(I wonder how many people are going to misinterpret this headline.)

Good news! The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California has rejected a request of the Bush administration to reconsider last year's controversial decision regarding the constitutionality of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in classrooms. The court is upholding its decision that "the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public classrooms" (emphasis mine). Expect this case to appear before a United States Supreme Court near you relatively soon.

My worthless (in the grand scheme of things) opinion: including the words "under God" in the pledge is a violation of a fundamental rule of American government: that endorsement of any religion (via a religious figure, belief, or otherwise) by the government is not allowed. President George W. Bush, the man, is allowed to say "God bless America" and to preach his own views in any setting, but he comes close to crossing some constitutional lines when he utilizes religious rhetoric while issuing policy statements. However, as his speeches are rarely the official word on anything, he can get away with it. Including such rhetoric in the text of a law, however, such as the law establishing the Pledge of Allegiance, is a clear violation.

I also believe that any requirement that any student must recite the pledge is a violation of that student's freedom of speech. I understand that schools may enforce specific rules in order to maintain its various purposes, but its purposes can not violate the Constitution. As a government institution, a public school can not require a child to say anything, nor should a public school force exposure of all children to the Pledge of Allegiance while the pledge includes the words "under God". The reason? It is an unfair endorsement of one religion (or a set of religions, if you want to take the monotheistic route) while ignoring other religions -- it shows religious preference, which is unconstitutional in my estimation.

I am curious to see how the Supreme Court will handle this. I honestly am not concerned about the decision either way; I believe society is becoming more secular by the day, and eventually religious references will be treated as literary references. Of course, we will still seek answers to the "big questions" of life, the universe, and everything (I thank you, Douglas Adams), but religion will fade to memory and will be replaced by the more appropriate field of spirituality. Time will tell on that, I suppose.

FOX News Channel has a new place for conversation and celebrity interviews -- "Pat Sajak Weekend". Famous for hosting the game show Wheel of Fortune for more than twenty years, Sajak brings his easygoing style and veteran experience to his new show.

This could be very interesting. Tune to Fox News Channel Sunday night at 9:00 to see what he's all about.

A regular correspondent tells me that "Claire doesn't deserve the status of having changed [my] opinion about marriage". Well, I'll be honest: Claire didn't change my opinion, she only reinfornced an idea that I had discovered years before. I had been willing to make a sacrifice despite the logic of the idea. Despite my understanding that marriage is an economic and legal blunder, I also understand its symbollism, especially as perceived by the average female (forgive the stereotype). What I don't understand, however, is how people think they must be legally and contractually bound to each other in order to feel like their love truly means anything. Whatever happened to trust? How can that be true love if you feel like you must lock yourself into it?

That's what love does, it turns you against logic. When you're in love, you sacrifice things for the two of you regardless of any personal, individual goals. People make those sacrifices. (Of course, as it was pointed out to me, I didn't sacrifice enough. Apparently, earning my education to earn a decent living, despite that I would rather spend my time with her, was not a sacrifice under her terms. Oh well... someone else will reap those benefits.)

Of course, I also let the concerned contributor know what I really think about Claire:

Surprised? Don't be. I've tried to get one point across to most people who claim to know me over the year, and it rarely sinks in with anyone: you really don't know me. I have learned that my logic is very much different from yours and just about everyone else's. There are only two people in this world who actually understand me. One of them knows who he is and will never read this, the other one thinks she knows and will probably ask me later. In other words, anything you think you know about me you should only take lightly. I am a very difficult person to figure out. :-)

I really wish they would actually schedule Spring Break in the Spring. Disney World at 45° isn't exactly what I look forward to. (Speaking of Disney World, I owe thanks to Claire. Thanks to her destroying certain dreams of mine, I am nearly confident that I will never marry. In proving that the girl I thought was perfect isn't so, she has proven to me that anyone is capable of betrayal. So why bind legally to anyone with that potential? Besides, the economics doesn't add up -- you are monetarily penalized for being married. Simply living together is a much better idea because there are no strings attached. I have heard so many of my elders tell me, "If I knew then what I know now, I would never have gotten married." And these are happily married people. I have a history of respecting the logic of my adult contemporaries despite that I know little of what they're talking about, and they nearly always turn out to be right in the end. It's a good thing that I'm a good listener. Thanks, Claire, for ending that dream and opening my eyes to reality. I only wish that you would open yours as well.)

In International Relations (that's a class I'm taking) today, we watched a video on the history of warfare and international conflict. I found it incredibly amusing that all the "experts" on which this documentary relied for their history of warfare were French. French historians, French political scientists... I wish I had been given the opportunity to ask the class what they thought about watching a video in which French "war experts" told us how horrible war is and why we should avoid it. (Granted, this video was put together in the mid-1990s and was very well done, but...) Is Neal Boortz reading this?

I have watched television like nobody's business this week. Having no access to the Internet from within my home, I've been forced not only to get the news only through what the networks feed me (ugh), but I have no means of opining on their interpretations of the facts. On the upside, I have more time for things like homework and Grand Theft Auto, but homework is still difficult to do since I rely heavily on email and the Internet for quite a bit of it.

I'm much closer to getting my laptop, which should kill two birds with one stone, allowing me both an Internet connection and curing the ills of working with a craptacular laptop on a daily basis. But it won't kill the third bird, which is restoring Internet access for my mom and sister. I've decided that the problem is either with the processor or motherboard, though I have not completely ruled out that the power supply could be the problem. Either way, I don't have the tools to get to the processor, so I have to outsource this project to someone who does. Jenny's got someone on the inside, so maybe I'll have a computer again by the middle of Spring Break.

I want to comment on Iraq, North Korea, election 2004, Miguel Estrada, and everything else that's happening in the world. A large percentage of my leisure time is typically spent gathering information and preparing my interpretations of the facts for sharing with you. Without the Internet, not only is my access to the information extremely limited, but I have no means to share my thoughts. How very stressful. I apologize for leaving you exposed to their biases unchecked for the last week, and I hope that it does not continue for too much longer, but until I get a working computer, well..... Ugh.

p.s.-- Forgive me if these posts seem scatterbrained. Grammar and diction are likely off because I'm not at my usual posting station. I haven't been able to post to the Political State Report for over a week, and a lack of Georgia news is the result. (Check that site out; it's a great source of grassroots political news. Offer to be a contributor!)

I don't have a computer at home yet, so I won't update this site again until Thursday afternoon, most likely, so this really isn't that much to read. Take your time. Come back later to finish. Whatever! Give me a call or send me an email, and maybe I'll find a computer

So my economics class got mad at me to day. We got the first part of our midterm back, which consisted of 45 fill-in-the-blank and 55 multiple choice questions. The general consensus for the class was, well, this test sucked! But these 100 questions are only 50% of the test -- we also had a very long essay to write on Alan Greenspan's testimony to Congress back on February 11. Well, the other five students in the class were a little upset because I only missed 19 of the 100 questions... We don't really know if there was going to be a curve, but apparently missing only 19 seriously screwed up any potential curve.

