselves. Sure, the story of Robinhood made that seem like a good deed, and cheating the system by pennies here and there could be overlooked. But I can not sit back and allow a sweeping, universal theft of the wealth of those who earned it so it may be placed in the hands of those who refuse to earn it.

Communism is beginning to take its hold of America, and soon we will either have to fight to preserve our nation, or it will consume us and we will fall to economic darkness.

Real news! Scientists at Cardiff University's Center for Astrobiology have found "viable micro-organisms...floating in Earth's upper atmosphere, providing evidence for the controversial theory that life on the planet was started by bacteria and other microbes arriving here from outer space". This kinda makes me wonder which sci-fi flick is closest to getting it right. I guess we can stop blaming ourselves now.

Read it and weep tears of joy, ladies and gentlemen: I made Dean's List! I don't know how the hell I pulled it off, especially considering my, erm, struggles, but here they are:

This raises my GPA to 3.43, which is lower than I would like it to be, but very much acceptable. My GPA should be, at the very least, a 3.54, but I'm not going into past transgressions. A 3.43 is acceptable, and I made Dean's list this semester. That's good enough for me.

I missed a line of the Mississippi law that I keep ranting about, and it may mean that I have slightly misrepresented the law. I am reanalyzing it now to make sure I know exactly what it says will happen should Lott retire from the Senate. Stay tuned...

Unbelievable! The state of Mississippi is unaware of its own law which explicitly states that no appointed Senator may remain in office unless he is elected to keep the seat in the special election that must be called by the governor within ninety days of any vacancy. The law, once again, is Section 23-15-855 of the Mississippi Code. This took me two minutes to find on a whim, and the rest of the country is convinced that Lott's (potential) retirement from the Senate would automatically result in a Democrat replacing him. It amazes me that the national news media can be so irresponsible. Even Senator McConnell is worried about it! Doesn't anyone look these things up anymore?

Stepping back, I would like to commend Sarah Partridge of Biloxi, Mississippi, for her letter to the editor printed in the Sun Herald today, December 17. She said:

In response to her question, yes, this would be an issue no matter who made the comment, as long it were a Republican. The Democrats just lost an election they thought they couldn't lose. They are looking at several months of living with Republican rule of Congress and the White House. This is the only thing they can do, and so they're playing overkill. They're playing the politics-of-personal-destruction game, and they're trying to suck any Republican Congressman into the trap that they can. Already, there are reports of Democrats labeling Senator Don Nickles as just as bad as, some saying worse than, Trent Lott. It's a petty, racist game that Democrats are playing, yet because they "support" blacks, they can't be touched for it. (Why else is Senator Robert Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan organizer, granted immunity from using the term nigger on the air?)

Another thought that I have been mulling over the last several days: what about other majorities? Where are the Hispanic, Asian-American, and other minority voices? How must they feel about this strictly black-white issue? Suddenly, the national news media is proving once again that this country really is only black and white, and whatever else there may be must choose one or the other. (The same goes for Democrat and Republican -- anyone else must choose one or the other or get left behind.)

The way Democrats are handling this is highly disappointing. They are using one man's possibly, eternally deniably racially charged comments to label half of the country, despite that most Republicans are not from the South and had nothing to do with the Senate Republicans in 1996 who chose Trent Lott as their leader. Remember, also, that no one else wanted the job! So it's not like he was elected to lead the Republicans; he merely stepped in to replace Bob Dole.

Democrats are attempting to destroy Trent Lott -- the politician and the man -- and they are trying to expand it to the entire Republican Party. Meanwhile, Republicans are not allowed to compare Trent Lott's situation to any Democrat's or anyone else. If you try to compare this to a Democrat's questionable moral actions, then it's "just about Trent Lott!" If you try to apply Trent Lott's "moral failure" to the entire Republican Party, then that is perfectly acceptable.

I hate double standards. Do you see why I nearly always refuse to vote for a Democrat? They preach equality and togetherness while promoting division and hate.

