President Bush and Prime Minister Bush have agreed on up to six more weeks for another UN resolution, but with the understanding the Resolution 1441, in effect now, already calls for action against Iraq if found in material breach of the resolution, which it has been. In other words, if Saddam does not disarm from here, any resolution that the UN passes with regard to Iraq is symbollic at best. Based on the rhetoric and the unanimity of 1441's passage, I believe it is impossible that the UN will resist the US call for military action against Iraq much longer.

Zell Miller, Senator from Georgia. The best Democrat since John F. Kennedy, maybe better. There is no better politician than the one who stands up against his self-righteous "bosses" in order to do the job he was elected to do, rather than the one they want him to do, especially when what he wants to do matches what I would like to see done. Furthermore, Zell Miller has always put the people first, way before his party or even his selfish interests.

Jim Marshall, Representative from Georgia and former Mayor of Macon. He stands for the ideals of the Democratic Party, not the socialist ideals of the liberal wing of the party. He, like Miller and Traficant, promotes the true Democratic Party rather than the socialist body that it is becoming. I'd like to see him Senator some day, except that would help the socialist Democrats in Congress too much.

Jimmy Carter, former Governor of Georgia and President of the United States. Every bit of the idealist in me is reflected in this man. His policies may not have always been realistically best, but his ideals for how America and the world should be were.

Joseph Biden, Senator from Deleware. The best Democrat in Congress who isn't retiring in January 2005. He should run for the presidential nomination in 2008.

James Traficant, former Representative from Ohio. That is, before his legal issues. He stood even more against the liberal power structure of the Democratic Party than Zell Miller does. What a guy, until proven guilty.

I'm sure there are several others that I would like, especially in southern state legislatures, but these are the big five for me. Feel free to suggest some of your favorite politicians, preferably those whose party you are not likely to vote for, and why you like them.

Ethan Bronner (NYTimes) has written one of the best editorials on international relations, specifically between Europe and America, that I have ever read. I would like to copy and paste the entire thing into this space, but that is entirely pointless when you can just click the link and read it there. The following excerpt will have to serve as your introduction, but I think you should read the whole thing, or at least skim it:

Most Europeans tend to think Americans have too harsh a view of the world, relying on force in international relations where diplomacy and commerce would do. Americans often consider the Europeans craven appeasers who prefer to buy off an enemy rather than confront him. As war with Saddam Hussein looms, this divide is affecting nearly every trans-Atlantic interaction.

Bronner's thesis is that the two opposing worldviews are the underlying reason for disagreement over Iraq, not specific policy choices (which are only a result of the worldviews).

I only have two problems with Bronner's editorial: (1) He fails to consider the remapping and quest for remapping of Eastern Europe at the bottom of paragraph three; (2) In the last line of the article, he is either trying to redefine "realism" (as used in political science) or is unaware of what constitutes realism -- the European culture that he describes is idealist, while the American culture as he described it (and as we actually are) is entirely realist.

Idealists promote diplomacy, order, and equality throughout the international system. Realists accept that the quest for power is actually what dominates international relations. Thus, a realist might suggest that everyone longs for world peace, but refusing to fight will result in being annihilated by someone else who will fight.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, [Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri] said that Washington might try to use its "technological superiority in the techniques of espionage, fabrication, deception and misleading" to plant false evidence against Iraq.

Sabri explains that the US has made several accusations without supporting them substantively. These are good points. I would not doubt our ability to plant evidence, but I think the evidence of our planting evidence would be obvious, and I believe the UN would be capable of seeing through that. Also, Sabri needs to understand that, by the time we do fully disclose our information regarding Iraq's weapons, it will be beyond the point of peaceful negotiation. Our only purpose for disclosing specifics will be to let the UN know where we are going to get the weapons and what we'll bring back to them tomorrow.

Meanwhile, I would like to point out that Saddam Hussein has repeatedly vowed to "annihilate the United States" in any war that may result from this conflict. Question: How does Saddam Hussein plan to annihilate the United States ... *pause for effect* ... if Iraq does not have the weapons required for such a task?

Georgia's General Assembly proposed a "dip into their own pockets Wednesday to help with the state's budget shortfall." The proposed paycuts are largely symbollic, as the money saved would be under $500,000 and would barely affect the state's $16 billion budget, but legislators say it sends the right message.

Thursday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution covered the paycut proposals a bit more, including specifics about who makes what.

Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Buck (D, Columbus): "If everybody else is going to bleed in state government, so should the General Assembly."

Senate Republicans proposed a 10% reduction in pay that would save just under $800,000 over two years. House Democrats followed moments later with a proposal for a 5% cut, which was later modified to a 10% cut even more extensive than the Republicans' original offer. While none of them are likely looking forward to making less money, at least they're on the same page.

Senate President Pro Tempore Eric Johnson (R, Savannah): "It sends the right signal - that we're taking [budget cuts] seriously."

Senator Steve Thompson (D, Power Springs): "I don't have a problem with it. If anybody's here for the money, then we need to do a state audit."

From the Online Athens article: "Currently, Georgia's 180 representatives and 56 senators earn $16,200 a year, with extra fees for driving mileage and housing while in Atlanta. The House speaker earns $92,159 and the lieutenant governor makes $83,147."

Read or add comments on this story.

Instead of raising property taxes 150% as originally proposed, Governor Perdue says Georgia "would be able to save $200 million in fiscal 2004 by delaying employee paychecks one day". Democrats are questioning the legality of the move -- but why?

Article: Paycheck delay plan called unprecedented, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

By pushing payday back by one day, the last payday of fiscal year 2004 (June 30, 2003) would be moved to the first day of fiscal year 2005 (July 1, 2003). "The change would push $200 million in [paycheck] costs into the fiscal 2005 budget and give Perdue time to look for other ways to cut costs."

While this does not guarantee a budget solution, it does guarantee another year to figure out the best path for the state budget, and it also guarantees that -- at least for now -- that property taxes are not going up. Millions of Georgians will likely be happy to wait one more day to get their paychecks if it means no more tax hikes.

The problem with the budget is that taxes aren't sufficient to pay the government's bill, but raising taxes any more would put even more of a strain on Georgia's consumers. Cutting state spending would free up budget dollars, but Perdue admits that this is not a spending cut; it simply allows time to seek appropriate budget cuts. The problem with most budget cuts, though, is that they mean cutting jobs.

Other proposals to help with the state's budget deal with education and health care. Representative Robert Brown (R, LaGrange) is proposing changes to the Medicaid program that could eventually save $500 million. Perdue's budget plans already include payment cuts to doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical providers in the Medicaid program. Other proposals aim to reduce unnecessary visits to emergency rooms and to identify and manage high-risk pregnancies.

Brown's proposal "to either reduce eligibility for the state's PeachCare for Kids program or increase premiums that parents pay to enroll their children in the health insurance program" has come under fire. He understands the importance of the program, "but these are hard times", he says.

Consumer health advocate Linda Lowe responded, "The harder you make it for struggling families to sign up their children and keep them enrolled, the more children will end up without coverage. More people need [PeachCare] now that the economy is bad."

Read or add comments on this story.

I decided to wash my car. As I start toward the door, I notice that there is mail on the desktop. I decide to go through the mail before I wash the car. I lay my car keys down on the desk, put the junk mail in the trashcan beside the desk, and notice that the trash can is full.

So, I decide to put what few bills there are back on the desk and take out the trash first. But then I think, since I'm going outside when I take out the trash anyway, I may as well write checks for the bills first to take them out to the mailbox. So, I grab my checkbook off the table only to find that there is only one check left. My extra checks are buried in a box in my room, so I go to my room where I find a glass of coke that I had been drinking.

So I'm looking for my checks, but first I need to push the coke aside so that I don't accidentally knock it over. The coke is getting warm, and I decide I should put it in the refrigerator to keep it cold. So I head toward the kitchen with the coke, and I realize that the flowers on the porch have not been watered. I set the coke down on the dining room table, where I see my books laid out, reminding me that I have homework to do. I decide that the flowers are on the way to the mailbox, so I should write checks, then water the flowers, but first I need to do some homework. I can't think on an empty stomach, so I grab a quick snack and take a restroom break.

After the break, I head back up the stairs trying to remember what I was planning to do. At the end of the day, the car isn't washed, the bills aren't paid, the flowers aren't watered, the trash is still full, there is a warm coke on the dining room table, there is still only one check in my checkbook, and I don't remember what I did with my keys. When I try to figure out why nothing got done today, I'm really baffled because I know I was busy all day long, and I'm exhausted.

I realize this is a serious problem, and I should probably find out more about it by looking it up on the Internet, but first I'll check my e-mail.

The leaders of eight European nations have signed on with the United States in print for all eyes to see in a London Times editorial. The leaders of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Denmark have each pledged their support to the United States and have challenged the UN to "face up to its responsibilities". Russia is turning around to support us. France and Germany are still reluctant because of their heavy reliance on Iraqi oil (not to mention that they have provided Iraq in the past with many of the materials which have contributed to the weapons development progams that Iraqi officials allege don't exist.)

Those that aren't onboard will soon be left behind. In a few short months, the victory will be ours, George Bush and Republicans will be heroes of the day and of the world, and Democrats will still find something to bitch about. Unless another September 11 happens, America is going to be all smiles again come summer...

The Australian, Australia's national daily newspaper, reports Osama bin Laden's State of the Union address for 2003, presented by Tim Blair.

Check out this article that even Drudge hasn't reported yet. The Debka File reports an interview with Jassem Abdullah, one of Saddam Hussein's former bodyguards who was fired and who, fearing for his life, fled to Amman, Jordan, where the interview took place. In the interview, he declares that he knows "where the weapons are" (that information is at the bottom of the page, the last thing he says). The first part of the interview can be read here.

Both the DNC and the RNC have on their web sites a mechanism that specifically enumerates how the President's economic plan helps or hurts, depending on the source of the opinion, the citizens of each state.

Naturally, the Republican National Committee will advertise statistics and promote statements that assert the benefits of the President's plan, while the Democratic National Committee will advertise statistics and statements that do just the opposite. Somewhere in between (or in some cases nowhere to be found), then, is probably where truth may be found.

The RNC's report for Georgia points out that nearly 2.5 million taxpayers will have lower income tax bills. The DNC reports (PDF) that about 1.3 million taxpayers will "get nothing at all". Neither party declares how many Georgians actually pay income taxes, and the DNC does not declare that these 1.3 million taxpayers actually pay income taxes, so these statistics have little value.

The Democrats repetively claim that, according to Bush's plan, millions of taxpayers (about 2 million in Georgia, about 64 million nationwide) will receive less than $100 and that the plan is skewed heavily toward the rich. What is never mentioned by Democrats is how long these wealthier individuals have been working, how old they are, etc. I'm a 20-year-old college student, and my income qualifies me as living in poverty. I am also one of those receiving nothing directly from Bush's tax cut ... because I don't pay enough income taxes!

The idea behind a tax cut, in my opinion, should be to cut taxes, which means that you must pay them before you can see a cut. For those that don't pay any or barely pay any, they shouldn't see a cut. The tax burden is unfairly skewed toward the wealthier end of society. Granted, the wealthy have more financial flexibility and should perhaps feel morally obligated to pay for the government's services more than the poor. At the same time, forcing them to do so via a progressive tax rate violate's the Constitution's demand for equal treatment under the law.

There is a point to this. There is truth to the Democrats' claim that a wealthy few will benefit more, in raw tax dollars, then the average and poorer masses. But, as a percentage of income taxes, the rich are getting a much smaller tax cut. In other words, despite that the top 1% of Georgia's taxpayers will average a $27,000 tax cut while the average cut for the middle 20% would be $245, the percentage of the wealthy Georgians' tax cut is smaller. (See this Wall Street Journal article and the Tax Foundation's analysis of the Bush tax plan.)

But the Democrats aren't the only ones promoting incomplete statistics to deceive voters. Republicans are guilty just the same of promoting the Bush plan with blanket statements like, "863,000 taxpayers in Georgia will benefit from the exclusion of dividends paid from previously-taxed corporate income." Okay, that's wonderful. Which taxpayers? And how will they benefit? And what will be the benefit? That the Republicans do not address the Democrats' allegations that the tax cuts are for the rich only adds fuel to the fire that Democrats are trying to spread. Simply telling us that "614,000 business taxpayers can use their tax savings to invest in new equipment, hire additional workers, and increase pay" is not proof that those 614,000 taxpayers will use their tax savings for those purposes, nor is it proof that they could meet those results.

The fact of the matter is that both parties are speaking from both sides of their mouths and from both ends. Neither party is going to be straight with the average citizen, because neither wants to be the one to honesly tell you that they're in it for the votes first and us second. It is our job to see through the faulty statistics and deceptive blanket statements and find the truth of the matters at hand. If you're reading this web site in the first place, then you're ahead of the curve, but you still don't know the final solution any better than I do. Imagine how tough it must be for the average citizen who doesn't follow politics as closely.

The key, thus, is not to simply advertise to our peers our theoretical solutions with simple statistics and one-liners, but to explain in the simplest possible detail exactly why we expect our theories to work. It's time to get past the rhetoric and actually educate Americans so that they may knowingly choose the correct path, rather than ignorantly select the lies that look most appealing.

I've gotten off my state-and-local track and onto an editorial soapbox. The original purpose of this article was to point out the differences between the RNC's and DNC's analyses of the economic plan, and to encourage the citizens of every state to see what the two parties are saying about your tax dollars.

Only CBS could ever write a story comparing the two Bush presidents to Saddam Hussein. Now would be a good time to sell any stock you have left invested in CBS.

Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and India react, and Russia and France barely react, to Bush's State of the Union address. China would react, but they never show anything live or unedited. Communist governments must ensure that their peoples receive the message they want to hear, not necessarily the way of the world. (The people must remain convinced that whatever the Chinese government says is correct.)

Naturally, Democrats are attacking the speech from every angle that they can, but I have yet to encounter a real, substantive argument against anything Bush has said. One line that really angered me in last night's Democrats' response by Governor Locke was when he said the Democrats' plan is a "successful" one -- how the hell do you measure success before anything has even happened?! Again, in my opinion, this is the Democrat basing their quest for power on half-truths (I think I'm being generous by saying "half"), incomplete statistics, and loaded phrases that sound good but mean nothing. Democrats' rhetoric: tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Today's NYTimes Politics Online page has quite a full load of information and reaction to the speech. You can find all the information you need there, both supportive and critical, so it might not be a bad place to look for rhetoric from both sides of the political aisle. (If you get a registration error, registration is free, and they don't send you any junk mail at all unless you tell them to. I've been very satisfied with my registration to the New York Times online.)

Finally, Neal Boortz's analysis is about the best I've seen so far; that is, it is closest to representing how I feel about many parts of the speech. And of course, the Democrats offer their own analysis, which couldn't contrast with mine any more unless they knew my thoughts and intentionally opposed each one.

You'll know what I think of the State of the Union soon enough. Until then, enjoy your days!

After hearing the President's State of the Union address, the Democrats' response by Washington Governor Gary Locke, and various comments by various commentators, it's time for me to go to bed. I will present a full response to the speech within days -- perhaps tomorrow evening, but definitely before the weekend is out.

I am also preparing my larger-than-life and hopefully comprehensible comprehensive plan for the national economy, involving cutting revenues (taxation) and appropriates (spending), privatizing selected functions of government that should be cut, and encouraging rational economic behavior among individuals (consumers, investors, entrepreneurs, etc.) that would benefit us all. The key ingredients, of course, are freedom and equity, which is more than can be said for either the Republicans' or Democrats' proposals. Of course, my proposal will go nearly unnoticed.

In the mean time, this comprehensive report on Saddam Hussein's Disinformation and Propoganda in the last thirteen years is quite interesting. There's far too much information for me to look through in one sitting, especially with the various projects that I have assigned for myself. Even the executive summary is an essay in itself worthy of a full-page in the New York Times. Of course, being an official document of the White House, the New York Times would never print it...

I have always wondered why athletes haven't sacrificed the big bucks in order to get several of the best of them on the same team (perhaps in a wonderful climate like San Francisco's) in order to win big. I mean, if the goal is to win, one would think that the best baseball players would gladly take a pay cut -- say, sign contracts with several others at $4 million apiece on the same team instead of making $12 million apiece for different teams. This idea is relatively easy to cope with though: for them, it's not about winning, and it's not about the game -- it's about the money.

Well, Keanu Reeves is now my hero. The sequel to my favorite movie of all time (The Matrix), which is to be released in two parts (Reloaded in May and Revolutions in November), was so hideously expensive that the studio was worried that the box office revenues might not support it. Enter Keanu:

A Warner Brothers insider says, "The special effects in the new movie are beyond belief -- but hugely expensive. There was a real danger the projects would be scrapped, [so] Keanu offered to sign away his cut. He has kissed goodbye to a huge sum of money."

That is, Keanu has given up $38 million to make sure that the split sequel is delivered to theatres on time, or even at all.

...

Wow. My hero. (Now if some other rich fogeys could follow his lead and leave their riches to causes that they believe matter more important than adding to their own wealth, we'd be in good shape!)