I don't want to put too much emphasis on my "good" score though. Keep in mind that I've been studying (to some extent) economics for over two years now -- more or less since election 2000 heated up. So after thirty months or so of analyzing the two sides (and the in-betweens) of American political economic debate, most of this course has been a refresher on the concepts and an emphasis on terms that label them... Given that I write about this stuff fairly often, I have a reasonably good idea what's going on in that class. (Aspiring to major in economics at UGA after I get out of this dinky school guides my motivation as well.)

In my next class, international relations, we received two quizzes that we took last week. We didn't discuss these, but I was thrilled when I got a perfect score on each. I think now that I'm finally over ______________, I am better able to handle the workload that a full semester requires. Hell, I somehow pulled out Dean's List last semester despite failing three midterms; I went from expecting four C's to making 3 A's and 2 B's. So, in my mind, there is absolutely no excuse for making anything worse than 5 A's this semester. Time will tell on that... Some projects (in my easiest classes, ugh) are proving to be quite the challenge.

My computer at home is still dead. I've narrowed the most likely source of the problem to either the motherboard or an impotent power supply. Either component is a pain to replace, but replacing either or both is cheaper than buying a new machine, especially given that this one is still in excellent condition and is highly capable of keeping up with today's technologies.

My quest for a new laptop is nearing its peak. I'm thinking about asking certain parental units for an advance in funds (a month or two advance, at most), because otherwise I won't be able to get the laptop until the semester is over. This would be mostly useless, since the laptop is dying now and screwing up my ability to get work done in my current classes. All the same, if the laptop somehow survives till the end of April (I'm not very confident that it can, and I don't want to deal with it if it can), I will easily be able to afford a very nice laptop without help from immediate family. All the same, if I get one now, they will be repaid just as easily by the end of April and I will have conserved much energy that could have been wasted laboring over a laptop that seems determined to die.

Hmm... news...

Dan Rather interviewed Saddam Hussein, and Hussein challenged George Bush to a televised debate via satellite link. Yeah, that's gonna happen. (Mentioning this started the age-old battle question, this time asking about Bush vs. Hussein: who would win in a no-holds-barred showdown? My prediction: Saddam would try to pull something to the effect of a suckerpunch, only more deadly, and George would pull his Colt 45 and pop him, only to realize that Saddam had a chemical weapon set to go off when his heart stopped beating. Um... yeah...)

About the war: I suggest that we dress up like Germans and invade France in Russian tanks and let them sort it out while we get our groove on in Iraq. But seriously, I am tired of the networks reporting this "second" Security Council resolution -- IT'S THE 18th.

Also, I'm annoyed that critics of military action against Iraq continue to oppose the Bush administrations impatience and unilateralism -- we've waited twelve years for Iraq to comply, and they haven't even tried to from the beginning! Many thought this war was going to start by the end of 2002, but Bush went ahead and allowed the United Nations to have its say. The war effort could not be any more patient without fully appeasing a ruthless dictator. And unilateralism? Just what part of more than forty countries signed on to fight this battle with us can fall under unilaterlism?

An argument for getting this over and done with: The uncertainties of the consequences of war is the only thing holding back the American economy from letting us know how it really wants to behave. The sooner this business with Iraq is resolved, the sooner we find out if our economy is ready to resume a healthy rate of growth again -- as the Federal Reserve Board and Congressional Budget Office fully expect.

I agree with Colin Powell, who has this to say when a journalist asked him if he considered himself to be an Iraq hawk:

People are hanging labels around me. I am what I am. You can call me or label me any way that you wish. I pushed for this UN resolution, and this UN resolution says Iraq gets one final chance to come into compliance with its obligations. Nobody wants a war. I don't like war. The President doesn't like war... So my position has been, let's try to solve this peacefully. If Iraq is not willing to participate in a way that solves it peacefully, then time will run out on Iraq and Iraq will pay serious consequences. I think that time is running out and there's every incentive now for us to make that clear to Iraq.

The Georgia flag is getting too much attention in the Empire State of the South. I am of the opinion that we should keep the thirteen red and white stripes from Old Glory (that's the American flag), and in the upper-left blue corner, put the Georgia seal in place of the fifty stars, or something to that effect. Copout? Sure, but no one is going to like any Georgian flag for the next twenty years anyway, so you might as well start with something neutral.

Reading assignments (excellent editorials):

Andrew Sullivan, Time: Going to War...

Ken Adelman, New York Post: Blood for Oil...

Dan Rather interviews Saddam Hussein (CBS News)

Time to return home to peace and quiet. I think I'll play Grand Theft Auto III.

I awoke yesterday morning and left for a full day (nine hours) of work, and I returned to a computer that had been shutoff by the "inspectors" (you know, those guys that make sure your home is nice and safe when someone wants to buy it from you), and anyway... they turned off the power. As you may (but probably do not) recall, my computer's power-on switch is rather, um, impotent. Once in a blue moon, it works. Usually, it starts to turn things and quickly returns to its resting state before anything has time to even think about beeping. As you might have guessed, this is a significant problem, but as leaving it on indefinitely avoids the problem, I haven't felt like getting it fixed yet.

So anyway, the inspectors effectively killed my computer, and now it doesn't want to come back on. I'm stuck updating at work, and that's only on the few days I work, and only when I get a spare moment... which is twice in the last two days. This also means that I can barely access my email or chat, and with a barely-working laptop, I can barely do my homework. Needless to say, this is a near-crisis situation. And then there's the drama of moving into a new home (something like the first week of April, or right when projects are coming on at full steam).

So I'm exhausted... when I really shouldn't be. I awoke from a nine-hour nap yesterday, worked for nine hours, and upon returning home I had no computer to play with, so I lay down to watch the news and inadvertently fell asleep. I slept for five hours and woke around 11:30. Still without a computer, I drank half a glass of wine, caught up on the news of the day, and eventually fell asleep again at about 3:00. A powerful storm knocked out the power in my house, but thunderclaps woke me only a few minutes late anyway... Either way, I have slept a week's average sleep in the last two days, and I'm tired because I keep laboring over a dusty pile of metal and plastic that won't do what I tell it to do.

As for real news, I'd comment on that, but I really am supposed to be at work here. Unfortunately, that keeps my options very limited. More commentary and analysis when time permits. Hope the weekend goes well for you!

Prediction: This headline is going to spike web traffic.

The UK government-backed course is encouraging minors to experiment with oral sex as part of a drive to prevent teenage pregnancy. Critics say the program will have the opposite effect because it stimulates the sexual interest of children, and it doesn't protect them from sexually transmitted diseases.

[The course] aims to reduce promiscuity by encouraging pupils to discover “levels of intimacy”, including oral sex, instead of full sexual intercourse. More than 100,000 children are now taking the course at one in every thirty secondary schools.

Let's be objective here: the course will probably do more of what the critics say than what the supporters say -- that is, it will hurt more than it will help -- but it will help some. Those who were going to try sex anyway may be less likely to if oral sex is sufficient, while others are still going to try it anyway. Some who were uninterested in sex will remain uninterested, while others will be drastically more confident with the exposure to, um, whatever this class is teaching them. Given that, I believe Bill Clinton has won, sexual activity and STDs are going to rise dramatically in Britain, and teenage pregnancy rates will drop, but not significantly.