I am upset that I missed it; Al Gore's Saturday Night Live rates among the season's best, and I missed it! I did not, however, miss Trent Lott's interview with Ed Gordon on Black Entertainment Television. Overall, I was rather pleased with Gordon, although it was apparent that his goal was at least partially to justify labeling Lott a racist. On the BET Nightly News immediately following the interview, I watched and listened for only a minute or two. The New York Democrat Congressman, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (I can guarantee you that a Congressional White Caucus would be unconstitutional), was making gross assumptions and even likened Trent Lott to Nazis. That was quite a stretch, and was not cool at all.

I must admit, though, that it wasn't nearly as bad as Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr's Saturday speech in which he referred to Lott as the "Republican Party's Monica Lewinsky" (his tone when he said that was hideous, as if it were the most evil thing I person could be). He said, "Monica Lewinsky reflected Bill Clinton's private moral failure; Trent Lott reflects the Republican Party's political moral failure". Excuse me, Mr. Jackson, but if you're going to assume that Trent Lott's stupidity represents a moral failure for the entire Republican Party, then I'm going to have to assume that your father's numerous moral failures represent a moral failure for everyone he represents -- all African Americans. Don't play the game where the leader's supposed faults are applied to the whole unless you're prepared to deal with it on your end as well.

When I wrote my opinion on who should be Senate Majority Leader for the 108th Congress earlier this evening, I was unaware of the political world's reaction to Don Nickles's statements. However, after catching up on the news around Washington, I realized that it is apparently a big deal. Knowing Lott as I do (politically, not personally), I almost expect him to step aside as Majority Leader in order to give one of three men two years in that role. The candidates are:

Bill Frist, a heart surgeon from Tennessee;

Mitch McConnell, a lawyer from Kentucky;

Don Nickles, a business executive from Oklahoma.

Bill Frist is Karl Rove's pick. (Karl Rove is George W. Bush's most trusted political advisor.) I like him because he is a political outsider who won in 1994, before which he had never served in any political office. Precisely for that reason, I do not want to see Frist as Majority Leader. He has been called President Bush's chief liaison to Senate Republicans, and while that would serve to be an advantage to President Bush (which would please me very much), I can not ethically support it. Our federalist government was established with a system of checks and balances; certainly, an agreeable legislature and executive would be quite pleasing for a change, but we're going to have that anyway (comparatively speaking). Frist seems too persuadable. Still, as a career physician with millions of his own, it is highly plausible that he is uninterested in a career in politics. In fact, he has promised to step down after his second term expires in January 2007. "Who better than a heart surgeon to take out the bleeding-heart liberal?" Bill Frist was chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee from 2001 to 2003 (107th Congress).

Mitch McConnell is Tony's pick. As archenemy of campaign finance reform, however, I question whether I should have embraced him so quickly. McConnell believes that donating to campaigns "is as American as as apple pie"; I think it's as corrupting as any government institution that uses money to provide unfair advantages to anyone. Certainly, free speech should be protected, but an unfair financial advantage should not be allowed to oppress capable and potentially better politicians (see footnote). Still, as former chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee and of the Senate Rules and Administration committee (he will chair it again in the 108th Congress, though I wish he would chair the Ethics Committee instead), McConnell is already quite familiar with leadership in the Senate. As I mentioned earlier, he helped to lead the charge to oust a fellow Republican in 1995, suggesting that he plays by the rules first and for his party second. Mitch McConnell was chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee from 1997 to 2001 (105th and 106th Congreses).