Here's a scenario for you: what if this "worse internet attack than experts thought possible" was orchestrated by terrorists? Obviously it is doing a much better job than anyone had anticipated, because even the experts are devastagingly surprised at how well it has crippled web sites around the world.

Okay, that isn't likely -- I'll give you that. But do you really think that al-Qaeda agents aren't aware of what's going on? Don't you think they know that our government, our economy, and indeed most of the governments and economies that they seek to terrorize or even destroy are reliant upon the Internet?

Suppose that they discover the perfect way to bring it all down. Suppose we are left incapable of distributing information, funds, etc. via telecommunications lines. Suppose that we are reduced to making transactions via the old-fashioned methods of telephone calls and postal services (whose service prices have soared since the onset of the information age).

Okay, so we still have the advantage. But with weaknesses so glaring that can potentially be ruthlessly exploited, don't you think that our attention will be heavily diverted as we struggle to solve the problem, work on emergency contingency plans, and deal with any other problems that arise as a result? Assume that this is a precursor to some larger attack that is intended to be a precursor of a physical or military attack. With our defenses and intelligence unable to rely on its relatively new methods to get their respective jobs done, don't you think that we would be at substantially greater risk?

My point is not that we should be paranoid, but that we should be aware that this is a serious problem that needs to be solved -- now. For years, conspiracy theorists have alleged that technology firms have subtly sabotaged their own products in order to encourage consumers to buy fixes, which essentially amounts to corporate entrapment. I'd like to think that the computer programmer's ego or pride would overrule such a motive, but money seems to trump all in America.

I think this is a load of crap. I'd hate to find out some months down the road that I raised a legitimate question about a serious problem. Either way, there is no question that it's a possibility worth considering.

Governor Sonny Perdue delivered the State of the State address tonight, the first by a Republican governor that any living Georgian has ever heard. Perdue touched upon economic recovery, education, redistricting, personal and ethical values, bipartisanship, the flag, and even protecting and preserving the environment. (See full text.)

Sonny kicked off the speech by emphasizing that the election of 2002 was a mandate that "Democrats and Republicans must now work together for the benefit of Georgia" (Libertarians? Greens? No?). Bipartisanship (or its lacking) certainly will play a significant role in determining Georgia's course. With a Democratic House working with a Republican Senate and Governor, the degree of bipartisanship will affect every part of Perdue's agenda, so it was probably a good idea to emphasize this first.

Jumping from bipartisanship to districting, Perdue told his audience that "challenges of redistricting should be addressed at home, by Georgians, in Georgia's legislature", and not by the federal Supreme Court. He has asked Attourney General Thurbert Baker to withdraw the state's districting appeal before the Supreme Court. (But will Baker comply?)

The flag was next, though his words tonight seemed to contradict some previous statements. Weeks ago, Perdue said that any referendum on Georgia's state flag would be non-binding, and the legislature would have the final say. I am certain that that would most likely still be the case, but tonight's words do not indicate such: "We owe it to the people to choose that symbol through and open and democratic process. I'm willing to trust the people of Georgia to make the best decision for Georgia, and I trust you are too. Let us decide ... and let us move forward."

Perdue then turned his focus to another touchy subject for Georgians, the economy and the state's $620 million budget shortfall. Perdue is challenging lawmakers to find ways to cut spending. He clarified that, in the future, continuing programs must be funded through the general budget; "We can never again be so irresponsible in leading the public to expect that ongoing programs will be funded based on surpluses", for, as we have seen, corners must be cut when the surpluses aren't there.

Perdue is also "undertaking a comprehensive review of our tax policies and our state regulations with an eye toward reforming them to encourage, not frustrate, entrepreneurship in our state." Perdue aims not only to create more and better opportunities for the people of Georgia, but also to encourage development on a personal level: "Knowledge is the new economic fuel, not physical labor. It is the essential ingredient for success in the information age."

The Governor stressed that fixing Georgia's education system is a must. Among other things, he wants to re-centralize the system around the state Board of Education. He also stressed improving the quality of education for Georgia's public schools, which rank among the lowest states in graduation rates and test scores.

(He unfortunately mentioned the bad statistic, that Georgia ranks 50th in SAT scores -- Georgia reports 67% of SAT scores to get that average, and nearly every high school graduate takes the SAT in Georgia. In some other states, especially where the ACT is more popular, only the brightest students take the SAT, and then only a small fraction of their scores are reported.)

A big issue since he released his budget proposal last week, Sonny emphasized that while teachers deserve a pay raise, there is no room for an across-the-board cost-of-living increase this year. As the economy improves, he says, so will the pay.

As is the case with all such addresses, Georgia's 2003 State of the State is full of hope, encouragement, and generalizations. There is not much to be disliked except by the strongest partisans, though Democrats aren't exactly cheering for much of anything in Georgia right now. (See reactions in the AJC and Andy Peters's highlights in the Macon Telegraph.)

It seems like everyone's favorite part of tonight's speech is that Perdue and lawmakers have found a way to avoid raising property taxes, which Perdue had suggested could be necessary in his budget proposal last week. Teachers are frustrated, but they also understand that the rest of the state is strapped as well, and they seem willing to give the new Governor a chance.

That's all he's asking for.

The greatness of Georgia is, and always will be, in our people. In our optimism, our patriotism, our enterprise, our compassion for one another. Sustained by those qualities, the Georgia family can overcome any challenge we face. Georgia is strongest where it counts the most -- in the collective character and spirit of our people.

Amen, Sonny.

Comment on Perdue's address.

You've heard of the UN's Security Council, but have you heard of the UN's Conference on Disarmament? A brief introduction: The Conference on Disarmament was established in 1979 as "the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community" at the UN's first Special Session on Disarmament (held in 1978).

The chair of this Conference on Disarmament rotates among its 75 member nations (in alphabetical order) on a schedule. The chair of the conference holds the position for half of each session. There are three sessions scheduled for this year: (1) January 21 through March 20, May 12 through June 27, and July 20 through September 10. The rotating schedule for the chairmanship, in 2003, is up to the letter I.

I'll quit beating around the Bush (was that a pun?): Iraq will chair the UN's Conference on Disarmament for the second half of the spring session (following Iran).

The role of conference presidency is a matter of "organizing the work and setting the agenda"... According to the conference's rules of procedure, the president, in addition to the "normal functions of a presiding officer", shall "in full consultation with the conference and under its authority, represent it in its relations with states, with the General Assembly and other organs of the United Nations and with other international organizations."

Also according to the rules, the president at the end of a session carries out the duties of president until the beginning of the next session, which means that Iraq will essentially chair the disarmament conference for about seven or eight weeks until July 20.

Read about Animatrix, the nine animated short films in, of, and about the world of The Matrix. Coming to DVD and VHS on June 3!

A letter to the editor in today's Macon Telegraph:

A person wrote the other day about people being harassed by telemarketers. He said there is a number to call and you pay $5 every three years in Georgia to be removed from the numbers that telemarketers can call. That number is 1-800-282-5813. That is the Georgia no-call list. I have it, and it really works.

Elaine Birdsong

Also in today's letters is a, erm, interesting letter by a good friend of mine, Stephen Beaty. He calls himself a "Yellow Dog Democrat", one "proud to be a card-carrying member of the party of the true working men and women that make this country what it is today and what it will always be". I would agree with him, because I consider myself to be in that same group of working persons, but there's no way in hell that I'm voting for any Democrats these days.

It seems like Congressman are jumping on the editorial bandwagon all over the place. Last week, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) wrote a disgustingly biased piece where she attempted (unfortunately successfully) to pass off false information as fact, and then her own opinion as fact. At about the same time, Zell Miller (D-GA) had an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal in which he made sure he explained his point of view merely as his point of view. Today, Richard Lugar (R-IN) writes, following in the footsteps of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice in an article in which he explains exactly how critical the Bush administration's mission is and part of how it must be accomplished.

Getting off the backs of our elected officials, one of my all-time favorite columnists, Peggy Noonan, is using the editorial page to tell President Bush how to make the case against Saddam. Of course, nearly every editorial page in the country has been used both for and against that, so I'm sure the Bushies have a pretty good idea what they're doing by now... but one more opinion can't hurt.

And, of course and as always, U2 lead singer Bono is reminding the President once again that, after all this time, Africa still needs us. I won't deny his point, but I hardly like to take political advise from a man who refuses to attach his own name to it. Besides, it's not like we have a magic wand that can just solve all the problems in Africa. There is only so much that we can do before we are branded as imperialists interested only in [insert covetable African goods here].

If you missed the Matrix trailer during the Superbowl last night, or if you want to see it again and again, then it can be downloaded from the official Matrix web site's trailers page. The Matrix web site is a bit graphics-intensive, but then again, you won't be following this link unless you want to watch a pretty big video file anyway. It's in Quicktime format, by the way.

Just so you know, the Matrix sequel (one movie split into two releases) is shaping up to be the damn-coolest movie of all time. Last night's trailer barely shows a glimpse of what we'll see come May (and November), and already I think it's safe to rank this split sequel as my favorite movie of all time. The original being the only movie that nothing else can come close to, I'm quite certain that the sequels, with four years of technology and idea development, is going to surpass all hopes and expectations and a second time.

God bless the Wachowski brothers!

Why Zell Miller is the man.

With Zell Miller calling it quits after serving only part of one term as U.S. Senator from Georgia, the state is buzzing with rumors and denials about who may or may not be running to take his place in the Election of 2004. On the Republican side, only U.S. Representative Johnny Isakson has specifically thrown his hat into the ring, giving him the advantage at the onset. Bob Barr, who lost the Republican primary when he chose to run against John Linder when he could have easily won one of Georgia's new districts last fall, has also expressed interest.

On the other side of the political aisle is where the lot looks interesting (just like the presidential race!). Several Democrats have declared that they will certainly not be running, including former Governor Roy Barnes, former Senator Max Cleland, Lieutenent Governor Mark Taylor, Secretary of State Cathy Cox, and U.S. Representative John Lewis. Only two Democrats have expressed particular interest in running so far: former Atlanta mayor Maynard Jackson and former Secretary of State (among other things?) Lewis Massey. I don't believe either represents the state of Georgia very well, and I would be surprised and disappointed if either were actually elected to the Senate.

Most interesting to me is that former president Jimmy Carter is rumored to be interested in running for Senate. Those closest to him seem to think it unlikely, but others near him believe that he represents the Democrats' best chance of keeping (or reclaiming, depending on your opinion of Zell Miller) that Senate seat. Carter especially disliked the campaign against Max Cleland last fall, and I would not be surprised to at least hear his name under heavy consideration for a run in the next few months.

Sources of information:

Washingtin Post: Follow the Resolution

Telegraph (UK): UN Inspectors Uncover Proof of Saddam's Nukes

I'll begin by expressing the opinion of the Washington Post editorial board. Their opinion more-or-less lines up with the opinion of the US State Department, and with mine, and with most other Americans who believe that contracts (such as UN Resolution 1441) should be binding. I think their words are clear enough:

...but that is exactly what Hans Blix is considering for Iraq. Blix, according to the Washingtin Post, is most likely not going to mention any material breach, and instead will offer "an awfully generous description of the facts". But why? To avoid war? As I've explained in recent days, the potential consequences aren't worth that risk to me.

They go on to discuss France and Germany's opposition to war, but what they don't tell you is how France and Germany are likely opposed to war because their dirty hands are all over Iraq's weapons programs. This is not to suggest that they are allied with Iraq, but both Germany and France have helped Iraq to acquire the means necessary to develop various weapons of mass destruction.

And then there is the story that no one in the mainstream media is reporting (because they're leftist bigots who only want to present the facts that help their opinion to remain popular): we pointed the inspection team to the homes of two Iraqi nuclear physicists who had in their homes hundreds of pages of documentation regarding the development of an arsenal of nuclear weapons in Iraq.

In the story linked to above, even the British press (which is mostly skeptical of war) declared that this is proof that Iraq is in material breach of UN Resolution 1441, a breach that should lead to military action:

The revelation that Saddam is working on nuclear weapons in defiance of the United Nations is further evidence that Iraq is failing to comply with the terms of UN Resolution 1441, which requires Baghdad to make a complete disclosure of its weapons of mass destruction programme. A false or incomplete disclosure or a failure fully to co-operate with the inspectors would constitute a material breach of the resolution and result in military action against Baghdad.

I can understand opposition to war. I would never actually promote any war. But I will promote thwarting plots that endanger international security and peace before they become imminent threats. Likewise, I can understand the demands for proof of Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction, even though the UN unanimously put the burden of proof on Iraq to prove that they weren't there -- implying that they know that the weapons are there, but not where they are. But what I can't understand is this: How much more proof do you need?!

Any of you that actually cares for me will remember my story of the Barnes & Noble girl. Well, whereas she's still cool as hell and fun to talk to, she has a boyfriend and yesterday was their six-month anniversary. I absolutely refuse to get involved with someone when they're in a budding relationship even when we've known each other for years and know we want to be together (but can't at this moment in time for logistical reasons), so, um, there's no way in heaven, hell, or anywhere else in the unknown universe that I'm pursuing anything here. But she still rocks.

Read this article, which I have copied in its entirety below, and tell me why I should care.

The Pentagon is "preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons in the potential war against Iraq...in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical or biological weapons, or to pre-empt one", concludes LA Times writer Paul Richter from information given by defense analyst William Arkin.

If we are to pre-empt anything, it should never be with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons should always be a last resort, and I believe that our government feels the same way. There is nothing more dangerous to international security than the threat of using nuclear weapons, and everyone in and around the White House knows this. (On that note, I would not be surprised at all to learn that Richter and/or Arkin exaggerated the truth a bit in order to make a nuclear strike seem more likely than it really is, hoping that this would hurt the president's likability.)

Two posts ago, I discussed the "Shock and Awe" attack plan that is aimed to overwhelm Iraqi defenses and end the fighting before it starts. After a day's thought, one particular scenario has been running through my mind:

Assume that the US-led forces go in and literally knock 'em dead, flawlessly destroying each and every target and completely obliterating what little defense is offered against us, ending the ground war before it starts in only a few hours. Yay, go us! But consider this: we only hit the targets we knew to hit, and imagine that we missed just one missile silo and that it happens to be the one holding the nukes or other weapons of mass destruction, and assume that one or more warheads hits [enter random enemy of Iraq, such as Israel] before we get to it.

Liberals will say, "See, it's not worth the risk! You admit it!" I say that this is exactly why we must go in there now, before Iraq develops enough firepower (or courage) to wipe out an entire nation or more. If the weapons are there and they are hiding them, then they probably want to use them, but they also probably won't use them until they think they have enough to properly defend themselves, which would mean big problems (or that final solution to all problems) for their enemies

Meanwhile, Saddam's son Uday warns that an invasion of Iraq will result in such a disaster for America that September 11 would look like a "real picnic". What? Should we be scared now? The crazy Iraqi boy is threatening me! It's like the fly telling the swatter not to swat or else.

CBS News reports: Iraq Faces Massive US Barrage.

Drudge's caption to the story:

The Pentagon's battle plan calls for the firing of 600-800 cruise missiles at Iraqi targets on the first two days of the war, CBS NEWS reports. The two-day barrage is more than were launched during the 40-day Gulf War in 1991...

My first reaction to Drudge's caption, giggling and smiling: "OH MY GOD!" Time for an excerpt.

I already had the utmost confidence in the American military to get the job done easily, but this just makes me feel good. This doesn't seem all that costly or difficult, so I wonder if my professors at school will stop trying to argue their anti-war point of view with that as a reason.

I am putting together a long, involved editorialistic article, through which I will unveil my economic plan for America. My plan will carry no impact whatsoever in Washington or elsewhere, but will essentially represent what I believe to be economically best for us all. It will not be all-encompassing; that would be impossible. I will not try to assert to you that I know everything about how the economy works and that my idea to cure its ills is the only correct one. However, I will assert to you that it is a good plan, and better than anything else I've been exposed to (or else why would I bother?).

I have looked at the data and various editorial opinions for quite a few weeks, and I have studied the various economic theories and political philosophies regarding the subject for quite some time. So I think, when I have reached satisfaction with my theories in written form, I will submit it in this space for your review. I'll also submit it to the Wall Street Journal, just in case they want to publish an editorial by some ordinary Paul from Macon, Georgia...

This is your warning. I hope to have it completed by the end of the weekend. No promises.

I rarely mention anything in this space regarding my participation in other online forums to which I am not a "responsible" member -- that is, I'll mention my posts to the Political State Report because I am officially a contributor, but I will not typically mention my comments attached to Slashdot articles or in other forums because, well, I'm only a user of the system.

Well, today is different. I posted a comment on this Slashdot poll that asked the question, "Fair?", sort of asking for your opinion on fairness, given the choices. I rarely comment on Slashdot polls, but for this one I had an anecdote worth sharing. I told the story of when I began to think about why everything in life actually is fair, regardless of my short-sighted point of view during any moment that upsets me. I'm confident that my ideas about fairness were already well established, but three good friends of mine from high school -- only one of which I even hear from occasionally now -- contributed to the development of my political phase by getting me started on the root of all political problems: what is fair?

Here's the story:

Ashley and Megan, two cute girls with whom I liked to associate, had an understanding relationship with Dr. Anderson:

Girls: "A test Monday? But I have two papers to write this weekend! That's not fair!"