How much of our anti-Iraq sentiment is still with us because of American pride? I understand that Saddam Hussein is directly a threat to his region, and the example he sets is directly a threat to the collective security to the entire world. His war with Iran is what destroyed his country's economy, and the fact that the economy crashed even with our support in that war is further proof that Iraq's economic decline is not our fault. But consider this: If America and the United Nations had swallowed their collective pride in the 1990s and decided, instead of imposing heavy economic sanctions, that they would take the first step to disarm Iraq by offering supplies to develop Iraq's oil -- for Iraq to develop it and trade it according to its interests and needs, not ours -- in exchange for close monitoring to guarantee disarmament (at first -- it would lighten up as trust was built), then how much of today's situation of conflict could have been avoided?

This is a very open-ended question for a good reason: I want good debate to come out of it. What do you think? Good comments will be posted to this web site. This means I want you to click that last link and write something -- short and sweet or long and involved, and I guess it doesn't really have to be sweet -- whatever. Send me something, and I'll probably post it.

On September 26, 2001, Bill O'Reilly interviewed Dr. Sami Al-Arian, a professor at the University of South Florida who was "shocked" when a colleague of his "became the leader of the jihad movement" (Al-Arian's words). Read the entire transcript. It's an interesting series of shocking revelations about some of Al-Arian's acquaintances, not to mention his peculiar interpretation of the word "death":

I find it humorous that Al-Arian considers himself an expert on what President George Bush the elder, was or is thinking. I find it quite humorous that this man believes or alleges that Bush was authorizing a holy crusade. I find it humorous that this man thinks it acceptable to use his death-advocating slogans in such a way fully knowing that someone is going to take it literally. Sure -- you "know" you don't mean to literally harm anyone. But your ignorant servants do not.

O'Reilly stopped just short of accusing Dr. Al-Arian because that would be obviously have been slander, but he closed the interview by letting his guest know that Bill O'Reilly the CIA agent would "follow you wherever you went... with all of this circumstantial evidence... I'd be your shadow."

As it turns out, it wouldn't have been slander after all. Announcing a federal indictment this morning, Attorney General John Ashcroft identified Sami Al-Arian as the North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, "a U.S. government-designated foreign terrorist organization committed to homicide bombings and violent jihad activities".

This article sets up a point-counterpoint debate with the reactions of two academics of Middle Eastern heritage:

Georgetown University adjunct professor Rob Sobhani, an expert on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, said Al-Arian’s case proves terrorism by militants is alive and well within our borders... But Arabic professor Roger Allen, director of the Middle East Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn’t trust the government in the current climate.

Fox News provides a short biography and timeline of Amid Al-Arian and his potential involvement in terrorist activity. You might want to read about the Palestinian Islamic Jihad as well -- that's everything but the kitchen sink, which doesn't report news. :-)

I am not incredibly interested in this man's past or future unless he is found to be guilty. While he is only a suspect, I am simply fascinated that Bill O'Reilly had him on his show just two weeks after September 11. If this man turns out to be the killer some think he is, I'd like to hear what O'Reilly has to say about it!

Amy has been responding to various issues that I've covered here for the past few months, and I just found an email buried in my (hideously cluttered) inbox that's dated January 3. In it, she raises a good point: there could be a connection between eight years of cutting defense spending and what happened on September 11, 2001. No direct lines can yet be drawn, obviously, but the potential implication is clear: cuts to defense spending may have directly allowed the hijackers to prepare their attack without our stopping it because we lacked the resources to track them efficiently. We already know that INS had them on their radar screens months ahead of time, but they were months behind because they were underfunded and could not keep up with the workload.

The connection is hazy at best, but I'm certain that more direct lines can be drawn, if a direction connection is there. Thanks for the email, Amy, even if I have responded to several from you in the seven weeks since I received that one...

[IRAN] Minister of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani told a Tehran press conference on 19 February that Iran will "never" open its borders or airspace to Americans even if a U.S.-led attack on Iraq has United Nations backing...

Damn! What ever are we to do? We have lost the support of great and powerful Iran! Note how this is arranged: Americans can't use Iranian territory. The rest of the world's UN troops supposedly can?

From the same news real, I have gathered that the plane crash in Iran almost certainly had nothing to do with any kind of attack. Apparently it was just bad weather.

Error!

Tuesday, members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard crossed the border into Iraq, preparing for the war against Iraq, and also asserting that they will not sit idly by when/if Iraq is figuratively carved up following the war. Today, all 302 passengers on a plane carrying mostly members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard die when the plane crashes near Tehran, Iran. I doubt there is a causal relationship between the Revolutionary Guard's mobility and the plane crash (other than they wouldn't have been on the plane if they hadn't been preparing for war), but I wouldn't rule it out either. It's just too soon after initial mobilization... I'm surprised I haven't read skeptical reports in the news about this.

Does Alan Colmes have what it takes to be the "Liberal Rush"? Maybe this will offset the rumors that Fox News is a Republican news network, as well. Or, have you not seen Alan Colmes' web site? How much more liberal can one get?! --- OH NO! He changed things! His site used to be dominated by anti-Republican rhetoric and links! It's actually an ordinary Democrat's web site now. So much for that angle...

Tommy sends this link with the incredulous thought, "I wonder why Dan Rather hasn't scooped this story":

Bet: Fox News will be the first major news network in America to report this story. The article is much more informative, by the way.

Jenny shares a thought: "There's his portable weapons labs, right there!" Yeah, no wonder we can't find any needles in the haystack -- they were systematically removed and were put on a boat! Of course, this has not been confirmed. Speculation and skepticism are side effects of free will and speech.

Black leaders in Georgia are advocating that blacks boycott any statewide flag referendum, Zell Miller plans to fully endorse any tax cut proposal that comes across his Senate desk, and former Atlanta mayor Maynard Jackson will probably not be running for Miller's vacant Senate seat in 2004.

...

The story of the flag referendum is beginning to attract national attention with greater frequency. The Associated Press (via Newsday in New York) reports that "blacks would boycott a statewide referendum on bringing back the old Georgia flag with its large Confederate emblem. Black leaders said it would be insulting to even ask blacks to consider the question."

My first response should be an obvious question: what about a statewide referendum on ensuring that "the old Georgia flag with its large Confederate emblem" is not brought back? By boycotting this vote, aren't they potentially contributing to exactly that which they wish to prevent? I believe it is an insult for black leaders to disenfranchise anyone of any group, ethnic or otherwise, whether in great or small number. What a self-defeating plan!

Reverend Joseph Lowery, former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, addressed Governor Perdue at Martin Luther King Jr's tomb at a rally Wednesday: "If you insist on engaging in this type of political lynching, don't expect us to help put the noose around our necks."

By putting the "noose around our necks", it seems that the reverend is implying that (at least some) blacks would indeed vote to bring back the 1956-2000 flag. I do not believe that is what he meant to say, but I find trouble finding the logic in refusing to participate in the democratic institution of voting when the entire purpose of this episode is for the people to decide.

Final point (on this subject): if the 1956-2000 flag is chosen to fly over the capitol once more by a tiny margin, but hundreds or thousands of blacks refused to vote because of this boycott, then wouldn't this boycott by potentially thousands who would have voted against the flag be responsible for bringing it back by refusing to participate?

...