Don Nickles will serve as majority whip (otherwise known as assistant majority leader) again in the 108th Congress, rallying Republicans to their various causes as he has done since 1997. He was first elected to and selected to chair the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 1988. The only reason why I would not like Nickles as majority leader now is that he bargained with Trent Lott in 1996 not to challenge him for the leadership position in exchange for bigger offices and a staff raise. Still, he is a highly capable Republican leader and very good at his job. But that he apparently believes strongly in the spoils system suggests to me that perhaps someone else would be better for the job. I'd hate for such an attitude to lead to abuse of such a position. (Heck, he's already become the first one to say anything about replacing Lott, so power is definitely on his mind, whether he actually wants the job or not.) I would have felt much better if Strom Thurmond himself, or some other outgoing Republican Senator, had brought it up.

Another potential man for the job would be Larry Craig of Idaho, although I've not heard his name tossed around for it at all. Craig is excellent with words and proudly serves the conservative cause, and quite well at that, as he serves as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee chairman, but some may think he is a bit too right-wing for the leadership position. Then again, Trent Lott is quite the conservative from way down south. Rick Santorum (PA, Republican Conference chairman) may also be a potential candidate, as may be Ted Stevens of Alaska just because he is the Senate's longest-serving Republican (thirty-four years this Christmas Eve!), most likely making him President Pro Tempore.

I'm not bound to make my own choice or prediction, but I will if replacing Lott becomes a reality, and maybe if it doesn't. If you have any thoughts, you know what to do.

McConnell says that the effects of campaign finance reform would not "end the influence of political money" but would "restrict political parties" -- which is precisely the reason why I am for campaign finance reform. On the other hand, he also says that the effects of campaign finance reform would restrict potential challengers and would favor incumbents, which is partially why I do not favor the campaign finance law established just this year.

A poem was brought to my intention, and I liked it. From W.H. Auden's "In Praise of Limestone" (1948):

I have often wondered why I tend to be antisocial. This explains it. Let it never be said that my personal, political peculiarities can not be expressed via classic poetry.

Senator Don Nickles (OK) is the first Republican Congressman to suggest that Trent Lott's leadership position should be reconsidered. Nickles has suggested that controversy over Lott's racially charged statement regarding Senator Strom Thurmond and Lott's record on civil rights will hamper his effectiveness as Republicans take charge of the Senate next month. Nickles, along with all Senators of each party to my knowledge, has accepted Lott's apology, and none of them believes him to be a racist. However, in a statement with which I am sure many of them also agree, Nickles said, "there are several outstanding senators who are more than capable of effective leadership and I hope we have an opportunity to choose".

For whom it may concern, I did a little fishing, and I found the Mississippi law regarding vacant US Senate seats from Mississippi. According to Section 23-15-855 of the Mississippi Code, the Governor of Mississippi (who is currently a Democrat) shall appoint an interim Senator within ten days of notification of the vacancy. If there is more than one year remaining in the Senator's term, then a special election must be called for within ninety days of the vacancy. Because Lott's term does not expire until January 2007, a special election would necessarily be called for. Mississippi voters are not likely to elect a Democrat to replace Trent Lott, by my calculation, but it is possible. The point is that, should Lott retire from his position as Senator if his leadership position is revoked, then it is unlikely that it will result in a 50-49-1 Republican majority in the Senate, except perhaps during the time between the appointment and the special election.

After a bit of research on the matter (based largely on Tony's suggestions), I have decided that two excellent candidates for Senate Majority Leader are (surprise!) Don Nickles and Mitch McConnell (KY). I especially like McConnell because, despite strong loyalty to his party, he also served as chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee (104th Congress) that essentially forced former Senator Bob Packwood (R-OR) to resign in 1995 on several charges of sexual harrassment. McConnell plays by the rules first and for his party second; that has to look good on his résumé. McConnell has also served as chairman of the Rules and Administration committee, which, among other things, leads the debate on campaign finance, and sits on the Judiciary committee. Overall, McConnell seems like an excellent choice to me just because he is most interested in seeing that the Senate is operated properly and efficiently.