Anderson: "Well nobody ever said life was always fair."

That's when Brandon spoke up, on April 10, 1998:

Brandon: "Life was always fair."

Anderson: "What?"

Brandon: "There, I said it. Life was always fair."

From that point on, life was always fair in Anderson's biology class, and for many months I questioned all those supposedly unfair moments in life and came to the conclusion that, despite my initially limited point of view in any given situation, I could always expand my horizons to realize that life is always fair.

Thanks Brandon, and thanks Ashley and Megan!

The greatest thing about this is that Slashdot's viewers are enjoying the story. Comments are submitted by default with a rating of 1. The rating can be reduced to a minimum of -2, which means permanent invisibility -- it is no longer possible to view that comment (only the worst of comments have ever achieved such a rating). Comments can be rated to a maximum of 5, which is happens fairly rarely (about 6% of all comments). The point: this little story is currently rated a 4. It simply amazes me that an ordinary memory can be so entertaining.

Another comment that I posted to Slashdot yesterday deserves special attention. The story itself, about the Evolution of the Tax Debate, is very interesting, and the hundreds of comments under it are fun to read. Anyway, my comment explains what I believe to be the most important two notions regarding the economics of taxation: incentive (let the people keep the money they earn) and fairness (progressive tax rates violate the principle of "equal treatment under the law" as demanded by our Constitution). (The comment is rated a 3, currently, as if you care. Click the link to it if you care to see what I actually wrote about incentive and fair taxation.)

Hillary Clinton may as well kick off her election campaign now -- she's already challenging Bush on key issues such as affirmative action, so why not step up the rhetoric and giver her Senate seat from New York a semi-permanent association with the national interest? Of course, New York did that for her when they elected her; she's not from New York, nor does she really understand the perspectives of the various peoples in New York. She is merely there because New York wanted her, more than any other Democrat, to represent their ideology to the nation ... and to help them out supposedly more than a Republican would have.

Oh, right, the article... Hillary attacks George's attack on affirmative action, naturally ejaculating loaded and incomplete statistics to falsely represent her irrational point of contention (naturally, that is, as though there were no other possible method that Hillary Clinton is capable of pursuing). Of course, she "applaud[s] the president's commitment to the ultimate goal" ("that we should look to 'race-neutral'% plans"). Then she alleges that racial segregation of our nation's schools is increasing. Naturally (as if she could actually prove her point), her examples are inconsistent and not explained (except her New York example, which is quite local, not national).

Then Hillary justifies affirmative action because "The motivation, design and effect of% plans are very similar to those of affirmative action." Thus, she asks, why isn't Bush's proposal also unconstitutional!

First of all, AH-HA, Hillary! You just declared affirmative action to be unconstitutional. (It's in the article. Go read it.) Second, because Bush's plan specifically takes other factors into account that are not expressly forbidden by the constitution! The point is that the same effect of diversification may be achieved fairly, so why continue with such an unfairly preferential program? A Senator from New York who has spent a lifetime in politics should have known better, Hillary.

Hillary could have used this speech to shellshock George Bush. Instead, she inadvertently gave him the argument the Supreme Court needs to overturn the Bakke case -- which, by the way, I predict to happen by a 6-3 vote.

As for Condoleezza Rice, she had an article printed in a more reputable publication today, the New York Times. For those of you who would prefer to have your daily dose of "warmongering" provided to you by a black woman, who happens to be the most powerful woman in the world for the time, then I'd suggest reading Condoleezza's explanation for Why We Know Iraq Is Lying. I have shamelessly provided the meet of the article for you here:

Refer to the New York Times article, linked to above, for the other half of the article that I left out (which mostly included examples of other nations' compliances in the past).

I know that several sources have indicated that it won't happen, but wouldn't it be great if Condoleezza Rice were in position to run for the Republican nomination for President in 2008? Just think of the social effect it would have on America. Democrats, the party of the people, has undeniably held a virtual monopoly on the female and black voting blocs for decades, and a female, black Republican would suddenly discard all of that, not to mention kill the Democrats' hopes of electing Hillary to the presidency simply because it's a "woman's time".

I know that many believe that America is not ready for a woman president, and many likewise believe that America is not ready for a black president, but I believe that America is ready for both. I only hope that it's neither Hillary Clinton nor Al Sharpton.

UPDATE 2003.01.23 @ 18:24 -- The WSJ article online.

The editorial page of today's Wall Street Journal features an article titled "Lucky Duckies Again", which explains (in similar, but different ways than I have) how President Bush's tax plan is not "regressive" -- it does not soak the rich in wealth -- but is in fact "progressive" in that it aims to deliver a higher-percentage cut to the poor than to the rich. I would link to the article online, but that would require a rather expensive subscription to the Wall Street Journal Online, and I would rather just read the articles for free at the local library (where I work).

The numbers from this table are taken straight from the WSJ article:

Now, I don't mean to be rude, but the poor don't deserve a better tax break than the rich -- the richest third of the country already pays over one-third of their income in income taxes, whereas the poorest third of the country pays no income taxes at all. Think of it this way: the richest third makes about 75% of the income and pays about 90% of the income taxes, while the poorest third makes under 10% of the income and pays 0% of the taxes, none at all.

Those with the most to complain about are still those that make almost $75,000. This is because the tax cut is set at a fixed amount (about $1,133) until $75,000 income is earned, at which point the tax cut is gradually (but not quite proportionally) increased as income increases.

My conclusion is simple. The more money you make in America, the more you will be overtaxed, but you will still have more money. The less money you make in America, the better you can escape taxation, but you will still have less money.

p.s.-- To understand how the percentages are figured, the table below indicates the taxable income given a specified adjusted gross income. Notice also that the percentage reduction of tax liability paints a much nastier picture for the wealthy in America.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see why chewing gum should hurt John Edwards's run for the presidency. I'm glad Drudge left that "top TV producer" nameless, because that producer is an idiot and doesn't need the negative press for making such a stupid comment.

I am going to be at school from about 9:00-7:30 tomorrow, like every Tuesday. The difference between tomorrow and most other Tuesdays, though, is that it is 5:00am Tuesday morning and I have yet to get any sleep, so tomorrow is going to be a long, tired day! In other words, you probably won't hear from me again until Wednesday afternoon. I hope I have enough money for lunch...

I hope everyone's weekend was as good as mine. Since that isn't very likely, then I just hope you had a great time!

According to this story, our forces nearly had Osama bin Laden within their grasp. To escape, Osama used a simple, yet efficient ruse to throw off his would-be captors: he gave his phone to someone else and told them to use it and run away. Following the only signal we had, we caught up with the phone, probably not very far from where Osama was. But it was enough of a difference to allow him to escape. Neat, huh?

Matrix!

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Georgia's appeal for a Democratic-sponsored state Senate district map, but some think that Governor Sonny Perdue might try to stifle it. Perdue has said repeatedly that he does not approve of the Democrats' redistricting plans, and wants to start over from scratch. Meanwhile, smokers in Georgia don't seem upset or surprised about Perdue's proposal to significantly increase taxes on cigarettes.

The redistricting case stems from problems with 2001's redistricting plans after Census 2000. The Democratic legislature in 2001 produced new district maps that were expected to benefit Democrats -- political gerrymandering is perfectly legal -- but three State Senate districts, and therefore the entire map, were ruled unconstitutional because black voting strength would have been diluted (for instance, Brown's district in Macon would have dropped from 67% to 55% black).

The appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would be handled by Georgia's Attorney General, a Democrat, if Sonny Perdue allows the case to go any further, which is is considerable doubt. State Senator Robert Brown (D-Macon) believes that the court would rule favorably for Democrats.

Meanwhile, Governor Perdue claimed that nearly quintupling the excise tax on cigarettes would encourage smokers to quit. A few interviewees in an Atlanta pool hall certainly do not represent the whole of Georgia, but theirs is an interesting perspective to recognize:

Arthur Gholston, 33, says, "It's going to be like $10 a pack in the near future, and I can see myself paying it." Robert Hunter, 41, says, "I don't have a real problem with a ban, but they can't ban it everywhere." Ryan Gleason, 25, says, "I'll pay it. I'm addicted. I know people who will buy cigarettes before they'll put $5 worth of gas in their car."

To combat their logic, it is suggested that the tax hike is aimed more to discourage children and teens from smoking than adults. "It's a win-win for the government" -- they get to save young lives and make money off those already addicted.

Still, State Senator George Hooks (D-Americus) says he'll fight the tax increase; "Tobacco is of course an easy target, but you could slap a big tax on pork and probably decrease heart attacks."

It is still important to realize that nothing that Sonny Perdue suggests is the law. Certainly, he and his party will have a much more powerful influence than before, controlling both the governor's mansion and the state Senate, but the Democrats in the House are still responsible for originating many of the bills, especially regarding the budget, which means they must also meet their final approval at some point.

If you're going to Cancun, Mexico, this May, may I recommend this flight?

A Texas travel agency that specializes in clothing-optional vacations has chartered a 172-seat plane for a flight from Miami to Cancun, Mexico, in May. Once the plane reaches its cruising altitude, passengers will be invited to take their clothes off. Castaways Travel is touting the trip as the world's first flight for nude passengers. The vacationers will be staying at a nudist resort for a week. An FAA spokeswoman says there aren't any rules that specifically ban nudity on an aircraft. She says it's not a safety issue. But some safety issues will be addressed -- no hot drinks or hot food will be served. And passengers will be asked to sit on a towel.

Two thoughts: (1) 172 naked models would be a dream flight. 172 naked senior citizens would be a tragedy. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! (2) This proves Douglas Adams's long-loved theory that the towel really is the most important device in the entire universe. Never leave home without it!

Okay, okay... you twisted my arm. I'll step into the affirmative action debate. Let's see, where to begin? I'll start by naming the players that I find to be most interesting: President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. As you should know, Powell and Rice are the only two black members of President Bush's cabinet.

Bush, as you should already know, last week challenged the University of Michigan's admissions policy, citing that it violated the constitutional requirements of equal treatment under the law and used race as a means of preference. His logic is that race should not directly be a persuasion for admission, and that there are many ways in which diversity can be achieved without such an unconstitutional policy (other schools have proven this).

Powell, in a "rare public acknowledgement dissent with the President", said he supports methods the University of Michigan uses to "bolster minority enrollments in its undergraduate and law school programs":

"Whereas I have expressed my support for the policies used by the University of Michigan, the president, in looking at it, came to the conclusion that it was constitutionally flawed based on the legal advice he received," Powell said on the CBS program "Face the Nation."

Rice, on the other hand, supports the President's position, citing that "there are 'problems' with the university's selection policies, [such as] the points system. But she also said race can be a factor in colleges' selection process". Bush's brief to the court was silent on that issue; there was no comment on whether racial considerations should be made under special circumstances.

The University of Michigan's admissions policy is a points system:

Any bold or italicized emphasis in the quoted passage above is mine. This would be easier if they actually showed us exactly how the selection index was set up, but I have a feeling they keep that hidden for a reason: criticism is bad!

Based on what I have read, I don't like the policy. It reats preferentialism as acceptable, and therefore I must take the President's side. However, the interpretation of the third paragraph that I quoted above is the hinge on which the court's decision will swing -- that, and that silly final option allowing for those twenty points above: "at the Provost's discretion". First, the Provost ultimately may award those twenty points to anyone he chooses for any reason he chooses, so suddenly there is an argument suggesting that race may have actually had nothing to do with it. Second, the second half of the selection above clearly indicates that the selection index score is not the only consideration for admissions.

But -- there is always a but -- when a counselor acts at his discretion to favor an applicant for any of those other reasons, the applicant still must meet criteria from a very similar list which still includes race, ethnicity, and athletics. (The reason why athletics is emphasized: most college athletes who receive scholarships are black -- think basketball and football, which are the two sports that generate the most revenue.)

I can not sit here and tell you that the Supreme Court has no choice but to strike down the University of Michigan's admissions policy as unconstitutional, but I can tell you that I would like very much for all mention of "race" and "ethnicity" or anything similar to be removed from the policy. Socioeconomic disadvantage and athletic ability often account for that anyway and are not racially charged, so let them be the qualifications for diversity. Besides, the "at the Provost's discretion" line gives anyone a free pass... at the Provost's discretion. All that is necessary to make this policy constitutional is to remove the direct implication of racial preferences.

Bill Schneider, CNN political analyst, had the nerve to bring up the fact that Americans who believe they are overtaxed have dropped, as a percentage, from 48% forty years ago, "a majority" for decades after that (numbers not specified because it didn't go up much), down to 47% now. He also mentions that nearly two-thirds of Americans said their income taxes are too high to emphasize the percentage drop, despite that those are completely different statistics.

And now? Look what's happened. Down, way down. Now, only 47% of Americans say their taxes are too high. That's the lowest figure in more than 40 years.

But this is what he means:

And now? Look what's happened. Up, way up, and it needs to rise. Now, only 47% of Americans are excluded from paying taxes, and that's not high enough.

Yes, looking at the statistics, the percentage of citizens paying no federal income taxes at all has risen from some tiny number to about 45% (and rising) in 2000, so 47% works for now. This means that, unless they're stupid, a scientifically conducted poll should produce an automatic 47% that do not believe they are overtaxed because they don't pay taxes.

I will grant Schneider one point. It is because of September 11. Democrats suddenly push the idea that Republicans are warmongers, and the "greedy, wealthy Republicans" want this war to be fought. Since Democrats (who control the media, mostly) are also widely publicizing budget spending on the military, many Americans suddenly realize that their tax dollars are going to protect them. I mean, if our money really is going straight to the military in the god-awfully high percentages that Democrats suggest (it's not), then we're doing ourselves a favor!

Well, I may be embellishing. But I don't disagree with his point. His reasoning, on the other hand... is lacking.

For instance:

Just over half of Republicans continue to say their taxes are too high. Most Democrats now say they're not. That helps explain why the response to President Bush's first tax cut in 2001 was far more enthusiastic than the response he's getting now. And why the Democrats who supported him then are not there now.

This only supports the argument that Democrats pander to those who pay little or no taxes and try to make it easier for more people to earn tax breaks at the expense of Republicans taxpayers. Meanwhile, Republicans do pay taxes -- for themselves and their Democrat fellows. Granted, there are some rich Democrats too (including nine of the twelve richest Senators), but I'd be willing to bet money that many Republicans are Republicans for fiscal reasons. Fact: Most educated Americans believe that Democrats do not have our best financial interests in mind. (That's a loaded statement.)

I left Valdosta at about 5:30 this afternoon, a day earlier than I had planned, but for good reason -- to stay the extra night would have impeded on others and would have forced me to struggle to get any of my homework done, and it really needs to get done! But that's off limits! We're not going to talk about homework or responsibility. We're going to talk about what I did this weekend in Valdosta!

First, I should probably remind you that Dalila is an ex-girlfriend. We were very close from late 1998 to mid-1999, and we were actually on the verge of getting together in May 1999 when her stepdad grounded her for most of the summer. Well, without seeing her for over a month, we didn't actually get around to dating until September. (September 11 would be our anniversary, if we had made it that long. Having just watched Signs, I figure maybe it's a good thing that that isn't our anniversary.) Anyway, out of all the girls I've dated or been close too, she's the one that has always understood me best -- and she's the only one that I let get away for no good reason; I couldn't justify it then and I can't justify it now (Keep this in mind). But life is all about those little things that happen to us along the way, so let's continue.

So Friday night, Dalila and Rachel (her "big" in sorority-speak) went out with one essential purpose (apparently): to get me trashed. To get me started, Rachel challenged me, saying that I couldn't outdrink Dalila. I asked what my motivation was, and after a few moments of sarcastic threats, she said "me" ... "Wait, explain that" ... "You get a kiss from me if you outdrink Dalila" ... "I'll drink to that!"

I raised my cup and slugged in down faster than Dalila could get half of it down. In all fairness, it didn't taste very good, and I was actually motivated... and Dalila probably wanted to see if Rachel would come through on her "bet" just as much as I did. Well, there was a catch: "not in public!", I was told repeatedly. Well, I never collected on that bet, nor did I really pursue it. She has a boyfriend, and it didn't seem fair to push it. Besides, it was all in good fun and I didn't want to put a guilty conscience on anyone for something as silly as that. (Keep this in mind.)

So after drinking two pitchers of something-and-vodka way too fast (we were there for about thirty minutes), I was pretty much trashed, except that it all hit at once about thirty minutes later. We ended up getting home about an hour later, and I was feeling like I could get around and move again, except that I had spent three hours in my car that afternoon and I was pretty tired, so we went to bed. -- Oh, did I mention that I was staying in Dalila's dorm room with her and her roommate? They have two single beds and Lindsey slepped on the other one, so that left Dalila and me to share hers. Interesting...

Friday night, just before discussing my motivation, I asked Rachel what was wrong with our picture: "So, you're 22, and you're the designated driver? What's wrong with this?" And for the next five minutes, she realized that she's barely been able to have a good drinking night with her friends because she's such a good friend that she's usually the driver. So I made an offer: I'll drive tomorrow night and you can drink. Her face lit up as though she wanted to kiss me but couldn't, which is probably what led to that being my "motivation" moments later.