President Bush is visiting Harrison High School in Cobb County tomorrow to promote his economic stimulus plan. (An interesting side note: the school learned of the visit Tuesday, and have since rushed to prepare for the President's arrival.) See the Marietta Journal article for a local perspective on the story.

Senator Zell Miller plans to "welcome" the President to Georgia by announcing he'll support Bush's $674 billion economic stimulus package. Miller has stated that he will sign any tax cut bill that comes across his desk in the Senate. Miller is the first Democrat Senator to come out in support of Bush's economic plans and has thus been a thorn in the side of many liberal Democrats.

...

Former Atlanta mayor Maynard Jackson will probably not run for Miller's vacant Senate seat in 2004. "I've been taking a look at this issue and the research I've been doing is not complete," Jackson said. "But the closer I look, the less likely are the probabilities that I will run." There was speculation that Jackson was going to announce his candidacy today.

The 64-year-old former three-term Atlanta mayor cited personal, family and business interests as reasons for his current thinking. Jackson said he would have to give up his position in the investment firm of Jackson Securities if he decided to run.

Jackson's announcement leaves Congressman Johnny Isakson (R, Marietta) as the only declared candidate for Miller's seat.

Representative Richard Gephardt's formal announcement that he is running for the Democratic nomination for the office of President was self-defeating today, as he promised to "scrap the vast majority of the Bush tax cuts". Broadly attacking Bush's policies is to be expected from most Democrats, but too many Americans understand that the tax cuts are beneficial. The few rich Democrats that like the tax cuts won't support Gephardt, and the few poor Democrats who understand the principle equity, even when applied to taxation so that they receive a smaller nominal tax cut than someone who makes more money, will also oppose Gephardt.

Then again, in a field of six (seven? eight? do I hear fifteen?) candidates, there's no telling which direction this is going to go. If all six/seven/fifteen names appear on the primary ballots next year, I'd put my money on Miss Moseley-Braun, who would win simply because she's the only woman. All the guys, except Sharpton, sound the same and share a similar background. Sharpton's most distinct characteristics as a candidate, among the men, are that he's not an elected official in Congress and he's not white -- since Moseley-Braun now also shares those two qualities, she is the most distinct candidate in the running, being the only woman.

Hmm. I nominate Ben Tate! (Too bad it doesn't work that way. Although, I wonder if I could get him a few hundred votes from this area if a modest campaign were run for him...)

The House and Senate have grossly expanded on President Bush's already-huge budget proposal, passing legislation that increases federal spending by 7.8% over last year -- more than 22% over two years ago. I can understand expanding some programs that are actually beneficial to us, but there are so many wasteful government functions that would be carried out much more efficiently -- and without threat of government budget deficits -- if they simply weren't a part of the federal budget!

It's damn time we started pushing for federal spending cuts. Consolidate redundant government functions. Privatize others (in part, not in full, silly) where the government has the market cornered, such as education. Reduce the financial burden that our tax dollars are used for and help this country to make its production worth its cost!

Ignore this -- it is spawned out of gross bias and tells a horribly incomplete story.

TheOnion highlights the seemingly perpetual struggle for world shooting-into-the-air supremacy. Also be sure to check out this point/counterpoint argument over war in Iraq.

In unrelated news:

Two weeks after their Feb. 1 wedding, Matt and Liz Kuchen, both 32, regret remaining virgins until marriage. "Why the hell did I wait?" Liz said Tuesday. "I could've been having mind-blowing sex with dozens of guys these last 15 years, and instead I spent them making little uptight speeches about how it'll be more special if I hold out." Matt agreed, saying, "Stacy Pratt totally would've done me. Oh, man."

That's the story from London, England, where London Times staff writer Stephen Pollard has not only been ostricized by his friends for his standing up for his beliefs, but completely torn from them. I don't suppose this editorial in one of the world's most-read newspapers is going to patch things up any time soon.

I feel your pain, Mr. Pollard. I have been ostricized and ridiculed for suggesting my support of Bush's "imperialist war for Iraq's oil". But one thing I have learned is that people react more quickly and easily to emotional appeal, whether defended rationally or not, than to cold, hard, boring facts. Start pouring out the truth to them, and they quickly lose interest. Start mentioning the twelve years and seventeen UN Security Council resolutions that Saddam Hussein has thrown back in the face of the free world, and the "peacemongers" only remind you that war is bad! Never mind that God (whichever "god" you believe in) has demanded war on just about anything that moves since the beginning of time.

I have spent hours reading government data about Iraq's recent history, and despite the compelling evidence that the United States government has certainly not supported the Iraqi regime led by Saddam Hussein -- since war with Iran, anyway -- none of the facts presented come even close to supporting the allegations that the United States is at fault for Iraq's economic and political woes. All of the evidence I have read, from various government sources (including dozens of UN and European-government documents), only supports what I was hesitant to believe but prepared to accept: that Saddam Hussein is the catalyst of everything bad that has happened to Iraq since 1980.

It's time for a madman to be ousted. It's time for Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti to get out or get wasted. And if this opinion of mine is enough to cause distasteful feelings for me, then you are not worth my friendship. Good night.

Neal Boortz has written a speech for President George W. Bush to deliver to the people of the free world. Do you think Bush will incorporate some of these statements into his next major rally cry?

You may not agree with Mr. Boortz, but I think, for the most part, this speech is exactly what every American feels. This is what President Bush needs to say to the American people, to the United Nations, to Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti. It is time for the world to move on. It is time for life to go on as usual. It is time for history to get on with itself and remember Saddam Hussein only as a memory that could have been worse, much worse. Let's not give him that chance to force regret upon us.

Evidence, though not incontrovertible, that Michael Jackson's long-running "wacko" reputation with the press may have been fabricated from the start. I have argued with my mother extensively that Michael Jackson (and France, too) are being horribly mistreated. Sure, we all think bad things of Michael Jackson, but we can't prove any of the allegations. We consider him a negative in our society simply because he is so different. It's blatant discrimination -- at its worst because it seems like everyone is taking part.

The same thing is happening with France. Sure, they have a recent history of being not-so-brilliant on the battlefield, and they are unwilling to allow us to risk open war without their help. That is the prerogative of the French, and we have no right to deny them their right to their own foreign policy decisions. Simply opposing war has never been criminal. Simply disagreeing with the United States is not heresy. And, most importantly, they are just as convinced that they are right as we are that we are right. It doesn't matter what your reasons are: simply hating the French because they disagree with American policy will only worsen European-American relations.

No, I am not defending the French, nor am I defending Michael Jackson. On the contrary, I am attacking baseless attacks against France and Jackson. I don't mind criticism at all, but know your facts -- and political analysts' opinions are not fact, no matter how "expert" they claim their opinions to be.

What does France- or Jackson-bashing do for you?

p.s.-- The EU warns that Iraq has a "last chance" to disarm peacefully; NATO has authorized preparing a defense of Turkey without France; and Germany has lightened its anti-war stance, though it is still very much in favor of peaceful resolution if war can be avoided. So France looks to be alienating itself.