Don Nickles would make an excellent choice as well, but as the party whip (assistant to minority/majority leader) for the last few sessions of Congress, he is a bit more partisan than most. He has even been called the "carrier of the conservative flame". I am a conservative, and that doesn't bother me, and being the second-ranking Republican in the Senate is also a strong factor. Nickles has been known as a "one=man Senate bomb squad", fighting Democrats on issues like health care (chairman of an Energy and Natural Resources subcommittee) and the minimum wage. He functions very well as a minority whip, rallying Republicans and anyone worried of a tyrannical majority to question the motives of a power-hungry majority -- whether the Democrats fit that description or not, Nickles has done an excellent job making sure that their power does not become too great.

I would prefer McConnell, but either would make an excellent leader. Both have records of strong support for the Republican Party. Nickles has been around longer, but McConnell seems to be more of a sleeper leader in the Senate. Nickles seems more outspoken and more likely to run for President some day, but McConnell seems like a better man for the job -- which may be precisely why he does not actively pursue it of his own volition.

But the big question is whether Trent Lott can be effective as Majority Leader, especially in the collective eyes of ethnically diverse regions. Some say no, and some say he was not much of an effective leader to begin with. I support Trent Lott the Senator, and I do not expect him to retire from his office. I do, however, like the idea that Senate Republicans should reconsider him as Majority Leader. Reconsideration doesn't guarantee replacing him, but it would certainly look better for the party if they did.

As you may have read in these pages on Friday, I do not like Trent Lott as the Senate Majority Leader. As long as I have been familiar with him, I have thought that he is a relatively weak and ineffective leader. Therefore, perhaps my advocating that he step down from his Senate leadership position is unfairly biased.

What makes this difficult is that I believe him, and I have believed him from the start. I knew he wasn't a racist, I know he does not promote racial segregation, and I know that he is a very good-natured politician. I actually like him more than most because he seems like one of the least corrupt politicians... ever. (Maybe that's why he's weak and ineffective; wouldn't that be a shame!)

I just watched the first twenty minutes of his news conference in which he publicly apologized and gave reasons for his controversial remarks and Strom Thurmond's birthday bash. From the beginning of the monologue, he seemed sincere but emotionally flat -- something with which I can relate very much, as I always speak what I mean and mean what I say (during serious discourse), and my delivery is very emotionally flat. To those who rely on emotive clues to determine one's honesty, this is socially detrimental to me. Assuming that Trent Lott is the same way or similar, and I believe he is, then it is also detrimental to the nation's perception of him as well.

So I am now torn between supporting Trent Lott, the man and Senator from Mississippi, and Trent Lott, the weak and ineffective Senate Majority Leader. He has proven in my mind (although I believed him in the first place) that his words in no way reflect any racist attitude within him. But many are left unconvinced, or simply don't want anyone else to believe it. It is too bad that Lott's remarks relate to racial division, for where this is racial division in America, there is demagoguery.

Unfortunately for Trent Lott, Republicans, you, me, and everyone in America, many of our public leaders who claim to advocate socio-ethnic equality seek only to divide us further. Rather than calm, constructive criticism and an honest effort to decipher Lott's intent, those who oppose him are screaming not only that he is a racist and should be censured, demoted, or worse, but also that his poorly chosen words represent the position of the whole of the Republican Party. That is not just criticism; that is blatant (attempted) political destruction.

It is my opinion that social equality is unattainable as long as the politics of race continue to be divisive and derisive. If America is to realize its goal of becoming colorblind, then we need to work together. People of different shades of skin, no matter how similar in mind or body, can not peacefully coexist if no effort is made to forgive past transgressions in order to work toward a more positive future.

And please, please, please-- enough with the political double standards.

Note: I use the word "equality" because it is the socially acceptable misnomer for "equitableness", which is what I mean by it. Genuine equality, social, political, or otherwise, is impossible.

The editors of the National Review have written a brilliant special editorial article today, in which they essentially agree with an editorial-letter I wrote for the Macon Telegraph Wednesday (printed today). The National Review, like me, can justify both criticism and support of Lott; however, "we can't be loyal to a Majority Leader who we didn't support in the first place".