So anyway, we went out Saturday and I stuck with Coke and the occasional taste of something-or-another that Dalila and everyone else was having. We sat listening to the band and drinking probably for about three hours before heading home. The band was actually two guys on two acoustic guitars, and they were covering bands like Pearl Jam, U2, Dave Matthews, Pink Floyd, the Eagles, and much more. They did a very good job, especially for only being two guys. But anyway, we left around 1:00 and were probably asleep in the dorm by about 1:30.

That brings us to today, the good-bye day. Since this weekend was my first-ever visit to Valdosta and the first time I had spent with Dalila since we broke up, there is much uncertainty about when I'll visit again. Naturally, things are awkward between us. We're comfortable with each other, but she has been seeing someone lately who naturally doesn't like the idea of some other boy staying with her, and (though it was my goal not to make it an issue) I didn't exactly like the idea that I was visiting and had to hold back.

So anyway, 5:30 was rolling around, and I wanted to drive home in as much daylight as possible, and so I pretty much gathered my things and left. In the parking lot, I finally let out some of those awkward thoughts just so she'd know they were there. I essentially let her know that it took significant effort to resist trying to kiss her at some point this weekend. Basically, we still match in the same way that we always did, except now we're older, smarter, and we know more about what we want from life. Still, the timing is all screwed up, and there's no way I'm going to mess anything up for her or her potential boyfriend over feelings of my own that can not be pursued from 160 miles away.

Either way, my point is this: I've been through some emotional turbulence in the last four months, and my mind has finally come to settle in the last three weeks -- since school started, actually. I've decided that a relationship, unless I know that both she and I can put in everything that needs to be put in (mostly time and emotion), is off-limits for me. I don't rule any opportunities out, but I am quite sure that I will not be able to trust myself in any relationship for quite some time, so I'd rather not put myself at that risk. Fun is all I'm after; the "real" fun can wait.

So anyway, I left, and I arrived 160 miles later at 7:30 -- don't do the math. Also, ignore the stop for gas. It was a great weekend, and now I'm home to relax for the Monday holiday. I hope everyone's weekend has been as good as mine!

p.s.-- Is this personal enough, Anna? :-)

I have a lot to talk about, including my own economic stimulus plan (which basically involves presidential and other official encouragements -- not requirements -- that would support the "general welfare" while also allowing the money to get into the pockets it needs to be for the economy to revive), but that will have to wait. The plan isn't very well developed yet anyway. I'll have time to think about it this weekend in Valdosta, but I have a feeling that my time will be spent on other things. I suppose I might let you know what happens in Valdosta when I return some time Monday.

Remember what the holiday is for. Let us forgive the transgressions and misjudgments of the past and focus on a fair future for all. Martin Luther King Jr's dream was that we would "one day live in a nation where [Americans] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Let's honor that dream this Monday. Let's remember that we are all human, and that the color of our skin should never be a reason.

Have an excellent weekend!

Unless an active nuclear warhead falls into the lap of Hans Blix, the UN will throw every possible angle at the Iraqi disarmament situation in order to prevent an aggressive US invasion of Iraq. It has been made blatantly clear in recent weeks that the "unanimous" UN Security Counsel resolution that passed several weeks ago was passed because no one thought that Hans Blix would find anything (or that he would speak up if he did?). Now that he has, everything is being done to assure us that it is not cause for war, even if it is according to the terms of the resolution.

Is military action against Iraq justified? Certainly. The UN resolution ordered Saddam Hussein to disarm and to end any programs for development of weapons of mass destruction. He has not done so, or he has given us credible reason to believe that he has not done so, so at the very least it is the UN's responsibility to force themselves in to make sure that he has.

Is war against Iraq justified? Well, maybe yes and maybe no. If, when the UN or whoever is authorized goes into Iraq to force an unbridled disarmament mission, there is any significant resistance from Iraqi forces, swift and tough military action to put down such resistance would be in order.

It is important to understand one thing: if, no matter what weapons we do find, Saddam Hussein is entirely compliant all the way with our instructions to destroy them, hand them over, etc., then there is no just cause to take him or his regime out. Even the administration knows there are other weapons that he is hiding, the people don't know and so they are unaware of the reason. If we tell the people, then suddenly Iraq complies and there's still no reason to take him out, and he is left alone again to build up his armies again. (This is similar to what Hitler did in Germany in the 1930s, also in the "best interests" of his people.)

In other words, while I never advocate war, Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq probably needs to end. I can not think of a good solution to this conflict that keeps Saddam Hussein in power. Let him retire to a life of luxury wherever he pleases -- Manhattan Island for all I care -- but get that man out of power.

Someone has thought of a better use for the Confederate flag.

Anna tells me that this site is dominated too much by politics and does not reveal enough about my daily business. (If this was just a ploy to get attention on my web site... Good job!) Maybe she's right, but it happens that not a lot has been going on lately. I've been going to work and going to class, and politics consumes much of my leisure time, so it only makes sense to discuss it here. When significant things happen, I mention them here, as I'm about to do now. Congratulations, Anna! Not only have you motivated me to tell a story about me, but it's all about you, too!

So I've known Anna for about two years now. We "met" in our psychology class at Macon State, though we had exchanged a word or two in previous months. That psychology class for numerous reasons resulted in many seemingly inseparable connections, and so far my connection with Anna has been the most rewarding. During that semester, Anna and I also shared an English class. We sat next to each other, copied off each other, and exchanged the occasional email. You know, typical stuff for people our age.

Then, after the end of that semester, Claire and I had our first little "problem" -- and our only real one until she ch-, er, until things didn't work out in the end. Anyway, I had no female friends to turn to at the time, and Anna was the closest one to me besides Claire, and Claire wanted space that weekend, so I basically appealed to Anna in this way: "I've decided that you're going to be my new best friends. Congratulations!" And so we discussed things for about two days, and in the end she helped me to understand Claire a bit better and essentially rescued our relationship. (In retrospect, that relationship should have died in early May 2001, but it didn't, and I'm glad I got to know Anna better anyway.)

So we shared one last class, Humanities, in Fall 2001, before resorting to only seeing each other in the halls and for the occasional lunch. Eventually, I found out where she worked, and I started stopping to see her there ... you know, every six weeks when I actually find myself in the mall. We barely spoke for a while there, and then it became convenient to hang out before classes last semester, so we did.

Anyway, we went out tonight and had a good time. I think it's the most fun I've had with a girl that I have no intentions of touching in any way. (For the record, she's rather devoted to her boyfriend of [x] years, which actually makes things easy for me, if not a bit awkward given my situation with girls in general.) Anyway, we ate, saw Gangs of New York, and then I returned her to her car and we went home. ~The End~

Okay, that's not quite the end. She doesn't know what to think about my ability to remember small bits of information, or at least personal information (for instance, she's mentioned her address and birthday maybe twice, and for some reason or another they stick -- and now I know her zip code!), and though she doesn't like to hear it (WHY?), she really is a beautiful person and I enjoy her company, rare as it is.

If she reads this, she'll probably either email me immediately or I won't hear from her for a month. But there, something about me and my other other best friend.

If I'm reading correctly, I just said there's good news for Major League Baseball. How can this be?! Well, it's not great news, just good news. It seems that the All-Star Game is finally getting some meaning back. At the same time, it looks like a repeat of the 2002 tie-ball game fiasco should be unrepeatable. What happened? Owners voted unanimously to give the World Series home-field advantage to the league that wins the All-Star Game. (Apparently, this was Selig's idea, despite that ESPN and other analysts have lobbied for it for years.) The players still must approve it, so don't get too excited yet.

p.s.-- Anna: see, not all politics.

I would like you to take a good, hard look a this list of the twelve wealthiest Senators. Notice that the party criticizing the rich is by far more rich than the party accused of pandering to the rich. So, wait, who's interested in power and who's interested in what's right? I promise that the Republicans' motivation in a tax cut is not to help out the likes of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and John Edwards! (Data from a Roll Call article from January 2002)

If Republicans were really trying to line their own pockets, don't you think they would be the ones all over the top of this list? It seems to me like the people who are preaching for economic equality are hoarding their assets. Com'on, guys! Share the wealth! It's what you preach!

Under the agreement outlined in a joint leadership letter, committee budgets will reflect the current ratio of the Senate, where Republicans have 51 seats and the Democrats, with Jeffords, have 49. An additional 10% will be given to the Republican chairman of each committee for administrative expenses.

Well, that didn't last long. The Senate standstill has ended, and what many are regarding as a victory for Democrats is, in my opinion, a victory for democracy in America. The result, proportional funding plus a chairmanship bonus, is essentially how electoral votes work (proportional by population plus two each).

Okay, so the Republicans will argue that the Senate has for many years divided budget funding in a 2:1 ratio with the majority party getting two-thirds of the money, so therefore the Democrats have won by taking money from the Republicans. But if you look at it this way, the Republicans will still get a nearly proportional funding split if the Democrats take a narrow majority next time. It will take a 60-40 majority for either party to change the precedent now, or a really weak or pushover minority party.

Of course, many people believe the Republicans are pushovers anyway, always going along because of principles and letting the ruthless Democrats get their way. That may be, but in this case, the Democrat Senate leader is on record saying he hopes this sets the precedent. Besides, if Democrats can pull this money-grubbing crap in a time like this, then certainly Republicans can do it in a less stressful time if they need to.

This "precedent" won't mean much for at least two years, so let's just remember this is hear and remember that Tom Daschle said this:

We are very pleased with the outcome of the negotiations... We hope the precedent of committee structures being proportionate to Senate seats will continue in the future.

UPDATE 23:04 -- This Fox News article explains the organizing resolution in a different way:

The deal gives the GOP a one-seat majority on all committees except the Intelligence and Ethics committees, which traditionally have an even number of members from both parties. It also gives the majority a roughly 60-40 advantage when it comes to staff, money, and space...

I suppose, if you count the 51-49 split to be the ratios plus the 10% bonus for Republican leadership, that would result in the roughly 60-40 split to which the second story refers, and the two stories could be congruent. But the language is oddly different. I'm sure more details will be available tomorrow.

I have given you plenty of time to see the film, now here is my review. (I still keep it spoiler-free; I want those who haven't seen it to feel compelled to watch!)

The epic battle for Middle Earth continues in the second installment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Two Towers. Inhaling the first two parts as a single entity, the Lord of the Rings is one of the finest accomplishments in film that I have had the privilege to enjoy. As anyone who has seen them can tell you, Director Peter Jackson and crew stop at nothing to deliver a brilliant, mythological story of a journey through Middle Earth, focusing not only on the typical scenic elements of the fantasy genre, but also on the emotive and masculine elements of romance and action films that attract viewers of all varieties.

Where The Fellowship of the Ring left us, our unlikely hero Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) and his committed servant, Sam (Sean Astin), had just broken from the Fellowship to make the perilous journey toward the evil land of Mordor on their own. Meanwhile, the warriors of the Fellowship, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies, who also voices the part of Treebeard the ent), had abandoned Frodo's quest in order to hunt and destroy the agents of evil. The Fellowship's most powerful companion, the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), had fallen into the pit of Moria to certain death so that the remaining eight may flee alive. Without Gandalf's aid, Frodo's infiltration of Mordor and Aragorn's resistance against the awesome military power of the Sauron and Saruman (Christopher Lee) seem futile.

However, as the teaser trailers shamelessly revealed to those who had not read the books that Gandalf's part in this quest was not finished, The Two Towers appropriately begins by following the wizard into the pit of Moria in one of the most exciting film sequences I have ever seen. Do not be fooled, however, for this is not the movie of Gandalf -- no, The Two Towers is split by virtue of the fact that the Fellowship has split, and the focus is essentially split between the Ring and the King, that is, Aragorn, the King of men who should supposedly "return" in part three in approximately eleven months. Unlike the first film, which depicted the Hobbits and the Ring at the center and Frodo as the hero, this film puts the trials of Aragorn and his company on the front burner.

The Hobbits Frodo and Sam continue their journey toward Mordor vulnerable and alone, until introduced to the star of the movie, the mysterious Gollum, who has both loved and hated the Ring and still craves to repossess it. Meanwhile, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli's path lead them to the endangered kingdom of Rohan, which is the hinge upon which Sauron's door swings. Here we are introduced to King Théoden (Bernard Hill) of Rohan, who must lead the defense of his kingdom and the world of all men at the Battle of Helms Deep. As one would hope and expect from Peter Jackson, given the amazing quality of the first film, The Two Towers delivers the largest, most developed, and best looking battle sequence any film has ever shown.

Despite an overwhelming mythology, constant action, and an unnatural emphasis on the Battle of Helms Deep (it was given only eleven pages in Tolkien's book), Peter Jackson delivers the quality of film necessary for such an encompassing story. True Tolkien fans may be startled by the epic quality of the battle, or of the myriad liberties that Peter Jackson's writers took with the story, but as a film following the first, The Two Towers is an incredible work. Despite a separation from the original work that would likely have the master author turning in his grave, the movie stands easily as one of the best of the year.

The Two Towers wins high marks because today's moviegoers are unnaturally attracted to big screen violence, and the second film also delivers with the occasional and very effective comedic relief. Whether you prefer dwarf jokes, schizophrenic fiends, or the unfortunate tragedy of a moment's indecision or stupidity in the heat of battle, you will find a few surprising laughs -- if you haven't already -- at some point during the three hours of this amazing film.

The Two Towers is worth more than the theatre's admission price -- go see it if you have not already. If you missed The Fellowship of the Ring or are otherwise biased against this film or its genre, I suggest sacrificing three hours of your life. The epic journey takes an amazing glimpse at one man's idea of what a world could be like, or perhaps could have been, and it's much easier to swallow staring at a screen than by turning pages!

Some bonus thoughts that I left out:

It occurs to me that Matt Drudge does not deserve credit for breaking the Monica Lewinsky story. Sure, he was the first to have his version of the story read by the eyes that matter, but even he admits that "reporter Michael Isikoff developed the story of his career, only to have it spiked by top NEWSWEEK suits hours before publication". Isikoff is the one who deserves credit for the story. Drudge only stepped in and allowed truth to prevail over political correctness, but then sacrificed another principle by taking credit for the story himself.

I was on Clinton's side until he lied straight-faced to the American people about his relationship with Monica Lewinksy, and I've always liked him. He's charismatic, a charmer, a good leader... a liar, and a demagogue, but a good leader. He makes you like him. He's selfish and cool and does things for his people; that's the kind of guy that people like. That said, I rarely agreed with any of his political ideas, and I never liked his wife.

It was through this story that I learned of Clinton's past sexual transgressions, and it was through this story that I learned that Hillary Clinton was not married to Bill Clinton because she loved him, or him to her because he loved her -- they were married simply for mutual gain of power. Now I can understand such an "agreement" in a typical arena, but as an elected federal official, these people were supposed to symbolize what Americans are supposed to be like. And we had Bill Clinton the sexaholic, liar, and deceiver, and Hillary Clinton the power-hungry, rules-don't-apply-to-me wanna-be-president.

Well, it was through this ordeal that I learned of Hillary Clinton's true motivations and goals. And so I began to study her political career and her decisions. And, let me tell you, she gets worse as she gets closer to potentially realizing her dream. She wants to take over this country, and I fear what damage she would bring to our nation if she were to be elected.

Tony Blankley's op-ed in the Washington Times.

Because they believe they paid a heavy electoral price as the majority Senate party last year for failing to pass necessary legislation, they intend to turn the floor of the Senate into a killing field for almost the entire Republican legislative agenda for 2003-04.

This isn't how the American two-party system works, guys! The British are known for the kill-each-other style of parliamentary politics, but Americans are generally known for compromise and getting the job done. What Democrats are doing is ignoring the fact that they are now the minority party, and they are forcing the new Republican leadership to sit around and wait until Democrats in the Senate are good and ready to leave their posts. Then they are prepared to filibuster and kill legislation after legislation if it means that the Republican agenda isn't passed.

But why?

Let me again remind you of the primary purpose of a political party: to get its candidates elected to office. Okay, so how does a party do that? By saying things that people like and passing laws that get good things done. Well... there would be absolutely no good reason for Democrats to obstruct the Republican agenda to this degree unless they believed that it would bring good things that Republicans could take credit for, and therefore put even more Democrat politicians out of jobs. Not that looking out for your job is a bad thing, but there is not much room for selfishness in politics -- certainly not this much room.

Both presidents Carter and Clinton -- Democrats, by the way -- supported an end to the double-taxation of corporate profits. The Democrats are steadfastly opposed to the idea now though. Know why? Because they know it would improve the economy and start a strong rebound on stock prices. This is the last thing the Democrats want going into the 2004 election year.

And why is that? Think about who's got control of the White House, the Senate, and the House... Um, Republicans! That's right, if the economy recovers now, Republicans were in control to make it happen! Of course, if that does happen, you can bet with reasonable odds that Democrats will try to claim that [insert correct idea] was their idea all along!

The White House is already pondering the election of 2004, now that Al Gore has decided that a presidential bid is not in his best interests right now. "Bush had been itching for a rematch with Al Gore", but unfortunately Bush's re-election bid no longer hinges necessarily on who runs against him, but instead on "whether the administration can simultaneously revive the economy and manage a potential war". The problem is that his economic plan is a long-term, better-for-the-nation fix, not the type of quick fix that takes effect in two years and wins an election. I am going to be very disappointed if Bush ends up a one-timer and then is judged down the road as one of the best presidents we've ever had. Unfortunately, that isn't unrealistic.