22 people have died -- so far -- from a panic-induced stampede at a night club in Chicago. A "minor fight" between two women prompted security guards to spray mace or pepper spray, and the result was a mass exodus -- there were over 1500 people in the club at the time. The primary cause of death was suffocation and, well, being crushed against walls and doors as hundreds of people tried to escape from the peppery air ... through doors that had been locked shut by the security guards who were trying to contain a bad situation.

I smell a really, really big lawsuit coming on...

Tony Blair, via Dave Stroup at whichwayup.org, on Iraq:

I was actually looking at various statistics on Iraq earlier this morning in preparation for writing my own article on Iraq for the school newspaper. I saw these statistics, and others. Almost as grim as the human conditions are the economic conditions -- inflation has averaged about 50% per year for about a decade. Their real GDP (that's overall production, or income, or expenditure) has dropped to about 25% of what it was fifteen years ago.

There's no other way to say this: Iraq has become a shithole, and worse, the madman at the helm has decided that, aside from setting a defiant standard in the international community, threatening to destroy his country's greatest resource is the answer to his problems. Unfortunately, I think the only answer to his problems is to rid him of all of them... There is only one way to extinguish any man's every problem.

And who can forget the image of last year? The message is more relavent than ever: Happy Birthday, Jim! And purple still isn't your color. (Believe me: you want to know the story behind this. Click the link to "last year" above and read up on some McCord family history. This is easier on me because I don't have to tell the story again! You'll be glad you made the effort. Unless, of course, it's your 18th birthday today.)

I still remember "Roast Jim" night at St. Simons Beach four summers ago. Lyndsey, Steven, Mike, and Zach were all there for a night of telling all of Jim's most embarrassing stories. Why? Well, why not?! And especially when I have no embarrassing stories to be told in retaliation! It was the least I could do. Of course, I got a speeding ticket on my way back to Warner Robins...

Two CDs that I will own as soon as they are released:

That is all.

Following a 31-24 Senate vote to drop the current redistricting appeal to the Supreme Court, Attorney General Thurbert Baker reiterated again on Friday that he would not withdraw his case defending the Democrat-drawn State Senate district maps. Senate Republicans have presented their own map, but the Democrat-controlled House says it will approve no new maps.

On Thursday, the Senate passed a bill laying out certain principles that map-drawers must follow, such as keeping districts compact and making decisions without the benefit of data on voting trends.

Then, late Friday, Senate Republicans floated the first version of their own map, which replaced twisting and meandering districts with ones that tracked county lines in many cases.

Democrat Senator Robert Brown of Macon accuses the Republicans of "black-packing", packing black citizens into the same district. What Senator Brown doesn't understand is that he is applying precisely the type of unjust, according to Repubilcans, mapmaking logic that Republicans believe should be ignored.

The Attorney General accuses the Governor of trying to assume the powers of the Secretary of State and of trying to "overrule the legislature". Democrats are stressing that this is "about independence" -- how far will this go if Perdue gets his way here?

All of these arguments are valid -- much more so than arguments regarding the flag referendum -- and have created much strenuous debate on the Senate floor in Atlanta.

Comments.

Apparently I have missed Bush's aggressive response to Alan Greenspan's economic monologue, but Thomas Oliphant writes for the Boston Globe an enlightening piece on how such a response could very easily have been a mistake on the President's part. The general idea: don't upset the man who holds the national purse strings. Of course, Democrats screwed up with Greenspan too. As I predicted, they are running away with Greenspan's very light criticism of Bush's policies, which Greenspan claimed could be the correct policies -- it is simply too early to tell, especially with war looming.

It seems to me that everyone is misinterpreting Greenspan or no one likes him in Washington or, more likely, in the media. In every Greenspan-related op-ed I see, someone is bashing Greenspan (or distorting his criticisms). I think he is going to keep his job when his term "expires" next year; others don't seem to think so. Of course, his time in that position will come to an end, but I don't think replacing him in a time of economic uncertainty is what Bush has in mind. Let the Democrats replace him and take the fall for it.

"Voodoo Economics vs. 'Rubinomics', in today's New York Times:

During the 1980 battle for the Republican presidential nomination, George Bush called Ronald Reagan's belief that you could dramatically increase military spending and cut taxes, while preserving fiscal discipline, "voodoo economics." Mr. Bush proved prescient, though he could hardly boast about it from his vice-presidential office. Now Mr. Bush's son is practicing voodoo economics, and it is Mr. Greenspan who has, however delicately, called him on it.

"Voodoo economics" is just a term that liberals and socialists (most of the Democrats) apply to supply-side economics because they either do not understand how it works or they do not want it to work. Supply-side economics is essentially the theory behind an economy built on the principles of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson: defending life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. On the other hand, you have Keynesianism and other forms of bureaucratic, centralized, and planned economic strategies that are pages from the writings of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin: these are the policies currently espoused by notables such as Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, and most of the rest of the Democratic Party.

Okay, so Herbert Walker might not have understood the theory of supply-side economics when it was first presented to him in 1980, but he saw what it did, and he hasn't criticized it since and, indeed, he implemented such policies during his presidency. And if little Walker were simply doing his father's bidding from the White House, don't you think he'd tone down the "voodoo economics" just a little? My point is this: either George H.W. has changed his mind and believes in supply-side economics, or George W. operates on his own and isn't fighting his father's battles. Either way, Democratic hypocrisy or untruth is exposed -- not like that's a difficult thing to expose, or anything.

Once again, budget deficits are not the evil that Democrats make them out to be. Yes, they are unpopular, but that's because half the country votes for Democrats, and therefore half the country trusts Democrats when they say deficits are irresponsible. But answer me this: would you rather be out of the financial doghouse and be able to get back to normal life without worrying about the economy this year, or would you rather take the Democrats' route and have your taxes raised in order to pay down the deficit and the national debt? This isn't a tough question.

Also, I'd like to point out that our current president's economic policies are just as much "demand-side" as they are "supply-side" -- tax cuts to individual tax payers are very much "demand-side" cuts. This doesn't get any play, though, because demand-side economics is supposedly how it has always worked; it's just that taxes have nearly always been raised, never cut. Congress cut takes in the early 1960s under John F Kennedy's leadership, and they were good. Congress cut taxes under Ronald Reagan's leadership in 1980, and they were good until Democrats in Congress inflated federal spending to gastly levels and the market crash of 1987 forced millions of mini-markets to capsize. These were not the fault of Ronald Reagan -- the economy just goes through cycles.

Now that George W. Bush has an economic plan that might actually work and no Democratic force in Congress that can legitimately stop it, Democrats are going nuts. They are throwing out every possible argument, legitimate or not, to persuade Americans not to trust Bushinomics. Why? Think about the highest priority for any political party: to have its officials sitting in elected office. With Republicans now controlling the Presidency, both houses of Congress, most of the state legislatures, and indeed most of the publicly elected seats in America, Democrats no longer have to worry about doing what's right -- because they are not in power! They only need to be the party of opposition, forcing the party in power to make the difficult decision of doing what's right versus what's popular.

Democrats are not interested in boosting the economy right now. They don't exactly want to see it plunge either, unless it can unquestionably be blamed on Republican policies. Rather, they would like the economy to hover stagnantly as it is or perhaps slow or regress just a bit -- they want the current party in power to be associated with nothing good happening so that their candidates will come through strongly in the next election cycle.