Lott has been a poor leader, and his legacy, should he remain Majority Leader, will be the dismantling of the Republican majority so painstakingly earned in 2002 as Democrats label the Republican Party based on its support of who they perceive to be a racist leader. (There are several keywords in that statement: they only perceive him to be racist, but such a claim can not logically be defended; they can only label the party as racist, but such a claim can not logically be defended.)

My editorial letter also mentioned in brief the editorial double standard around the country -- anti-Republicans advocate that we should focus on Trent Lott; that we should not compare his example at all to any examples of the past; that we should judge him, and him alone. An especially noteworthy example was on the "Hannity & Colmes" program Wednesday night. Sean Hannity, the Republican co-host, was asking an interviewee if Bill Clinton or Jesse Jackson should have been chastized for their unfair racial perspectives or comments in the past, and the interviewee dodged the question, yelled at the host of the show, and essentially reduced himself to the maturity of a child of five. His point was that we can only discuss Trent Lott; he screwed up, and he should be politically destroyed for it. This has nothing to do with anything else.

Meanwhile, editorial pages across America feature articles accusing the Republican Party of decades of racism. So Republicans can not compare Lott's statements to anything a Democrat has ever done, but Democrats can compare Lott's statements to not just any, but all Republicans. Double standard? Oh, definitely. Nevermind that more Republicans voted for civil rights legislation than Democrats. Nevermind that Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until the 1960s. Nevermind that Jesse Jackson has admitted to spitting in white people's food just because they're white.

The point here is that Trent Lott is racist because he said something that might mean he supports the Dixiecrat political agenda from 1948. Nevermind that Thurmond's speeches in 1948 never supported white supremacy or segregation. Sure, the States' Rights Democratic Party (the Dixiecrats) were established over differences of opinion on racial integration, but the differences were chiefly political. (Look it up.) Thurmond opposed big government, and both the Republican and Democratic Parties were advocating sweeping reforms that would greatly expand the federal government and thus reduce states' rights. Never could it be proved that the Dixiecrats were against racial integration; it can only be proved that they opposed being forced to integrate.

Let's work with facts and stop making assumptions based on what we would mean if we made the comments. We didn't make the comments; Trent Lott did. We didn't run for President as Dixiecrats in 1948; Strom Thurmond did. If you do not know and are not bothering to fact-check, then shut the hell up and quit assuming that you or anyone else knows what they're talking about -- because based on today's research and scouring national editorial pages, no one does.

What happened to real journalism? Why don't investigative reporters actually investigate the facts anymore? Why do they only find the opinions with which they agree in order to put down their own spin? At least when they do that, they should advertise that they are expressing opinions, not factual information. Just because a man born in 1902 was raised by a family still familiar with slavery does not make him a racist today, or even in support of segregation in 1948. The simple fact of the matter is that you don't know what Strom Thurmond believes now, and you sure as hell don't know what he believed in 1948. So quit pretending that you do, or that the editorial page that says what you want it to say represents the truth. They haven't proved anything...

It looks like Trent Lott's career shouldn't survive this one; if it does, it could mean a very short-lived Republican majority. I think that's absurd, that one man's bad decisions should affect the entire party (instead it should affect Mississippi), but people in this country aren't smart enough to realize that no party endorses all of its candidates' views.

The Democrats' politics of personal destruction is hitting Trent Lott hard, and the most recent story to surface is over forty years old. Time Magazine is reporting that Lott, as president of the intrafraternity council at the University of Mississippi in the early 1960s, Lott "'was one of the strongest leaders in resisting the integration of the national [Sigma Nu] fraternity in any of the chapters', recalls former CNN President Tom Johnson, then a Sigma Nu member at the University of Georgia". Johnson voted with Lott, and "with their chapters threatening a walkout, [Sigma Nu] voted overwhelmingly to remain all-white".