Back to Senate Democrats... of all the times to be fussing over money, they choose now. We're conducting pyschological wars on terrorism, Iraq, and North Korea and a plan to cure a struggling economy, and Democrats choose now to demand more money! In a memo distributed by outgoing Majority Leader Tom Daschle to other Senate Democrats, he essentially said that they can not allow an "organizing resolution", because that would give Republicans control of the Senate (which they earned last November). Instead, Democrats have taken the Senate "hostage", and the forty-eight of them are holding the fifty-one Republicans from their majority posts. Effectually, the Senate -- and therefore Congress -- is stalled and unable to conduct business.

What's the deal? Throughout most of the Senate's history, the majority party has been allotted two-thirds of committee funding, as the majority party has always received except in the last Congress when there was an even 50-50 split, but Democrats are demanding 45% as they were given last time ... in the name of fairness! It's ridiculous, in my opinion, because as soon as Democrats retake the Senate, if that happens, they'd take their two-thirds in a heartbeat. There wouldn't be a question, because their demagoguing has the people believing that they are the party of "equality", when all they want to do -- always -- is take from those with rightfully earned capital or ability and give to those who did not earn it, including themselves in this case.

So what's happening? The Senate isn't functioning. Laws aren't getting passed. Meetings are being postponed. Appointments are being delayed. Homeland Security isn't getting a director ... yet. And, most significantly, Democrats are forcing Republicans to let them keep committee chairmanships despite that Republicans have earned control of the Senate. More than that, we gave Republicans that power and took it from Democrats, who like children are refusing to give up what they think is theirs! Like a three-year-old child screaming for a toy that wasn't his in the first place, Democrats in the Senate refuse to give up what rightfully belongs to someone else and are fighting to change longstanding rules for solely their benefit!

Now, in a time when we need our legislature to function more than ever, Democrats are going to filibuster. Republicans are ready to go and their resolution is ready, and Democrats aren't even going to let the Senate hear it. The Democrating Party is obstructing the democratic process. Can we stand for this?

This is just sickening. Obstructing Republicans is one thing -- it could even be said that it's their job -- but for Democrats to obstruct the natural order of things in Congress is anti-Democratic. You can't expect a change in how the rules work now that you're finally the minority party; that isn't how it works! If you want to make those kind of changes, you make them when you're the majority, so people know the motivation is fairness, and not your insignificant greed. And if this is all about keeping your committee chairmanships as long as possible... that's ridiculous.

I don't much like Republicans, but I'll vote for hundreds of them before I vote for the average Democrat.

In happier news, my father's mother celebrates the eighty-sixth anniversary of her arrival today. Let's wish her many more!

Terry Coleman was elected Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives this morning after Larry Walker dropped out of the running at nearly the last minute. Walker still garned 70 votes (presumably all from Republicans). I hope Coleman does a good job. We'll see how things go.

Sonny Perdue was also sworn in as Governor this morning, and he gave a 16-minute inaugural speech at about 3:00. I missed the first minute of it, as I had just gotten out of class, but after fifteen minutes I figured it was either a very long speech, or that I had only missed the very beginning. Then it ended, and they said it had lasted sixteen minutes. So my timing was nearly perfect. The speech was good. It made me feel good to be a Georgian. Hopefully, Sonny Perdue improves the quality of living in the state of Georgia. We'll see how that goes, too.

Nothing else worth reporting. Have good eye-shutting.

From Ricky West's North Georgia Dogma:

Yes, the double standards are rampant. They want to exercise fiscal discipline...by overtaxing the rich while subtly increasing everyone's taxes to make up for the next round of tax layoffs -- that is, the next group of people that they're going to cut from having to pay income taxes completely. Where's the discipline? What happened to the American way? They're turning it into the Marxist way. Hey, more power to them if they can accomplish that and make everybody happy, but we're not happy! So cut it out!

Oh, and let's not forget that they're the party of racial equality...that always emphasizes any slip of the tongue that could divide between/among the various ethnicities if taken out of context, but only if the suspect is a white Republican -- bonus if he's rich!

But let's be fair, Democrats aren't the only hypocrites. Republicans don't want your children seeing or knowing anything about sex on television, in movies, in video games, anywhere, ever...but death, killing, blood, and violence are okay! Destroy whatever you want, just don't get fresh and we're okay! We can't let them know that it's actually a good thing! Actually, the prudish morality of the right would rather our children never be exposed to anything, but instead grow to be shells of men, perhaps serving in the military without ever knowing what Eve learned when she bit into that fruit. Hey! She ate it! And she paid for it! And Jesus died for our sins, so it's okay! Stop trying to abridge our freedom because of your insecurities!

I'm sure that I could find hypocrisy in anyone if I looked hard enough, because we're supposedly all hypocrites. I know I am. I don't mean to be, but I'm not perfect by any stretch of anyone's imagination, unless you count acceptable flaws as a part of perfection, or the fact that flaws are only subjective in the first place, and who's to say that they're actually flaws?! So, maybe we're not hypocrites, but we are exactly what we are intended to be. I'm banking on the fact that God has a sense of humor, and if that's the case, he's got to be laughing his ass off at us. We're so petty.

It's mine!

No, it's mine!

Oh yeah? (*BOOM*) Hah hah! I told you it was mine!

Silly humans.

How's this for a sickeningly biased, loaded headline: "Sept. 11 Families Call for Alternatives to Iraq War"! Okay, now read the first two words of the body of the article: "Four relatives..." HAH! Of the 3015 victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks, four relatives constitutes the "families" of September 11 victims? Okay, I can accept that hundreds more may agree with these four. But I'd bet you every dollar I'm worth that the thousands of others are feeling just a little bit vengeful, if they aren't prepared to pull the trigger themselves if given the chance. You don't just lose a loved one in such a violent way and then look for ways to appease those who would do the same. You look for justice.

This is, unfortunately, anti-war journalism at its best. Note to Andrew Hammond: If you had written this for my news publication, you would be sent packing. I hope your bosses are proud!

Georgia's Speaker of the House race has turned ugly. One of two Democrats, Larry Walker of Perry and Terry Coleman of Eastman, needs 91 votes in the 180-member House to secure the position. With the help of Governor-elect Sonny Perdue, Walker "is trying to build a coalition of House Republicans and Democrats with himself at the helm," appealing to about 25 conservative-leaning Democrats.

Currently in the Georgia House of Representatives, there are 107 Democrats, 72 Republicans, and one independent. It is being assumed that all 73 non-Democrats are in favor of Larry Walker, meaning that he only needs 18 Democrats' votes to bring what would seemingly be a pseudo-Republican leadership to the Georgia's lower legislative house, giving Sonny Perdue an almost unbridled power to set the Republican agenda in motion. Walker is rumored to be offering key Democrats "office space, committee assignments, and a bigger slice of the budget pie for their districts."

"Coleman's forces deny charges of dirty tricks and accuse Walker's camp of using 'desperate tactics' to drum up support." Coleman claims that 100 Democrats in the House have pledged to vote for him -- nine more than he needs for victory -- while Walker claims that it could easily go either way.

The stakes seem high for the Democratic Party in Georgia, which has held both houses of the General Assembly and the governor's mansion since the 1800s. All 180 legislators in the House will have approximately 60 seconds to vote for their new leader on Monday morning in an open vote -- so their leaders will know who voted against them. For that reason, it is conceivable that many will vote based on their expectation rather than their preference.

The race between Walker and Coleman is a result of last November's election results. Republicans claimed the governor's mansion and the state Senate for the first time in a very long time, and Tom Murphy, House Speaker for over thirty years, lost his re-election bid to a Republican in his own tiny district, setting up the current race.

Arguments in favor of Walker claim that his leadership would ease the way for the Republican agenda. Arguments against Walker claim that his leadership would ease the way for the Republican agenda. With no clear distinctions and no one speaking out, it is impossible to predict who shall win, or how their final decision will affect Georgia politics in the next two years.

Political scientist Merle Black of Emory University says, "This is a battle the Democrats cannot afford to lose. Without this, the Democrats have nothing." Someone should remind Black that the Democrats still control the House, regardless of tomorrow's leadership vote.

Okay, so Sean Penn makes more sense than I expected that he would. In his interview with Larry King tonight, he divulged a rather compelling argument against the war on Iraq, or at least on encouraging US officials to divulge their proof of Iraq's weapons to the UN. He asks a good question: why haven't we done that yet? Well, Mr. Bush, you're up.

And please, don't let your answer be that actors should stick to acting while politicians should stick to politicking. Politics is the business of any man or woman who chooses to get involved in America. And Sean Penn raises some valid questions that I'd like answered.

Actually, arguments on both sides of that question are compelling, especially given that many of the reasons for not disclosing such information are matters of national security and should not be disclosed. Powell, Rice, and company have handle the situation well to this point, and I am given no reason to expect otherwise -- but there is still an itching desire to have the questions answered.

I think the best reason not to tell them exactly where the weapons are is that, if we do, we lose our right to go in and get them ourselves. If Saddam is willing to risk keeping his weapons hidden from UN inspectors at the risk of being exploded, then that's his business. But to give him a "get out of jail free card" by letting him write off some charitable donations to the inspection team would only make him out to look like less of a tyrant. And, I don't know about you, but I'm not very comfortable with a man like Saddam Hussein earning favor in the world.

I can't decide what's more disturbing: a war on condoms, or the idea that AIDS is the only killer that can be transmitted via sex. Nicholas Kristoff writes a peculiar piece on a peculiar subject with an interesting bias and a bizarre lack of full disclosure. I can't trust his article, but I found it worth reading anyway. I think he wrote it knowing that it would simply attract people based on its title, which it has done. But the article itself seems to have the substance of a high school newspaper article, except that a high school student would be expelled for life because of idiotic zero-tolerance rules.

p.s.-- What do you think? Are condoms bad? I want to know!

Somebody believes in Richard Gephardt, at least as far as getting the Democratic nomination. Given the candidates so far, I think he has as good of a chance as anyone, except Senator Joe Lieberman might have a slight edge given his run with Al Gore three years ago. Assuming, though, that recognizing Lieberman in the same breath as Gore for over a year could be detrimental to his cause, Gephardt may have a better shot than we've realized.

Macon Telegraph writer Andy Peters suggests that Governor-elect Sonny Perdue will focus his governorship on core Republican issues, such as business deregulation and restricting abortion. Democrats, meanwhile, worry that such policies will dismantle recent laws and hurt their agenda. Perdue is the first Republican governor Georgia has seen in over 130 years; 2003 should be an interesting political year in the Empire State of the South.

On one hand, Republicans finally have the chance to push their agenda on the state of Georgia. For over a century, the Democratic Party has had a monopoly on most of the decision-making powers in this state, and Republicans could do little more than raise concerns which would then be addressed or ignored by the Democratic majority -- such is the case with any majority-minority relationship in government.

Along with this new power, of course, comes the burden of a stumbling economy and the unfortunate correlation between anything new that goes wrong and the new power in charge -- too often, new and unavoidable problems are blamed on the most recent shift in power when partisan politics had little to do with its happening.

I can not foresee any major troubles for Georgia, but on the horizon I have spotted a questionable agenda regarding the state's flag. It isn't that I liked the old flag more than the new or vice versa; I just think it's a stupid issue to concern ourselves with. What does a flag have to do with our standard of living? Leave it alone; you'll get used to it.

On the substantive side, the new Republican government in Georgia seems poised to address such issues as districting maps, abortion, and business deregulation.

The Democratic gerrymandering following the 2000 Census was a source of stress for many Republicans, some of whom even sat out last year's elections and missed out on a golden opportunity to work for a Republican governor. Gerrymandering will never disappear until government sets down some rules based on the geometrical division of states into districts with straight-edge borders or something similar -- anything that would automatically reduce ethnic, political, or other biases to close to zero. As it is any entities primary concern to protect itself, there is little reason to expect that any government should ever allow such fair and balanced districting legislation to pass.

Abortion is a source of political stress for all; this can hardly be debated. Whether arguing for the sanctity of life or for an individual's freedom to make her own decisions about her own body, everyone can not be satisfied. It makes no sense to me to support either side entirely, or that such full support can be granted. (Question: Why is there no pro-abortion stance? Over-population is certainly an issue in some districts; one would think that abortion would come in handy in such areas. Hmm, okay, maybe not.)

Democrats worry that Sonny Perdue's history of supporting deregulatory legislation will be detrimental to their efforts to stimulate the economy. State Senator Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta) says, "He's always been a deeply conservative, pro-corporation person who's not at all in favor of laws that protect consumers." The other side of the argument is that consumers should take responsibility for the financial risks that they take; for the government to simply offer a cushion for anyone who makes bad investments costs the rest of us much more. Why should we be at financial risk for someone else's potential mistakes? Certainly, the economic concerns on the minds of all Americans, not just Georgians, will keep this issue alive no matter who is in the governor's mansion.

One can only hope that shaking up the leadership in Georgia can lead to better things. Regardless of whether one is a Democrat, Republican, member of another party, or a proud independent (like me!), it serves little purpose to hope for economic downturn, scandal, or other politically disastrous events just so your preferred candidates can assume power. Anyone in that office wants to do the best job that can be done, and I only hope that Georgians can give Sonny Perdue an honest shot at being a good governor.

Regardless, though, he's assuming his position with style. Perdue understands the historical significance of a Republican Governor taking office in Georgia, and Monday's inaugural celebrations should reflect that.

"It's time for some grand old partying", writes Jennifer Brett of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Republicans from all over the state have made plans to attend Sonny Perdue's inaugural ceremonies feeling "like Cinderellas".

Monday should be a big day for Republicans across the state, and the next few years will likely have a significant impact on the future of politics in Georgia.

This is one reason, among countless others, why I like John McCain:

North Korea's pursuit of a nuclear arsenal directly threatens the security of the American people, as well as our ability to shape the international order so as to strengthen the stability of Asia, defeat the global threat of terrorism, and enhance the security of the United States and our allies. Those who counsel a return to the status quo fail to grasp the danger of rewarding threats with retreat and concession. America's challenge in Asia is to compel North Korea's nuclear disarmament, protect ourselves and our allies from the insecurity caused by the nuclear ambitions and nature of North Korea's regime, and demonstrate to other rogue leaders that America will not be blackmailed into violating first principles of sound statecraft.

I have always believed, perhaps naïvely, that chief among the global objectives of the United States is to establish an peaceful order of nations unparalleled in the history of civilization. Sure, our critics are always going to believe that our goals are to take over, steal oil, etc. But what good does having enemies do for anyone? It makes no sense. No, our ultimate goal is to enhance the lives of everyone, everywhere, so that we as well as they may prosper from our unbridled interconnectedness.

Unfortunately, such lofty goals always come with their price. America's price is that it must at first severe some connections and violate some of its preachings, such as the quest for world peace, in order to ensure that peace may endure. When potentially beligerent nations are developing the types of weapons that can end entire nations, it should be our responsibility as the world's only superpower to question such development and to work toward shutting it down.

Furthermore, the question of which is more dangerous to civilization, Iraq or North Korea, is absurd: "It's like asking which is the bigger problem in your life, your foreclosure notice or your kidney stones. It suggests that we get to choose which one we deal with."

Many Americans need to realize that part of being American is standing to defend American principles. Policies of isolationism in times of enhancing dangers led to World Wars I and II, and to isolate ourselves from the development of nuclear weapons in the year 2003 will not simply lead to World War III -- it will lead to global destruction. It must be a goal to deter nuclear development; only when those weapons no longer exist is the threat of the mass destruction they can cause obliterated.

So they don't trust us with out nukes. That's understandable, but we are the superpower, and our track record shows that our interests are in protecting our interests, which include everything on the planet. Beligerence only puts you on our military's radar screen. Keep quiet, act peaceful, and don't develop nuclear weapons unless you really intend to use them -- which is naturally what we will assume anyway. Why else are they there? To force someone else to live in fear? Sorry, Franklin Roosevelt ended our tolerance of fear.

Yesterday, results of thousands of interviews which determine the political composition of the 48 contiguous states, were reported by the Associated Press. (Hawaii and Alaska are excluded "because of logistical issues such as time differences".)

From the article:

See the 48 states' alleged party composition by following the link above.

I am no expert on the other 47 included states, but the numbers for Georgia seem reasonabe. Do the results accurately represent your state? A more intricate analysis of the results of these polls may also yield more accurate information on how to determine results of future political quandaries, such as issue questions or elections. Use the comments section for this article to express any ways in which you believe statistics like these may be better used to serve our informational needs...

So I met a potentially amazing girl at Barnes & Noble Tuesday night. My nose was busily buried in The Epic of Gilgamesh, which I was only reading at BN because BN had not yet shipped my literature textbook to my front porch, when I noticed that the clan of fogies (fogy or fogey (n.): a person of stodgy or old-fashioned habits and attitudes) behind me were entirely too loud to allow my concentration. Looking up in disgust, I noticed an attractive young girl looking at me inquisitively, and upon making eye contact she spoke up: "I don't suppose you want to walk over there." So I told her to throw her shoe at them, but she decided that she liked her shoe.