Why do I trust Republicans more than Democrats? It's all about how they play the game. Democrats are always scheming, always screaming, and always applying half-useful analogies and rhetoric simply in order to distort or damage the impression of their opposition. Republicans, on the other hand, keep that side of their game incredibly toned down -- and, indeed, such a strategy has likely cost them many elections -- and as a result, many swing voters simply hear "Republican policies are bad" from Democrats and "no, they're good" from Republicans, instead of a return attack. The logic in not attacking Democrats is idealistic: they hope to win because they are morally sound, when in fact they often have lost because the Democrats made their case (even if untruthful) more clear. Republicans choose not to distort Democratic ideals because they are distorted enough, but the politics of bad politics usually means worse faring for the party accused of making bad policy decisons.

But America has slowly awakened to Democratic rhetoric in the last ten years, and it has become hard to swallow. George Bush and the Republican Party, if they are going to continue their electoral dominance, must step up to the plate and knock a couple out of the park. It's time to set their policies down firmly and without question. They lead this country now, so it is up to them to set forth the policies they believe are best for us. If they should fail, then judge them for it. Judging them before they can take effect is the literal definition of prejudice.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution concisely explains How the Flag Referendum Would Work (article includes images of the three flags). Most interestingly, a Georgia voter would have to answer both questions (whether to keep the current flag and which flag, of the two choices, is better) or the vote is thrown out.

In other words, if you think the referendum is a silly idea and you want to express yourself by voting to keep the current flag, you must still choose between the two older flags: either the pre-1956 flag or the 1956-2000 flag with the Confederate battle emblem.

Secretary of State Cathy Cox, whose office conducts Georgia elections, is unhappy about this, citing via spokesman Chris Riggall that "this creates a situation where you could conceivably argue you are denying voters one of their choices".

[Personal note -- I would contend that this is no excuse to question the proposal. Make it clear to the voters how they are required to vote, and those who are ignorant or defiant of the requirements are likely not paying enough attention to politics, and their votes, as the rules of the proposed referendum explain, should not count. Call it "electoral Darwinism".]

Sonny Perdue counters via spokeswoman Erin O'Brien, who says that the referendum is designed to ensure that a majority of voters make the decision. A majority must choose to replace the flag, and only then can the majority, which includes those who did not want to replace the flag, choose from the remaining two flags. "Allowing people to simply choose among three flags could create a winner that doesn't carry a majority of votes."

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Jackson says she would boycott the referendum; she refuses to choose between two flags with Confederate emblems on them. As most Georgians know, the 1956-2000 flag is domianted by the Confederate battle flag. What many Georgians don't know is that the pre-1956 flag "resembles an early Rebel flag, the Stars and Bars".

Other points of interest, taken straight from the "How the Flag Referendum Would Work" article:

During the yearlong debate before the vote, money raised to promote either side would be treated as a campaign contribution under state law. That would limit contributions to $5,000, and make large donors' names public.

Before anything happens, the Legislature will first have to approve putting the questions on the ballot. And because this would be a non-binding referendum, the Legislature will have the final say on what, if anything, would happen to the flag after the vote.

Another potential problem is that the referendum may not work with Georgia's 22,000 election machines, which would require costly improvements to support the required software changes. Also, the voting machines aren't networked to prevent computer hacking during elections, meaning each machine must be tweaked by hand. Perdue has conceded that it would take some work to update the machines, but that we have a year to do it. [Besides, don't the machines have to be updated for the ballots -- by hand -- before each election? I do not understand why this is a problem. Anyone with more information on this, please comment.]

The legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives are having difficulty digesting the bill, saying it will take some time. House Democrats are looking for business leaders to choose sides so they may have a feel for public opinion on the matter before legislating the proposed referendum.

As you may recall from Wednesday's news, Governor Perdue's proposal would have the referendum take place on the same day as the presidential primary: March 2, 2004. It is almost inconceivable that the Republican primary will serve any purpose; I doubt that President Bush will be seriously challenged. Therefore, it can be assumed (though somewhat questionably) that the voters turning out on that election day are more likely to be Democrats. Of course, Republicans have interest in Democratic candidates too. Combine the flag referendum with Georgia's open primary, and it is difficult to determine whether (as I would think) Democrat-supporters will be the majority of voters on March 2, 2004, or whether it would be a relatively even split. Either way, given that my suggestion could be correct, those participating in the flag referendum would almost certainly defeat the flag that flew over the capitol from 1956 to 2000.

The Georgia General Assembley web site presents the full text of House Bill 380 (the flag referendum). The summary is here.

Comments.

Not Osama, but his son. Sad bin Laden and other al-Qaeda terrorists are in Iran, which borders Iraq, and questions have been raised about potential links to the government in Tehran. With an impending war in Iraq, do you think this means we'll be taking the war on terrorism next door? I mean, you know, while our troops are there...

As submitted to Slashdot:

NASA is conducting a survey of the sky to find asteroids large enough that a collision with earth could be 'extinction-type impact', and none studied so far will threaten us in the next 200 years. Of course, if a doomsday asteroid is discovered, the current policy is not to say a word: 'If you can't do anything about a warning, then there is no point in issuing a warning at all', says Dr. Geoffery Sommer. The issue may be making its rounds because an asteroid was discovered orbiting the sun between Venus and Earth earlier this week. Space.com presents a lengthy, four-part 'Impact Debate' (next three parts coming next three Tuesdays). Apparently we are just as likely to die by asteroid impact as in a plane crash.

There are some ethical and social issues in this. Would we have the right to know, and would they have the right not to tell? The right to know something gives us the right to demand it, but that does not give us the right to force it. That said, if you knew someone would die without information you possessed, it would be a crime in most places not to share that information. But if everyone were to die just the same, and mass hysteria were to result from the sharing of such information... Like I said, this is a good conversation waiting to happen!

I am actually rather fascinated by the newly discovered asteroid between Venus and Earth. Apparently it never comes closer than about 17 million miles from us or 4 million miles from Venus, and it's about one kilometer wide and thus moves very quickly to match the sun's pull.

Even more fascinating is the asteroid of about the same size that came within 75,000 miles (120,000 kilometers) from earth last June. Compare that to the moon, which orbits about 200,000 miles away, nearly three times that distance. That, my friends, was a cosmologically close call...

And I don't even want to think of all the things zipping through space at ungodly speeds that we'll never know about.

I don't like Al Sharpton. I think he is a racist. I think he is ignorant. And, worst of all, I think his racist ignorance persuades others, thus further inhibiting man's natural quest for higher understanding and for colorblind society. That said, I also understand that he is an intelligent man. He knows what he is doing, even if he doesn't know the full scope of what he is doing. If he could tone down the demagoguery and speak with a normal tone of voice to an audience of college students, I would happily find myself in that audience (if the option were available to me) -- even if his points of view annoy me.

Given that, this is absolutely morally wrong. Presidential hopeful Al Sharpton was scheduled to speak at Miller High School in Texas yesterday, but the school was evacuated twice for bomb threats. There is no credibility to the claim (yet), but officials say the Ku Klux Klan threatened to bomb the school if Al Sharpton were permitted to speak.