I don't like the way this article stereotypes the South. I understand that the South has been slower to wake from the nightmare that once was slavery, then was segregation, and continues to live through racism of several varieties, but that does not mean that the South is simply racist. I have lived in middle Georgia for over twenty years, and while racism is noticeable (especially, ironically, among blacks), the most staunchly anti-racist perspectives are also found here. (I suppose there is a reason for that; you fight the problem where it exists.)

Also don't underestimate the intentions of a Democrat, who voted with Lott, telling only his side of the story, naturally giving himself the benefit of the doubt since he is not under public scrutiny. Naturally, since he is coming out with this in a time when Trent Lott is under the microscope, his transgression is negligible. Or, so the leftist media will treat it. (On that note, also do not underestimate that Johnson admits shame without being caught first, defends his former actions with reasons, and has not engaged in any activities which suggests that he may still endorse such actions.)

It seems to me like Johnson has a political score to settle. I don't think it's personal, but I think it may have much to do with electoral results. A minor shift was felt in November's election, and Democrats everywhere are scouring the book of dirty tricks to find anything to exaggerate in order to restore their majority. Republicans naturally also pursue government control, but at least they defend what they believe is right honorably (most of the time, at least more often than Democrats, in my ever-biased eye).

President Bush has responded to Lott's comments:

Bush goes on to discuss how these people believe the American Dream is not meant for them, stopping short of pointing out, as I did two days ago, that significant reasons for such beliefs are the divisive politics of the Democratic Party and sheer laziness. First and foremost, Bush asserts that "No government policy can put hope in people's hearts or a sense of purpose in people's lives".

Bush cites God's love, but I will stop just short of that because I understand that millions of Americans do not believe in or do not care for God's love. (That's their business, as long as they can accept that if he is there, regardless of whether or not they believe it, he loves them just the same.) Unfortunately for Republicans and President Bush, citing religion in this instance is just as divisive. The number of non-Christians in America is comparable to the number of non-whites, thus the divisiveness of promoting any religion over any other is comparable to the divisiveness of promoting any skin color over any other.

The next two years are going to be very interesting for politics.

I don't buy it. According to the rules of the American Idol television show, contestants had to be complete amateurs and each of them signed releases stating they had never professionally recorded anything. This article does not reveal that she had recorded anything, but only that someone had heard her sing and that she had merely signed a contract. If it was such a big deal, they should have said something before she won the contest. That they didn't means to me that someone simply dug something up that doesn't mean anything, and it's just an attempt to tarnish her accomplishments. Regardless of any pieces of paper she had signed, she was not on the radio before American Idol, and she won fair and square. That professionals in the industry knew she was good does not affect that.

Bob Herbert of the New York Times is getting the ball rolling for Democrats in what is going to be one of the biggest smear campaigns in my politically aware lifetime so far (I'm 20). Herbert has written an editorial for the New York Times today; here's an excerpt:

The Republican Party has become a haven for white racist attitudes and anti-black policies. The party of Lincoln is now a safe house for bigotry. It's the party of the Southern strategies and the Willie Horton campaigns and Bob Jones University and the relentless and unconscionable efforts to disenfranchise black voters. For those who now think the Democratic Party is not racist enough, the answer is the G.O.P.

When at first the Republicans decided to rely once again on Trent Lott as majority leader, I was perturbed, but it isn't my party, so "whatever floats their boat", I said. Given Lott's recent and past remarks, however, that boat is in danger of sinking. I'm prepared to see Republicans brave the storm brought unto them--hopefully without Lott--but if they don't do something about him (like at least strip him of leadership status at least), then the storm might take their ship and the Democrats might reclaim Congress in 2004.

This is all the Democrats need--to deliver the impression that the Republican Party is racist and anti-black. If they can secure that perspective in the voters once again, all the legitimate work done by and for Republicans in the last ten years will have been negated, and we'll be back on track to become a socialist haven for lazy good-for-nothings (doesn't this world have enough of those without infecting the United States?).