So we discussed random things for the next two or three hours over Dr Pepper and a caramel frappuccino (frappucino (n.): meaning "frozen cappuccino"; a beverage similar to cappuccino mixed with ice -- still not in the dictionary.) and essentially discovered that we both think sex books are just the coolest things even if we have no intentions of using the knowledge they offer for, say, at least another three weeks (that three weeks seems to be constant, just as tomorrow never seems to get here). She and I share similar tastes and distastes, such as a like for rock music and a dislike of choosing fashion over comfort. We each have a style all our own, yet similar.

We had fun. We hugged, bid our farewells, and parted ways. And, of course, whereas in the old days we would have exchanged phone numbers if the experience warranted it, we exchanged email addresses and recommended obscure bands and songs to listen to.

For years and years, Democrats have urged that Republicans' fiscal plans have always served the rich and hurt the poor. This has never been the case, but the result is an increasingly popular opinion that the poor are incapable (which, if true, is resultant mostly of effort) and therefore should be taken care of. Well, if I am to pay your bills, then by definition you are somewhat dependent on me, and therefore I should have some limited voice regarding your freedoms and liberties. Since that is not the case, you do not deserve to depend on me.

Anyway, Republicans generally try to shove the numbers in everyone's faces, but the fact is that the population is too uneducated to understand the numbers. That is done by design. Teachers (hmm: teachers unions, Democrats?) no longer emphasize economics as important for our children to understand, so they grow up without an understanding of it. Perhaps the idea is that they will simply accept the financial advice of their elected officials, because they obviously must know what they're talking about (when in reality, very few of them do because they aren't required to know much about economics either). A recent study (I wish I could find it) showed that only about 10% of Democrat politicians in America had taken more than two graduate-level courses in economics, while more than 60% of Republicans have. Hmm, who are you going to trust with your money?

Me, I'm trusting Republicans, though I'd trust Libertarians if they had any say in the matter. But anyway, the point. Here's how the Bush Tax cut affects families with children at different income levels:

Notice that the only group that really has any right to complain is the group that makes $75,000 or just over, as with $75,000 being a cutoff point, well... the math gets confusing. You can see the percentages, though. Anyway, as you can see, tax liability is reduced almost to the point of nonexistence for the lower tax brackets and barely effected for the higher tax brackets.

Look again. An income of $40,000 gets a tax cut of $1,133, while an income of $200,000 (that's 500% more) gets a tax cut of $3,077 (only 272% more), which means that the "rich" are getting proportionally less of a tax cut per individual than the "poor". So the poor are getting a better deal than the rich! The only thing that Democrats have on their side that allows their criticism of the tax plan is that nearly have of the country actually pays no income taxes -- most of them will see some benefit from the cut anyway, but how can the poor really expect more benefits from a tax cut than the rich when they barely (and many don't at all) even pay taxes?

If the Bush plan really were bad, Democrats would have several angles from which to play it. The fact that they can only generically say "it helps the rich" over and over without actually proving anything is evidence enough that they have no support for their argument. Bush wins, we all win.

For the second time in three years, storeowner J.C. Adams has shot and killed a would-be armed robber. Upholding the idea once again that an armed citizenry is less likely to be run over by criminals, Adams proclaimed, "Go to work and make your own money. Quit trying to take mine."

When last the Pac-A-Sac store on Lawrenceville Highway was held up in May 2000, Adams himself was shot before he took out the criminal; he was back at work within eleven hours. Adams was charged in neither incident. "According to Georgia law, a person is justified in threatening to use force -- or using it -- to defend himself or another person from a third person's 'imminent use of unlawful force'. A person also is justified in using force to stop another from committing a forceable felony, such as a rape or armed robbery."

Hugo Gordon writes for the National Post the best analysis of Bush's economic plan and Democrats' reaction to it that I have read so far. Whether you actually like the plan or not, Gordon is entirely correct that the Democrats' reaction is simply a mangling of statistics to attack conservatives. What Gordon suggests, without even saying it, is that Democrats would rather Americans and the American economy tank and recede for the next few years -- as long as Republicans are in "control" -- so that Republicans will lose popularity and eventually their majority.

Now I understand why Democrats were able to attack the plan no matter what it actually was, before it had even been revealed. Democrats proved early this week that, regardless of what benefits the Bush economic plan would actually bring, they had a way of using the numbers to upset someone and use it to their advantage.

It's time that we, as Americans, wake up to this deceit. Perhaps we should all make sure that our children take economics classes in high school and college, because taxes are a source of unbelievable stress in this country -- we should at least know who's telling the truth about them.

Why is it that economically challenged are more likely to be obese? Logic tells me that their insufficient purchasing power would render them unable to acquire the necessary foodstuffs to allow obesity, yet they are apparently the fattest Americans. The problem, apparently, is that we encourage the less fortunate to do what they can to get food on the table, but we do not encourage healthy eating habits. I can understand how this works: being poor makes one less likely to be educated, and therefore less likely to have the knowledge of what exactly constitutes a healthy diet.

Of course, there is an unfortunate bias to this statistic: by the officially accepted definition, weighing 30% more than the "ideal bodyweight" makes someone obese. So Sylvester Stallone is obese. Mark McGwire is obese. Anyone with muscles as thick as small tree trunks is obese. My point is that weight alone can not be an accurate measure of obesity, or obesity can not automatically mean unhealthiness. Take your pick.

The article to which I linked doesn't talk about any of this, to my knowledge. I just thought I'd link to the story so you'd know where I was coming from.

Via InstaPundit: According to this Time Europe poll, the United States poses the greatest threat to international peace in 2003. The precursor to the question seems fair to me, a simple explanation of the potentially threatening roles that North Korea, Iraq, and the United States may be playing. Naturally, elitist Americans who think that America is always right will scream "bias", but naturally any poll will reflect the bias of its participants.

Note the image. You will never find an image of Saddam Hussein like that on a conservative web site. He is nearly always pictured in military uniform and/or with an angry face. I wonder... is it possible that he truly has his people's best interests in mind? And if so, is he acting for those interests or for his own? I don't know the man, but if anyone does, I'd certainly value your input. :-)

Apparently, Cynthia McKinney had filed a lawsuit challenging the state's open primary system (I was previously unaware of this). Last I checked, the proper methods to change laws include legislative action and referendum. Either McKinney doesn't know that (which is unlikely for a former Congresswoman) or she just wants compensation for her humiliation.

From Macon.com: "McKinney claims 'malicious crossover voting' by thousands of Republicans in the August Democratic primary caused her defeat by Majette. She originally sought to invalidate the election... Secretary of State Cathy Cox, the Georgia Democratic Party and DeKalb and Gwinnett elections officials remain as defendants in the suit."

Why sue Majette? She merely ran for the seat! And why sue either party? The parties are not responsible for the law, nor can either organization do anything about it. Political parties' function is to get their candidates elected to public office by following the rules in place. The parties are independent of the government itself. Is she suing her own party because they didn't want her?

Apparently Miss McKinney has no interest in serving the state of Georgia in the future. Never mind her decisions and actions as a Representative in Congress -- this lawsuit alone is enough to discourage me from ever considering her a viable candidate again.

Certainly, House and Senate committee assignments affect each state individually and collectively, but Georgia Congressmen have received an unusually heavy load (AP), which can only mean good things for Georgians.

Freshman Senator Saxby Chambliss (R) has named to the Judiciary and Rules committees today "in addition to spots he had already won on the Intelligence, Armed Services and Agriculture panels -- a huge load for a freshman". His position on the Armed Services committee should incite thousands of sighs of relief in the midstate -- I would assume that Robins Air Force Base, home to thousands and employer of thousands more and a source of stress as every round of base-closings approaches, is further insulated from being wiped out. As a member of the House Intelligence committee in the 107th Congress, it can be assumed that his appointment to the same committee in the Senate is merely a transfer of his "intelligence" from one body to the other (I suppose we should assume that he knows a little about our nation's intelligence by now).

In the House, Jack Kingston (R), Sanford Bishop (D), and Jack Ellis (D) each received key committee assignments. Kingston, already the fifth-ranked Republican in the House as vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, was is now the chairman of an Appropriations subcommittee, "one of 13 'cardinals' that control federal spending projects". Bishop joins Kingston on the Appropriations committee, and John Lewis was tapped as the minority whip's top deputy, a high-ranking Democrat position. Republican Max Burns was also named president of the Republican freshman class in the House.

"Georgia's tide is rising," Kingston said. "We're coming back."

Kingston has already expressed interest in running for the Senate seat vacated by Senator Zell Miller in the election of 2004. I can only assume that he would not have run against Miller and would have instead chosen to keep his high-ranking position in the House -- but, like I said, I can only assume. Representatives Charlie Norwood, Mac Collins (my Rep.), and Johnny Isakson have also expressed interest in the Senate seat.

Among Democrats, I can imagine only a tiny few in the state who are recognized widely enough to make a serious run for the seat, including Representatives Lewis and Bishop, Lieutenant Governor Mark Taylor, and former Senator Max Cleland. Am I missing anyone?

I have taken on several projects at the onset of the new semester, but most importantly I have joined the team at Political State Report, brought to you by the Daily Kos and scores of contributors from each state. The idea is simple enough: bloggers from the various states report state and local news and mostly ignore the national news (every other political blog on the planet already covers all that).

Other lesser projects include writing for the school newspaper, and trying to date again. The dating part is really fun, but very confusing. More on all of it as each develops.

Senator Zell Miller announced today that he will step down from his U.S. Senate seat just after the election of 2004 so that his successor may immediately take his seat and gain additional superiority on the Senate class of 2005. I only want to add a few comments to Matt's entry posted earlier today.

First, is it not conceivable that the Georgia electorate may re-elect Max Cleland to the Senate after a two-year absence if no Democrat or Republican candidate seems the better choice? This is precisely how I would prefer Congressional term limits to function -- simply remove a Congressperson from office for a minimum of two years before allowing a re-election bid so the voters have a chance to experience a fresh face and new ideas. They can then reject or accept the old or new at their will, rather than keeping the experienced simply because they're good enough until they screw up.

Second, is it not also conceivable that there might be ambition for a higher office in Zell Miller's future? His conservative record has certainly earned attention for him, and he was one of Georgia's most highly praised governors in its history. I believe that Miller would probably make a good President or Vice President should he pursue either position, but such ideas can not even enter into speculation for quite some time, as he has indicated fairly plainly that he is pursuing no political office in 2004.

Finally, I only hope that Georgia voters wake up and realize by 2004 that the flag issue is nonsubstantive and does not affect in any way their lives as Americans, as Georgians, or as individuals. I would like to see Georgians, and indeed the citizens of every state, to place more emphasis on the issues that may actually affect some aspect of their lives and to ignore those issues, such as what's in a flag, that do not.

Hi, I am Paul McCord, a libertarian-leaning conservative who claims no political allegiance other than to myself. I advocate independent thinking on a case-by-case basis. If there is anything that I can do for you, or if there is news in the state of Georgia worthy of your attention, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sean Hannity was discussing SUVs today, and he cleverly disappointed me. He presented his side of the story in much the same way that Democrats present their side of the tax and wealth issue. He referenced a recent study that shows that approximately 46,000 people have died in auto accidents as a result of the fuel-economy push since the 1970s, which has led to smaller, lighter, and thus less safe automobiles. What Sean didn't mention was the thousands of lives saved because vehicles hit by small cars weren't smashed by those huge, heavy vehicles like muscle cars, vans, SUVs, etc. I don't mind Sean's opinion, but he needs to tell the whole story, especially if he's going to be the #2 radio talk show host in America.

Also on Hannity's show, Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) was on the show praising the Clinton presidency's job-creation during the 1990s. However, looking at Census data, I think that Clinton did less to bring about new jobs than did an expanding workforce. Some population numbers in 1990 and 2000:

Total (in millions) Under 18 Over 65 "Employable"

1990 248.7 63.6 31.2 153.9

2000 281.4 72.3 35.0 174.1

Difference 32.7 8.7 3.8 21.2

What this little table says is that the "employable" population, which is a crude statistic all my own calculated only be excluding the under-18 and over-65 population, increased by approximately 21.2 million. That number obviously can not be exact, but it's a very close measurement, and considering that the 1990s only saw in increase of about 22 million jobs, it looks to me like it was less of political ingenuity and more of the natural tendency for people to provide for themselves. Amazing, isn't it, how politicians (on both sides) will take credit for the natural tendencies of man as though they are responsible for the good and fought against the bad?

I find it more amazing that I seem to be the only person who thought of comparing Census data to determine whether the population had any effect on jobs instead of the Clinton administration. But I suppose the press wouldn't want to do their homework, or at least report the results of it, if they would rather Clinton get the credit and look good for it.

p.s.-- I set myself on fire today. I sat down on the counter where I always sit (there is only one spot on my counter available for sitting; the rest is kinda fragile), and today there happened to be a candle that has never been there before. It was suddenly very warm, and it took me about half a second to realize that the heat was coming abnormally from under my clothes, which could only mean one thing. Luckily, I'm smart like that, so I just pulled my shirt around and squeezed the flame and it died out. Two seconds later and I'd be screaming for water, a blanket, and people to get out of my way so I could get to a floor!

I think these last few months of pain and stress have left me calm for just about anything. Even catching on fire didn't excite me in the least. Although, I have to admit, being kissed by cute girls on stairwells is a very nice feeling. I think I'd like to try that again, if the girl ever passes my way on a stairwell (or anywhere else) again...

George Schultz of the New York Times tells the story of how a Republican desegregated the South's schools.

In "One of Us: Richard Nixon and the American Dream," Tom Wicker, a former columnist for The Times, assessed the president's efforts. "There's no doubt about it -- the Nixon administration accomplished more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the 16 previous years, or probably since," he wrote. "There's no doubt either that it was Richard Nixon personally who conceived, orchestrated and led the administration's desegregation effort. Halting and uncertain before he finally asserted strong control, that effort resulted in probably the outstanding domestic achievement of his administration."

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Michael Gove has written for the London Times an article explaining how the hatred of America is the socialism of fools:

I try to offer insights into what I believe to be a truthful representation of the facts when I can. These two stories, in my opinion, are two highly important interpretations of information that will go largely unnoticed, mostly because the media in America is mostly, shall I say, anti-American. If nothing else, at least read the three paragraphs of Gove's article explaining why those three myths are myths indeed.

The Bush plan is trying to partially correct some of the objectively unfair aspects of the present tax code. The unfairness in the code resulted from economic ignorance and the failure of the Republicans to both articulate and have the guts to take on Democratic demagogy. The Republicans now have a chance to show they favor both tax fairness and economic growth. It will be interesting to see who rises to the occasion and who wimps out.

Richard Rahn's column in the Washington Times today explains very well a few exact things that make the current tax system unfair and a few ways to help cure it. This will unfortunately go largely unnoticed, but it spells out specifically, with examples, what can be done to improve fairness in our tax code. Hint: tax cuts are part of the solution.

I've never enjoyed professional football. The NFL has turned me away for several reasons, but none of them can I seem to remember any more. I've always been a Falcons fan, but I've never really pulled for them because I had some unreasonable bias against the National Football League. College football has always been my preferred way to catch the American-only sport. Well, no more! Err, maybe.

I've come to the conclusion, based on extremely limited knowledge, that the Falcons will probably will the Superbowl this year. I've decided that I'm going to watch the game, or at least parts of it, this Sunday, and that if the Falcons win I'll watch the Superbowl. If the Falcons win, I'll declare myself a Falcons fan and I'll promise to watch them next year. (I'm really careful about making promises, because I generally avoid breaking them. But since I liked Michael Vick when he played for Virginia Tech, it made sense to follow his progress a little when the Falcons signed him. So I can handle that.)

Um, but the point is, Go Falcons! Or something.

A letter in today's AJC inspired this: "Why on earth are we thinking about an attack on North Korea? They have no oil." The obvious point is that the Bush administration, according to political opponents, can't possibly be thinking of the good of the American people, but only about profits from oil. So, new game plan: destroy Saddam Hussein and leave Iraq's oil alone. That would shut them the hell up. (If we left the oil alone, Democrats would 180 and slam Bush for ignoring a perfectly good oil resource when it's available to us.)

Last Monday, I placed an order through Barnes & Noble for my four textbooks for four of my classes this semester (one class is using a book that I bought last semester). Through Barnes & Noble, and assuming that the tax rate if I were to buy the books at the Macon State College bookstore is 6%, I saved $33.37. That will buy quite a few lunches!

Interesting story. The economics book was labeled as "can be shipped within 1-2 weeks", while the other three were available for shipment "within 24 hours". Hilarity ensues: the real story here is that the economics book arrived on my doorstep this afternoon, and the package with the others that was supposed to be shipped first has yet to arrive. I suppose it's nice that shipping was free, but the first-now-second package contains three of my books, two of which I would need tomorrow except that I won't have them, so it is apparent that I actually don't need them. Three-to-eight business days means they could arrive any time between today (which didn't happen) and Saturday.

I suppose that means I need to find an alternate medium for reading Gilgamesh. Hey, Tony! Tell me the translation the book uses so I can look it up on the Internet!