This, my friends, is a clear example of anti-libertarianism, anti-liberalism, anti-Americanism in practice. I may not like Al Sharpton's ideas, but he is not anti-American. He simply has a radical view (according to my view) of how Americans should behave. But the KKK, or for someone shielding themselves with the KKK label, to call in bomb threats to prevent Sharpton's speech is a violation of several laws and an impediment on many of Sharpton's and the school's civil rights.

I do not necessarily believe in capital punishment, but I do believe in justice being served. People like the person who made these bomb threats should be systematically "eliminated". The end.

I have been waiting on the perfect editorial before mentioning this, and I think I found it. Jennifer Braceras, a commissioner on the US Commission on Civil Rights, wrote for the Washington Times of Misguided Judicial Politics, essentially proving how the Democrats of the Senate (and all who support them) are racist in their holding back of one of the best lawyers this country may have ever known. Ruben Navarette Jr of the Boston Globe also attempts to explain why Democrats are terrified of Miguel Estrada, the 42-year-old Honduran lawyer who has pleaded fifteen cases before the Supreme Court but is neither Hispanic enough nor qualified for a District Court post -- a judicial nomination so low in rank that it has never been filibustered on the Senate floor in the Senate's 213-year history. Until now.

I suggest that the Democrats' policy regarding Miguel Estrada is racist. If Democrats can filibuster a native Honduran and one of the best lawyers this country has ever seen for a post that has never been filibustered before simply because they don't want Republicans to nominate the first Hispanic to such a high judicial post, then they are racist. I do not understand how this can be ethically or politically justified, and I believe the Democrats are going to take a horrible fall for it. That, by the way, wouldn't be a bad thing.

From Jennifer Braceras's editorial:

In explaining their unprecedented opposition to the nomination, Senate Democrats have attempted to paint Mr. Estrada as Hispanic "in name only." Such attacks on Mr. Estrada's ethnic authenticity have exposed a deep hypocrisy, rooted in racism, on the question of diversity. Contrary to the assumptions of the Democratic leadership, the Latino community is truly diverse -- we come in all colors, religions, and, yes, political inclinations. Yet the Democratic leadership has decided that the only "genuine" Latinos are those they can control. Anyone else is simply unacceptable, a renegade to be extirpated as not truly "Hispanic."

I'll be more direct and expand the scope of this argument: Democrats for years have advertised themselves as the political party for racial, ethnic, social, and gender equality -- or simply the party of equality. The hypocrisy comes in when they only except those who support their views as qualified for such "equality" -- in other words, liberals only. The Miguel Estrada case is only currently the most brilliant example of this. Recall that only a few months ago, US Secretary of State was called an "Uncle Tom" and a "slave" to George "Whitey" Bush simply because he was a Republican. Notable conservative African-American journalists such as Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams have for years been accused of whitewashing their skin with their political views -- they aren't "really black" according to the Congressional Black Caucus, which is a racist body in itself.

Neither is Miguel Estrada "really Hispanic", according to Senate Democrats, who allege that he is Hispanic in name only, but mostly because he lacks a "natural constituency among Hispanic special-interest groups, most of which are controlled by Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans". On the other hand...

...non-partisan Hispanic organizations like the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the League of United Latin American Citizens (the nation's oldest and largest Latino membership organization) support the nomination.

Ruben Navarette's arguments point out that Estrada indeed has no judicial experience, but that was also true of five of the eight other judges currently sitting on the appellate court to which Estrada has been nominated at the time of their respective nominations. So that is no excuse to kill his nomination.

Byron York, White House correspondent for the National Review, discussed the Democrats' motivations as well, mentioning the policy lunch at which Tom Daschle announced the plan to stall Estrada's confirmation, as well as the Republicans' options from here.

York hits the main points: Republicans need sixty votes for a cloture that would end the Democrats' filibustering, and they have all 51 Republicans plus Zell Miller (D-GA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and John Breaux (D-LA). But there are good reasons both for and against calling for a cloture. Against: Republicans "don't want to get into the practice that any time you have a 'controversial' nomination, you have to have 60 votes to confirm" -- that would be a horrible precedent to set, morphing the politics of confirmation into politics of obstruction. Obstruction should never be the standard order of business, but it seems that is exactly the case when Democrats are the opposition party.

On the other hand... there is an argument to be made for calling a cloture vote... even if Republicans are unable to collect enough Democratic support to win. A roll-call vote would force Democrats to stand up one-by-one, by name, in opposition to allowing a confirmation vote for Estrada. "We need to get these Democrats personally on the record about this," one Republican says, "with a roll call vote to put up or shut up."

The Democrats' reasons for opposing Estrada's nomination are not holding up, and "when searching inquiry into a candidate's public record fails to reveal any legitimate cause for concern, continued opposition to the nomination begins to reek of racism." And this, among other arguments just presented to you, is why the Democrats are going to suffer electoral consequences for their treatment of Miguel Estrada on the Senate floor.

Various news organizations based in Washington have planned their escape routes as the threat of terrorist attack looms, particularly exciting Washington and New York. But here's an obvious question: what about the rest of us?

Okay, so this is one of those times when capitalism probably comes in full force: every man for himself! (That is, every man for himself and anyone conveniently nearby who is worth saving, such as family and friends.) "In a capital city where the air or water might be toxic", and where escape routes "are likely to be jammed" in the event of an attack, there would be no time or room to try to save everyone. And one can hardly doubt the value of those news organizations getting set up elsewhere to keep us informed of what's going on.

So, that's my interpretation of that. Darwinist at worst, and rational at best. Of course, I don't think the threat of any seriously destructive attacks in Washington or New York is credible. At worst, terrorist action in those two cities might resemble the Oklahoma City bombing. With regard to truly destructive attacks, I would be more worried about middle-America and "less-important" urban centers around the country.

I said it in November. I said it again in December. I alluded to it in January. Now I'm not even going to say it, because Pete Du Pont sums it up quite well:

There is very little chance of defeating President Bush in 2004. Yes, the war and the economy could go wrong, and terrorism could take another bite out of our country. But the president is gaining deep respect as a moral, forthright and firm man, who like FDR and Ronald Reagan actually believes in things. Unless the administration makes a major mistake, Mr. Bush [is] unbeatable.

Okay, I will say it: the Democratic Party as we know it today is through in America. It is going to take some time or a really strong leader (pray: please not Hillary! please not Hillary!) to turn them around. They have forgotten how to operate as the opposition party because they were in charge for so long, and their antics and policy proposals since Bush and the Republicans took over only continues to reaffirm this. Rather than oppose the President and his party with programs that would work, they continue to push ideas that are damaging to the way this country functions -- and their supporters are following them! Well, except for the few that are jumping ship.

Prediction: Bush 310, Gephardt 230. See you in November 2004!

If you are curious about various "weapons of mass destruction", Fox News has a Weapons of Mass Destruction Handbook that lists biological, chemical, nuclear, radiological, and other potential weapons, as well as a list of important links. If you're curious about the nature of these weapons, as I'm sure most of us are given the current state of the world, I would suggest investigating this "handbook". Each weapon is identified and described, as are its symptoms and effects and where they can be found or how they spread. A very useful resource.