The number of which [the House of Representatives] will be [according to the census] augmented to one for every thirty thousand inhabitants; and within every successive period of ten years the census is to be renewed, and augmentations may continue to be made under the above limitation... I take for granted...that the number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the Constitution.

- James Madison, The Federalist No. 55

In Federalist papers 55, 56, and 58, James Madison considers arguments against limiting the membership of the House of Representatives to a number too small to adequately represent and meet the needs of the American people. Anti-Federalists realized that the Constitution would provide an effective foundation for American government, thus most of the arguments were concentrated on highlighting concerns and/or amending the Constitution rather than thwarting its ratification.

The first draft of the Constitution, proposed August 6, 1787, held that, "as proportions of numbers in different States will alter from time to time...[and] as new States will be erected within the limits of the United States, the Legislature shall...regulate the number of representatives by the number of inhabitants, according to the provisions herein after made, at the rate of one for every 40,000". At the signing of the Constitution September 17, 1787, the proportion was altered: Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution states, "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each State shall have at least one Representative".

In June 1788, a Constitutional amendment originally proposed by the Massachusetts Convention in February proposed that the accepted proportion of representatives to persons should be held "until the whole number of the Representatives amounts to 200, after which, that number shall be continued or increased, as Congress shall direct, upon the principles in the Constitution by apportioning the representatives of each state to some greater number of people, from time to time, as population increases".

When the Constitution went into effect in 1789, the House of Representatives was born with 65 members representing a nation of almost 4 million persons, or about one representative to every 60,000 persons. Following the first census in 1790, the House of Representatives was reapportioned to include 106 members, or about one to every 37,000 persons. Such a proportion allowed representatives to be personally familiar with a significant percentage of their constituents, thus to know better what is best for the district. As the privilege of voting was severely limited, it was plausible that some representatives knew personally every voter in his district.

After the censuses of 1800 and 1810, the House was reapportioned to include 142 and 186 members, respectively, the proportion remaining greater than one representative per 40,000 persons. Beginning with the census of 1820, however, the proportion of representatives to persons began a shrinking trend, which was somewhat necessary to prevent overcrowding of the House chambers. After the census of 1910, the number of representatives, now serving an average of about 212,000 persons each, had increased to 435.

Following the census of 1910, the Congress statutorily accomplished what should arguably have required Constitutional amendment: capped the number of representatives in the House at 435. The limit of the number of representatives is not necessarily in violation of the Constitution; the Constitution specifies that the proportion of representatives to citizens may never exceed one per 30,000, but it does not specify any minimum proportion or maximum or minimum total of representatives. Still, because the Constitution expresses that representation in the House of Representatives shall be altered according to population after each census, it can be argued that to set a particular number of members in the House should require Constitutional amendment.

For the first time since 1790, there is legitimate reason to suspect that the House of Representatives does not efficiently represent the American people. Not only has the population more-than-tripled since 1910, but suffrage has been granted to women and the minimum voting age has been reduced to 18, greatly increasing the number of eligible voters, thus further reducing a representatives effective ability to reach his constituents personally. After the census of 2000, 435 representatives were responsible for approximately 281.4 million Americans, or about one representative per 647,000 Americans. Considering that approximately three-fourths of the American population is of voting age, each Representative in the House is responsible for about 432,000 voters.

How have we come so far from the original ideal of one representative to 30,000 persons? Granted, the House of Representatives would provide a glowing example of over-representation, consisting of an impossible number of members, nearly 10,000, costing far too much not only to operate the business of government, but even to accommodate so many representatives, not to mention the cumbersomeness of the election process should each state be divided into so many districts. But the opposite extreme, the Anti-Federalists' concerns for under-representation, has arguably become a reality for Americans today who can not reach their legislators or even their legislator's staff.

There