Democrats are set to oppose the Bush administration's economic stimulus package ... which means, what, they want to do anything but stimulate the economy? Yeah, that's a good plan! No wonder people elected Democrats en masse in November! Oh, wait...

If Democrats' goal is to upset the Republican majority, but they know that Republicans are in control and are going to pass whatever Republicans want passed, then by definition of the opposition, aren't Democrats going to suggest exactly what won't get the job done, simply hoping that the various forces behind American politics will persuade Republicans to appease them -- which Republicans too often do -- and thus screw things up?

I don't see how the Democrats' plan can be beneficial. A similar plan was proposed by the outgoing powers that be about 70 years ago -- the Republicans of 1932. They thought everything would work itself out, and they were wrong. FDR came in and created jobs, putting money directly in the hands of the people who would make good use of it. Naturally, the economy would have felt more of a jolt if the business world had seen some of that money, but as it was only the low end of the economic divide, then the poorer half of the country simply had a few more items and a little more money stuffed under their mattresses.

No, in times like these, the economy -- the raw economy, the machinery, the businesses and big boys themselves -- are where the money needs to go first. Get the steam flowing, the coal burning, and the wheels rolling! Let the businesses set up first, and then deliver the money into the hands of those who didn't "win life's lottery". Then, with an economy in motion, the money in the hands of the people will actually have something to do! But you can't give money to the bottom end of a stagnant economy or it will just sit there, unable to move.

Democrats are pushing for a Great Depression II, and economic collapses around the world have already set the table for it. America has proved most invulnerable, but not entirely invulnerable. As long as socialism and communism is failing around the world and the liberals in America are trying to force socialism upon us, then the threat of economic failure is very real indeed. It's time to leave such ideas behind, and push forward in 2002 with an idea that was not contrived in the 1860s and proven a failure throughout the 20th century.

Last night I had the best time that I've had in a very long time. It was really a very simple evening; I visited Bethany, one of my best friends from high school who was visiting from Maryland, and her family at their new home. Bethany's mom cooked a great lasagna, and she and Bethany's dad talked with me a little, catching up on the couple of years that they had been gone. Oh, but the most fun was had with Bethany's aunt, Audrey, who is about a year younger than Bethan. (I guess the news of a grandchild was so good that he inadvertently found out that his machinery was still functionable as well... Go Grandpa!)

After dinner, we visited Mike (one of my closest friends now and again since I was about eleven years old) and Nathan and played with their karaoke machine and just hung out. It was a very simple evening but everything about it was just the way it should have been, except that it all had to end too quickly. Before we all knew it, we all had to get home. Audrey is on her way back to Texas this morning, so if nothing else, it was nice meeting her at the last minute. Bethany will be in Athens all week, previewing her stay at UGA that begins in the fall. And I-- well, I'm on my way to work as soon as I wrap this up, and my first class of the new semester begins at 1:30pm.

Why is it that I figure out what I like most at the last possible minute, when it is too late to enjoy more of it? Ah, no matter. After leaving Mike's last night, I felt like the old me again -- just happy to be here, there, or wherever. I felt like the kid with no cares in the world again, just happy that there are people out there who like my company. That was a fun group, and one that stands a good chance of never coming together again. Maybe it will, though...

It is also important that friends and family recognize that today is Megan's 18th birthday. She's semi-legal now! Jen turned 21 on Thursday, which proved to make for an interesting start to the weekend! In some ways, it was bad timing, but much fun was had and other people (like me) just had to get over it! I just hope those old friends who are already back in their respective college towns don't think I just had "better things to do". It's incredibly difficult to please everyone over such a short holiday break, I've learned.

I hope you enjoyed the 2002-03 holiday season! For me, it is not officially over!

At the bottom of this Atlanta Journal-Constitution article is a poll for the Most Admirable Woman of 2002. I am absolutely loving the results, but I think the poll needs a little more widespread attention. I don't think many Democrats have made it to the bottom of that page, mostly because they don't want to read about Condoleezza Rice, you know, because they're Democrats. So the numbers are slightly skewed. But still, this is an Atlanta paper, and Atlanta is about 75% liberal, which does not explain at all why Laura Bush and Rice combine for about 60% of the votes so far. (Hillary Clinton comes in at 33%. How can you admire someone who thinks she is above airport security in the months following September 11 and actually breaks a security guard's arm because of it?) Well, about four people will see this, but feel free to represent your opinion in the poll!

As for the subtitle for this post, I'm not actually going to list any top ten here. I think the AJC poll represents that pretty well. Besides, I'm not very familiar with ten prominent women in America, unfortunately. But I'll still list a few, beginning with the most admirable: Condoleezza Rice, Rachael Klein, Natalie Portman, Laura Bush, Ann Coulter. I suppose I should give Barbra Streisand and Hillary Clinton honorable mention, because I understand how a select few Democrats who care more about political power over Republicans than getting things done for America would appreciate all that Hillary has done, and I'm quite sure that there are plenty of insane nutjobs across the country who just love Streisand. As for Rachael Klein and Natalie Portman -- I didn't say the reasons for admiring them needed to be political!

Here's how it works. At the earliest point in time that our (theoretical) knowledge allows us to see (theoretically), all matter and energy in the known universe was crammed into a small space supposedly no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. Then it exploded, and after a few seconds (?), hours (?), years (?), things began to cool as they spread further from "ground zero", allowing clumps of matter to develop as it continued to spread. The theory goes that, with such an explosion in the middle of space, and especially if that's everything in the universe, then the center of gravity -- the point from where everything exploded -- would have such a strong attractive force that everything in the known universe should be losing speed as the center pulls at it. But here's the thing: it's not. The known parts of our universe are spreading apart at greater and greater speeds, with defies this logic.

The new question, thus, is how? why? What forces are at work that allow cosmic objects, like our galaxy and others, to accelerate faster despite the gravitational pull of the center of the universe? The forces that physics have defined, like electromagnetic forces, could explain it, but such explanations would be too easy to prove and they haven't been proven yet, which suggests to me that they were disproven and answers are being sought elsewhere.

My uninformed theory is that there are unknown forces (duh) at work that the technology of this planet can not yet decipher or even discover. I have read of "dark matter" and anti-matter, and of "dark energy", which comprise about 65% of the known universe by our estimtes (the type of matter and energy of which we are made makes up only about 35%). Being that the properties of "dark" matter and energy are supposedly much the opposite of what we understand to be matter and energy, there are theories (I think -- if not, this is one) suggesting that the dark energies of the universe are acting as the repelling force that pushes objects faster and faster from the center.

There are still problems with this. I don't know the nature of these dark energies, nor do I even understand the gravitational double standard allowed for black holes. You see, the "law" suggests that light and all electromagnetic waves simply travel at c, the speed of light. However, a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing may escape its pull, not even light (hence the name "black" hole). (Naturally, this means that if one were ever to reach the point where the darkness could be seen and light could no longer escape, that individual would already be crushed under probably billions of pounds of pressure.) Now, various laws of physics have proven that through different mediums, such as glass and water, the speed of light is slowed and often refracted. Is it too much to assume that the forces at work in a black hole are enough to simply deaden the impact of the light that reaches it, or that there is no angle from which light from within the black "hole" can pierce its surface?

A couple more little theories... I don't believe that matter is anything more than a special state of energy with special properties. Or, by that logic, energy may be nothing more than a special state of matter with special properties. But I put it the other way around because energy is the all-encompassing, the all-powerful. Matter is a much less "energetic" form of energy, as it were, hence why we can only knock on wood rather than burn right through it.

Being that the big bang supposedly started with an incredibly energetic little ball of mass (like, you know, everything the universe contains) that exploded into a much more comfortable spread of mass (like, you know, the universe as we know it), but the spreading is speeding up instead of slowing down, then I can only imagine three possibilities: (1) electromagnetic forces; (2) "dark" energy and matter; or (3) there are other things, bigger things, out there, pulling from beyond the horizon of space. What if that childhood fantasy of the end of space, that gigantic, cosmic wall were true? Imagine the Truman show, only all life on Earth is Truman and the edge of space is the edge of Ed Harris's Truman World after a sea of expansive nothing. Wouldn't that be some shit?

I didn't mean to get you all worked up. I was just curious. You think Stephen Hawking wants to talk?

Earlier this week, incoming Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) happened upon an auto accident scene on I-75 in Florida. He stopped and helped stabilize the four surviving victims of the accident and stayed on the scene until proper emergency crews arrived, and stayed to offer aid for some time after. Local authorities say that he probably saved a couple of lives. The heart and lung surgeon Frist became a hero doing what he was trained to do.

Last year, in a much less violent accident, a security guard at an airport was struck by a van when he and another guard attempted to impose some newly enforced regulations. Understandably, security was tight at the airport after September 11, especially for dark, unmarked vehicles with tinted windows. Hillary Clinton ordered her driver not to stop, and indeed to floor it, which caused the injury -- the injured guard was left with a broken arm and Hillary Clinton was escorted to her private jet. She was already an asshole, doing whatever the hell she wanted to do because "damnit, I don't have time for this shit". And you people want her for your President?

Victor Hanson puts Senator Patty Murray in her place like the media needs to but won't do, and the Republican Party of her state (Washington) has challenged her to the discussion that she and her aides advertised. As it turns out, she's running scared, and her office hangs up on callers who attempt to challenge her on the issue. James Taranto sums it up well:

Could the media bias be any more obvious? Does the mainstream simply choose to ignore it? How can they with a clear conscience? A Republican Senate leader was just ostricized and removed from his leadership position for comments that were said lightheartedly and, despite wild and unprovable accusations, were probably do not suggest advocacy of segregation. On the other hand, Murray's comments were a direct attack on American foreign policy and praise of Osama bin Laden where he had done better, according to her!

Hanson:

But unfortunately Senator Murray's musings are not merely infantile, but quite dangerous and for a variety of reasons -- besides her very wrong inference that a few million dollars of bin Laden's cynical largess can be compared to the multibillions of past United States aid and private American philanthropy.

That the media can drill Trent Lott a new orifice and all but force him out of his position by running stories of his idiotic comments into the ground while leaving Senator Murray's comments, which praised the most hated man in the world since Hitler, alone suggests an immaturity and a bias... Ugh. It sickens me.

You have basically laid it out there as I see it on the Democratic presidential candidate area. There is no doubt that Daschle and Gephardt have the least chance of getting the Democratic nomination (well, behind Sharpton and Dean).

Daschle is widely recognized (if recognized at all) as being an obstructionist on key Bush issues, mainly Homeland Security. Within his own party, Daschle is seen as a failed leader, having lost the majority in 2002. When he won his last SD election in 1998, he did so by the hair of his chinny chin chin. Thus, Daschle has few options. John Thune did not ask for a recount against Johnson mainly because he wants to challenge Daschle for his seat in 2004 -- which he could quite possibly win. The Minority Whip in the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV), has already secured 35 votes from Senate colleagues in the event that Daschle is either ousted or resigns from the Minority Leader position. Therefore, Daschle essentially has nothing to lose by running, as it may be his last chance to accomplish anything on the national stage. Daschle has problems with name recognition, as well as the fact that he comes from a state where no one lives (SD has three electoral votes). Also, the Senate has not historically been a good springboard to the White House (exceptions, of course, exist, JFK, etc.

[Only two sitting Senators have been elected President in the history of the United States: Warren Harding in 1920 (whoops) and John Kennedy in 1960. Lyndon Johnson was also a Senator. Running from the House is far more difficult; the last President to pull that off was James Garfield in 1880. This means that, based on our current list of Democrat candidates, things are looking very good for Dean, but chances aren't very good at all that he can even touch Bush... So, again, Bush can not be beaten in 2004.]

Gephardt faces a similar problem to Daschle's, having held his leadership position with the aim of winning back the majority in the House, and failing, as you have pointed out. Gephardt, of course, ran for president in 1988. He had a strong showing in the Iowa primary but quickly tapered off afterwards. Indeed, his best option may be to hold out and run for Bond's seat in 2004, rather than Bush's. We shall see how long it takes Gephardt before he sees the handwriting on the wall. I do not see him as a serious contender.

Clinton should not run, though (like you) I would not count out her possibly launching one of her super-trick "listening tours" to see if New Yorkers or the country "wants" her to run, as they supposedly did for the Senate seat in 2000. What a crock of crap. However, I disagree with you in that I don't honestly think that Hitlary can give W a run for his money. She is far too polarizing a figure, and were she to run, all the old hidden skeletons of her role in the Clinton Administration controversies would have to be confronted. She may have been able to win a Senate seat with a sham of an entourage, dodging tough questions and talk shows, etc., but not the national stage. This woman would have to covet votes from areas of the country that truly detest her... it just is not likely, certainly not against Bush in 2004. 2008 might give her a better shot, but I must opine that I still have enough faith in the American electorate to believe that it would never elect Hillary Rodham Clinton as President of the United States.

[I'd like to agree, but I've developed a catch phrase for this phenomenon: don't doubt the electoral ability of a Clinton (or a Kennedy, for that matter). We've seen Bill elected despite his controversial past, and Ted Kennedy continues to be re-elected in Massachusetts despite the car "accident" in, er, 1969(?). On name recognition alone, Hillary has a huge advantage, and Democrats could easily convince a blind and wishfully thinking Democrat base that Hillary is clean and Bill was the dirty one. It frightens me, but I've seen way too many action movies to expect the story to unfold as it logically should.]

Enough has been said about Kerry that I need not launch into a diatribe about him. For one who talks about the little guy, the working people, and what not, he is certainly not one to talk. He married into his wealth; his wife is Teresa Heinz [Ketchup]. Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, will likely (wisely) make that fact an issue in the campaign as a reason to vote for him. He will probably have trouble garnering votes, however, from regions other than the Northeast. He might even face a problem similar to that Michael Dukakis (D-MA) faced in 1988. It would be fitting, I suppose, to have another Bush running against another Massachusetts Democrat. If history guide us, it favors W.

Edwards is the joke in all this. Why is he running? I'll tell you why, he has no other choice. He's a nobody, to start off. He has no foreign policy experience (even W had some). His approval rating back home in NC is in the low 40s, with some polls placing him in the high 30s, and you can believe that there is no shortage of attractive GOP candidates waiting to run against him in 2004. It is also worth noting that the American people right now seem not to have any interest in bringing in a new, fresh face to the White House, not while we are fighting the War on Terror, possibly fighting against Iraq, and facing a showdown with North Korea. Americans want experience and proven leadership, and W now has both. Plus, he is a trial lawyer, and the GOP seems at last to have learned how to combat countercriticism from the Democrats on the issue of "tort reform", etc. He's made millions of dollars choking corporations out of money (or helping consumers, as Helen Thomas sees it), and Wall Street/the Stock Market/the economy do not/does not like people like that. But we shall see.

[I actually think Edwards has the potential to be the sleeper candidate. He's the least known, the name is simply American, and being from the South, he's more conservative than the average Democrat. Okay, so that might alienate the liberal side of the party, but he's still more leftist than a Republican and more likely to serve the Democrats while also pursuing some conservative goals. I wouldn't count Edwards out, but I don't think he can touch Bush. I guess it depends on just how conservative the Democrats want to be in 2004.]

Lieberman might very well have the best shot at the nomination, as you have pointed out. His voting record reveals a very moderate senator, who is strong on defense and open to new ideas. Prior to the 2000 election when he became Gore's running mate, he was open to giving school vouchers a chance. He's going to have to move further to the left to get the nomination, but he would then return to the center to run his presidential campaign. The problem with Lieberman is that he is quite bland, to be honest. He's not a particularly memorable person, not a commanding figure, who is soft-spoken (and boring to listen to). As far as presidential politics go, he's no JFK. Also, and I hate to bring this up because it should not matter, he is Jewish. America has never had a Jewish president, and it would be interesting to see what happens to US/Israeli and US/Arab relations if he were to become president.

Sharpton does not have a snowball's chance in hell, but he may shake things up in the Democratic ranks and take some key support away from the white candidates. He's the wildcard, I suppose, in all this mess.

I don't really know enough about Bob Graham to speak about him. He's a senior senator from FL who will be the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee when the 108th Congress convenes later in the month. He shall have a problem with name recognition, but he could be a surprise in all this. Keep him in mind, I suppose.

This Howard Dean fellow from VT (the smallest state east of Mississippi) is probably the most liberal of all the possible candidates. His VT counterparts include Patrtick Leahy (D), the man holding up Bush's judicial nominations; Jim Jeffords (I), the quisling; and Bernie Sanders (I), a self-avowed socialist in the House. Unless Dean moderates his tone soon, he's out really quick. I have trouble seeing any candidate from VT getting the Democratic nod, but anything can happen I suppose. It's still far too early in the game to know for sure.

[You're probably right. I haven't looked much into Dean, so I can't say much about him, but Vermont being New Hampshire's neighbor, there could be a chance that Dean could fare well in the key primary in New Hampshire. But while winning early is often key to success, it isn't always necessary -- someone still has to win most of the primaries to follow.]

I don't think I have left out anybody, but if I have, he probably will not win. Happy New Year.

