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 wo