[Agreed. I can't completely count out a potential wildcard candidate, but anyone that steps in now or later would necessarily be recognizable by name, though I can't think of anyone. I'd hate to think that the Democrats could throw Mondale or Dukakis out there again. Or, wait, does Jimmy Carter want the job back? There's a good way to potentially shake up the Georgia vote. Unfortunately for Jimmy, I think he'd lose his home state against Bush. I'm at a loss for any Democrat that could beat Bush, and that's a good thing.]

Confirmed Democrat candidates: Senators John Edwards (NC), Tom Daschle (SD), John Kerry (MA), Representative Richard Gephardt (MO), and Al Sharpton. Wildcards and potential dark horses: Joe Lieberman (CT), Roy Barnes (GA), Hillary Clinton (NY), among others. On the other side, John McCain wants to run, but he knows better than to challenge Bush. If he chooses to run for President, he'll do it on an independent ticket, but I think he's smart enough to run to keep his Arizona Senate for now, and he'll run for the Republican nomination in 2008. No other Republican will challenge Bush. As for third parties, Ralph Nader is the Greens' only hope of thwarting Democrats again, and only Neal Boortz could muster a significant vote for Libertarians. I don't expect much from them. Now, for a limited analysis of the Democrat side.

First of all, Al Gore is the smartest of all of them. He knows that he can't beat Bush, but that people might still want him as President later. Running again now would not only hinder his presidential bid in the future, but it would likely also upset the Democratic Party across the board. Hillary Clinton has promised to complete her first term as Senator for New York, but if the polls favor her any more than they do now, and the rest of the party rallies behind her, she might "appeal" to the people of New York before running anyway -- if and only if she thinks she can beat Bush. Unfortunately, I think she has what it takes to make it very close. For the second Bush President to defend and lose his presidency to the second Clinton candidate, Bush would only need to make a minor mistake that Democrats could open wide, such as shaking hands with the former Enron chairman or letting a Lott-ism slip. (Bush isn't racist, by any means, but he does have an unfortunately documented history of letting words slip here and there, but it's nearly always quite harmless and humorous.)

Tom Daschle is the Democrat candidate I like least next to Clinton, and luckily it seems that Democrats nationwide feel the same. He just seems a bit more slimy than the rest, and being the Senate Democrat leader that couldn't protect his party's majority, he'd be better off pulling a McCain -- keep his Senate seat and wait until 2008 or 2012. I'm not sure how to guage Richard Gephardt's potential. As Democrat leader in the House of Representatives for the last several years, he's held a leadership position that never accomplished its primary goal -- to retake the House for the Democrats. I think he'll do twice as well as Daschle, but he won't get the nomination. He's better off running for a Senate seat.

I don't know much about John Edwards or John Kerry, but I would give Kerry the nod in that case because he's a popular Democrat from a Democratic region of the country. If Joe Lieberman's announcement within this week throws his hat into the ring, then Lieberman's name recognition alone could shake up Kerry's chances, but otherwise I'd give Kerry the nod. However, his attempts to portray himself as JFK (John Fitzgerald Kerry) and having a similar background to Robert Kennedy may help or hurt him; that remains to be seen. John Edwards, on the other hand, seems only to have money on his side, and I think a Democrat with money is more likely to be labeled a hypocrite than anything. I'd expect Edwards to be knocked out early. Popularity can get you so far, but then you look like a rich capitalist and the Democrat voters of the various states won't choose you.

Roy Barnes won't run for President; most people don't know who he is (Governor of Georgia until Sonny Perdue takes over January 13) and he couldn't get the votes. However, he's got the ambition, and many Barnes insiders think he'll make a run for the White House one day, perhaps by tagging along as a running mate for someone else's campaign, riding the Vice President title into the chief executive's office. That wouldn't work at all if he ran with Edwards, but with any of the candidates from New England or especially Tom Daschle (but only if Daschle had any chance of getting the nomination), Barnes could be a suitable running mate. Still, this is just a rumor that I've heard tossed around, and I think it probably has little to do with the election of 2004, though Barnes might make an effort... (In any event, if Zell Miller ever switches to the Republican Party, you can bet on Roy Barnes to run for the spot to challenge his seat.)

So let's sum this up. Should the Democratic Party falter and "force" it, Hillary Clinton could be persuaded to accept tossing her hat into the ring for nomination -- she has the best chance of beating Bush, but she likely won't run. Excluding Clinton, here's my list of the candidates I've listed above in the order of how likely I think they are to get the nomination, from most likely to least: Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Daschle.

George W. Bush is probably going to win in 2004, unless something very bad happens that hits his approval rating significantly. Only Clinton could beat her, and even that is unlikely at this point. If Al Sharpton runs for the Democratic nomination, he won't get it. If he runs on a separate ticket, which is most likely, he'll split the leftist vote and ensure a Bush victory no matter who runs against him.

A prediction: Bush 52% (~290), Democrat 45% (~245). Third parties will have a very insignificant effect on the popular vote. The election of 2002 showed a very slight lean toward the Republican Party. A presidential election will be a better reflection of any such trend, but I think Bush's popularity, should it remain, will provide a Republican-favored bias that will give Bush the edge. That combined with reapportionment following Census 2000, in which Republican states netted about seven electoral votes and Democrats lost about seven, for an overall shift of fourteen points... I'll stick my neck out: Bush will win fairly easily in 2004.

I think Democrats have lost their edge. Their game facea are varied and muddled, and they don't understand that they are shooting themselves in the foot, as opposed to Republicans doing it for them (though Republicans help by putting out a good message and mostly delivering on it). Democrats ran the Lott story into the ground and lost the racial advantage that it should have given them. After Frist's heroic work on I-75 in Florida, that debacle is all but erased. Give it a few more weeks... Democrat and/or black leaders will continue to stress that Republicans are racist until their own constituents finally raise up and tell them to put a sock in it.

I think Democrats are digging their own political graves because of their double standards. You can't advertise yourself as the party of equality and toleration and then promote the racial divide when someone makes an honest (if not idiotic, stupid, and wrong) mistake, or the economic divide when a good economic plan is passed, or the social divide anytime the Republicans get anything passed. What's great about that for Republicans is that most Democrats don't even realize their bias and hypocrisy! But they're starting to understand, and with that, it's only a matter of time before the masses wake up.

It's also a matter of time before Democrats change their tune. Then we'll find out just how socialist America truly is. Will alienated Democrats rally behind the American cause and go Indepedent, Libertarian, or even Republican? Or will the socialist side of the party come crashing through? Unfortunately, historical analysis of every other advanced democracy in the world suggests to me that a prominent socialist party is an inevitability in American politics at some point -- just how prominent is too difficult to tell, though the next few years of a socialist opposition to the conservative American political party may be instrumental in defining such a movement. The 108th Congress will be interesting indeed...

I like to remind myself each year of the previous year's best music, and my tastes have developed so specifically in recent years that I am this year dividing the music into two groups: albums (by a single artist, whether it be solo, duo, or group) and soundtracks (musical scores, inspired-by compilations, video-game music albums, etc.). The division essentially boils down to "Rock vs. Smooth", or lyrical vs. instrumental, or whatever. Either way, the following few albums are my few favorites from the year 2002. Take the list as a recommendation if you enjoy that style of music, or ignore it completely. It's really more for me anyway.

There are countless others that I'd highly recommend that didn't make the top ten, like Busted Stuff by Dave Matthews Band, Steal This Album by System of a Down, Away from the Sun by 3 Doors Down, and self-titled albums by Nirvana and 12 Stones. My musical tastes have taken a significant turn toward lighter music, specifically familiar themes from movies and such, but this was still a musical year dominated by the hard rock for me.

Here is the letter that I sent to the New York Times in direct response to the editorial by Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY) that appeared in the paper on Tuesday. It is another version of what I wrote earlier today, modified to be a more direct response to Rangel's editorial.

The New York Times being the most read newspaper in all the lands, I sincerely doubt that my letter will earn publication, hence why I have "published" it here.

Which would you prefer: a military draft or increased defense spending? Let me ask a more specific question: Should we save a few federal budget dollars by reinstituting the draft, therefore forcing more of our American children to die in order to achieve our military goals, or should we spend a few more dollars on the military to give them the technological advantage they need to get the job done without putting a greater number of our children in harm's way? I await your response.

My belief that human life is worth more than any material wealth trumps the idea for a draft -- I say boost the budget, save some lives, and as long as our volunteer military gets the job done, never force anyone to raise arms against another. Our military of volunteers is more than capable of getting the job done in Iraq and North Korea if necessary, and the fewer lives lost, the better, right? So why, then, are Democrats calling for a draft, to put more of our boys in the line of fire, but refusing to allow spending to provide the technological and other advantages that would prevent harm from coming to our American sons? (I only single out Democrats because no Republican I'm aware of has considered the draft; meanwhile, Democrat Congressmen are calling for it.)

I hate to make such a distasteful analogy, but I shudder to think that it might be true: Is money more important to leftist politicians in Washington than American lives?

I was not listening this morning, but as it is in his program notes, I'm guessing that Neal Boortz set off a small chain reaction of opinion bombardment this morning. His opening notes refer to the first "official" baby of 2003, the daughter of two mothers and no father. Neal highlights his distaste, opining that people should feel free to live whatever sexual lifestyle they would prefer, but that children should not be forced to be parented by homosexuals.

Following is an email I sent to the Neal Boortz Show upon reading Neal's comments:

Unless and until it can be proven that the "one man and one woman" union provides a definitively better life for a child than homosexual parents, then I can not rightly accept limiting homosexuals from having children of their own. So, it isn't what you and I want for our kids. Understood and agreed. But their kids are not our kids. At worst, their kids will be influences on our kids that we do not like, but as parents, it is our responsibility to teach our kids how to handle such potential influences, not that they should be oppressed and denied the right. This is the land of liberty, and that, in my opinion, would be un-American.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that I have no problem with homosexuality (unless it should pursue me, in which case I will politely, at first, remind him that I don't go that way). My child, when and if I should have one, will have one father (me) and one mother (the woman who chooses me). But I have a few homosexual friends, and there is no way in Heaven, Hell, or Earth that I would simply deny them the privilege of being my friend and meeting my child simply because of their sexual preference. Friends are friends, and people are people -- we are all different, and I embrace that as a dynamic trait of humanity.

No, I do not intend for my child to become a homosexual at any point in time, but I also understand that my only job as a parent, if I should become one, would be to prepare my child to live a life of his or her own, not to raise a child to live the life I want him to live. Certainly, until any child is an adult, it is the parents' responsibility to make most lifestyle choices for their children; but I'm too much of a libertarian to believe that everything should follow the traditional order just because some or even most people find it offensive. Some people just need to grow up.

UPDATE 17:52 -- Washington Post story about the New Year's baby.

If anyone out there, like me, has aspirations of getting into law school some day, it might not hurt to read Glenn Reynolds's discussion(s) regarding use and abuse of the Internet in the classroom. Some advice: sit in the front of the classroom, and don't be distracted by the Internet! Using it as a tool, as I like to do, can be very much helpful.

In fact, when it is available to me in class, I simply research whatever it is the professor is instructing along with taking down direct quotations from the professor and any associated textbooks we're using at the time. The point is that I have my professor's keywords and catch phrases, my textbook's definitions and outlines, and all the relevant information that world can offer through the Internet at my fingertips. It helps that I can type over 100 words per minute, and that I actually enjoy learning.

Of course, there are days when I find paying attention to be less important than others, such as those days when I am already more familiar with the lecture information than the back of my hand, in which case I might surf the web a little and copy down some key phrases and definitions here and there. Still, I check the only web reference sources to get second and third opinions on most topics that the professor discusses, just because doing that offers such a greater understanding of the material. As my primary goal is to understand the material (as it should be), and my secondary goal is to earn the best grade that I can (which should go along with the first, but often doesn't due to blunders of the education system), this makes sense to me.

Jen is 21! Congratulations on making it this far, and may your newly acquired liberties serve you well! ... I got her a book that she had hinted at wanting; apparently, I'm good at taking hints when they're actually given. That's not all, but the day has barely begun. I was there when the clock struck midnight and I was the first one to wish her a happy birthday, so I feel good. She actually had to wake me up at 12:03, but it was okay. I'm just exhausted after a great New Year's Eve get-together...

Jessica is 20! Jessica is Zach's girl. I don't know her well enough to even begin to know what to say, except that she's been an incredible amount of fun to be around! I hope she has a good birthday... I doubt she'll read this, but I'll make sure she gets the message. Maybe in the form of the traditional birthday spanking... Hmm. Lots of birthdays today. Lots of spankings!

Ryan is also 21. Sorry, Ryan, no spanking for you, or at least not from me. Ryan and I have two things in common, among other things: we each are the ex-boyfriend of both Claire and Dalila, not necessarily in that order. I don't really know what Ryan is up to lately, but I'm sure he's going to make use of this milestone.

Does anyone else have a January 2 birthday? It seems to be popular! The rest of you need to remember July 18...

Although anyone with half a brain knows that Bill Frist, the doctor, was not considering politics at all when he helped to stabilize victims of a car accident on a Florida highway, you know the incoming Senate Majority Leader is making Republicans look good.

Frist was driving east on the...Everglades portion of Interstate 75, heading to a family vacation home in Fort Lauderdale with his two sons when he came across the accident, which had just occurred. He was working with the victims when rescue officials arrived. He told them of the conditions of the victims and assisted paramedics for about 30 minutes until the victims were sent to area hospitals.

Whatever reservations about Senator Frist I had before, about him being too much of a pushover for the White House and so on, have been erased. This is the kind of person that needs to be running our country. He starts out by getting into politics because he wants to make a difference; he had never before held or run for any political office before being elected to the US Senate in 1994. He has promised to retire from the Senate at the conclusion of his second term, which ends in January 2007. He is a heart and lung surgeon who genuinely wants to help out where and when he can. That's the kind of person that needs to hold every political office in America.

I am very spontaneous but also indecisive when a decision needs to be made for a group, unless there is a definitive best option. Therefore, it should not surprise you that I had no plans, but only options, for how to spend New Year's Eve until the last minute. I knew what my options were, but I was secretly hoping that Zach would call and have something spectacular planned. Well, maybe the word "spectacular" doesn't fit well, but he did put something together and give me a call, which was all the more exciting since I had hoped to hang out with him and his company in the first place. I would have called him if it weren't so horribly rainy and if I were not also comfortable with the other options I had available. (I didn't want to feel like I was blatantly abandoning anyone; at the same time, I did not want to commit to anything until I knew it was my preference.)

So from about 10:00 till about 11:30 we watched a rather pointless movie, Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, and mostly made fun of the bad story, fantastical explosiveness, and dialogue. Actually, the baby and the dogs drowned out much of the dialogue, so we would take actors' facial expressions and ad-lib dialogue as the movie progressed: "Hmm, my hair seems out of place. *scratch* AH! Damn dandruff!" ... "Have you tried Selson Blue? It tingles!" Such activity made the movie more bearable, almost in the same manner that Mitchell is only watchable with the help of "Mystery Science Theatre 3000".

Zach then vanished to find something in his room, and I followed him to find out what was taking so long. We talked for a couple minutes as long-time friends do in happy times, and Jessica followed in moments later to find out what was taking us so long. We continued to discuss everything and nothing as close-knit trio should until, about five minutes before the ball was to drop, the rest of the house came in to find out what was taking the three of us so long. Sexual innuendo was present. All was merry.

The ball dropped. We lit firecrackers in Smirnoff Ice bottles and mailboxes, and eventually lit them and threw them just before they exploded. (Fun!) Then our supply of gunpowder-wrapped-in-cardboard was depleted, so we watched Office Space -- OH MY GOD, half the room had never seen it! When that ended, there was more merrymaking, then we pulled out the bed and watched Dogma as parts of the house went to sleep. I was crammed very closely and cozily between Jessica and Vanessa for much of the night; all was merry.

I awoke around ten till noon, when Zach was to be at work (damn!). Jessica hung around for a short while before vanishing to do the family thing, and shortly thereafter I vanished to do my own thing. I visited my dad and watched the start of the Auburn game ("Way to go Auburn! Give it away!"), and then I visited Tony and caught the end of the Auburn game (I wonder what dad said when the game ended with Auburn on top... Yay!) Then, in a move that surprised even me, I stopped by the Ragsdales' on the way home and fortunately found that they had not yet left for Seattle. I hung about and talked with Claire for about fifteen minutes before she left for Alex's. I then chatted with Ma and Pa Ragsdale (Carmelita and "Don Dan"!) for another half hour, explaining how life had finally regained some semblance of normality, despite emotional equivocality.

Ah, all in a day's work. It's been fun! Now, on to Jen's and Jessica's [and Claire's other ex, Ryan's] birthday... January 2! Beware the penguin.

May the new year bring greater fortunes, better times, and more time to enjoy it all! Smirnoff Ice or Skyy Blue would be nice, too.

A few of New Year's Resolutions:

I also want to improve my collection of DVDs, CDs, and books while saving enough to buy a laptop. This can probably only be done without a girlfriend. Finishing Grand Theft Auto III and playing through Max Payne would be nice too, although video games for me are only a refuge, not a daily excursion. And, perhaps most important, I want to keep everything about my life with which I am satisfied as it is or I want to improve it. Nothing gets worse, you hear me?!

Party safely, and make a good start to 2003!