We discussed feminism in International Relations today in the context of the international power system that governs the civilizations of planet Earth. The discussion was very entertaining, and I chose to remain silent except at key moments, mostly to clarify statements as subjective (opinions and values) or objective (factually provable or disprovable). In doing just that, I pointed out that the claim that the male and female brains are equally capable is a subjective claim. Dr. Decker respectfully (at first) disagreed and challenged my understanding of the word "subjective". I conceded to him his (incorrect) point with the following monologue (give or take a few words):

I obviously have no argument prepared. I have no proof of my claim; I simply disagree. [He interupts: "It's fact! Look it up!"] No, it isn't, and you have no proof that it is. Now I can not prove my point here and now, so I concede the argument to you. But neither do you have proof that I am wrong. ["But you are wrong!"] So prove me wrong.

I told him that our debate was offtopic and irrelevant since neither of us could prove our point and to get back to the debate that had had the rest of the class engaged, which he did. I think it was a smart move on my part. I challenged him on his turf, but I made it very clear that I had no proof of my claim, only that I respectfully disagreed. I was not given an opportunity to explain myself, so here is that explanation, which shall be making an appearance in POLS 2401 next Tuesday!

And this, my friends, is why you do not blatantly and excitedly exclaim to a classroom of twenty adults that I am wrong when I am, in fact, not wrong: I will splash the incident onto the Internet! I hope I have entertained you.

This could be the beginning of the end of Iraq's Presidency as we know it. (Follow that link for speeches, a biography, and more -- straight from the President himself!)

The table is set for a post-Saddam Iraq that will have the head of the US military's Central Command, General Tommy Franks, rule Iraq while a new government is set up in Baghdad. Administration officials have stressed that it is America's goal "to liberate Iraq, not to occupy it", though they are aware that many in the Middle East will interpret a temporary US leadership in Iraq as occupation. Even some Iraqi opposition leaders question the plan, though -- no surprise here -- Prime Minister Barham Salih of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan supports it. The Christian Science Monitor article linked to above raises many important issues regarding potential results.

The US plan proposes to draft a constitution to be submitted to the Iraqi people for ratification. Even if the plan goes well, "experts" believe the interim regime will be in place for over two years. (Compare that to post-WWII occupation of Germany and Japan.)

I believe that unforeseen problems will arise, but I believe that the transition from Saddam's Iraq to the new Iraq will be much smoother than the average person fears. Except for the potential of chemical or biological attack (you know, the weapons that Saddam doesn't have) on UN forces in Iraq, I do not foresee any significant setbacks. Of course, if Iraq does use weapons of mass destruction to defend itself, then military action was and is entirely justified -- for Saddam will have proved the US to be correct all along and will make those stressing the importance of extending the inspection effort look very silly.

On that note, I will stress again that I believe France and Germany are on the decline, and China and Japan are on the rise. France and Germany both are on the Security Council (France permanently, Germany until the end of 2004); France held the presidency of the Security Council in January, and Germany holds the presidency for February. I wonder if the Security Council's tone might change when Guinea takes the helm in March, or when Mexico takes over in April. (UN Security Council membership)

China is also a permanent member of the Security Council, but given its interest in the situation with North Korea, it is unlikely to hold back any US-led effort for war in Iraq, just because China might want to pursue something similar in North Korea in the near future. The same goes for Japan, whose two-year membership on the Security Council expired at the end of 2002, and who just today threatened pre-emptive force against North Korea if evidence is discovered that North Korea is planning a missile attack.

My soft prediction: if the UN Security Council is not dissolved in favor of another collective security-seeking body, then Japan will soon be a permanent member of the Security Council, and France might be scratched from that list. Of course, I am nothing of an expert, but I have never missed on my Presidential or Senatorial election predictions! (Read: ...but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.)

Governor Perdue wants the nonbinding referendum on Georgia's flag to be held on the date of Georgia's presidential primary on March 2, 2004. He has proposed to ask Georgia voters to determine (1) whether to keep the current flag and, (2) if not, to which of the previous two flags to revert.

Holding the referendum on the same day as the presidential primary will allow the legislature to act on the issue later in 2004, rather than waiting to act under a new legislature in 2005. It is also a compromise between Republicans' demand to heal the divisive issue as quickly as possible and Democrats' demand to have the issue on the November 2004 ballot. Democrats have advocated that the issue should not appear on the November 2003 ballot because it would cost too much money to support the unusually high voter turnout for a Congressional election off-year, but political analysts assert (and some Democrats have admitted) that Democrats merely want the divisive issue on the November 2004 ballot to hurt Republicans in the election.

Under Perdue's plan, voters would be asked two ballot questions, the first a yes-no question on whether to keep the current flag. The second would ask if voters wish to revert to the previous state flag with its big Confederate emblem, or to the flag that flew until 1956 and did not bear any version of the Confederate symbol.

Asking both questions knocks out two birds with one stone; however, it does not consider a choice for an all-new flag, which some believe should be of equal consideration as either the pre-1956 or 1956-2000 flag.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution writer Jim Galloway sat down for a Q&A with Governor Perdue, focusing on the state flag. In his opening comments, Perdue emphasized that it is "time that Georgia had an honest, face-to-face, straightforward dialogue on racial reconciliation" because "you guys [the media] "won't let it go". He later claims that he is "going to make this work".

It is important to remember that the Georgia General Assembly will have the final say regardless of the results of any referendum. The voters' choice will simply act as a representation of the people's will and a persuasion to the legislators, but in no way will it mandate specific legislative action.

It is unfortunate that such a divisive issue shall continue to plague Georgia and race-relations politics for many months to come, but hopefully the state legislature will set a timeframe for this referendum fairly quickly in order to quiet the racist rhetoric eminating from it.

To view or participate in a forum where you may post comments regarding this issue such as the one above, the comment board is here. Some of you literarily eloquent or otherwise political readers with opinions on this matter should consider posting your comments. You may keep the anonymous if you so desire.

I can report (or regurgitate, to be more accurate) some good news regarding American civil liberties, for once: Congress has agreed that surveillance of our email is prohibited. Given the degree of the security measures taken since September 11, 2001 (PATRIOT Act!), I am actually very surprised to read this in today's news:

House and Senate negotiators have agreed that a Pentagon project intended to detect terrorists by monitoring e-mail and commercial databases for health, financial and travel information cannot be used against Americans.

Of course...

The conferees also agreed to restrict further research on the program without extensive consultation with Congress... The only obstacles to the provision becoming law would be the failure of the conferees to reach agreement on the overall spending bill in which it is included, or a successful veto of the bill by President Bush.

So, let's just say: your email is safe... for now.

I had this ready to go last night, but I forgot to upload it. Oh well. The London Times reports:

p.s.-- Something that the Financial Times of London reports that probably won't make the mainstream news in America: Greenspan supports Bush's divident tax cuts. Watch... I guarantee you that Democrats will focus on Greenspan's urgent warnings against deficits (they'll emphasize the urgency), but they will completely ignore the fact that Greenspan said nothing to criticize any part of Bush's tax cuts, and they will continue to claim that Bush's plan only helps the rich.

His plan is helping me, and I'm far from rich. Although... No, I won't make any claims referring to education or intelligence. I'll let you keep your own assumptions about that.

Consumers have been keeping the economy going. But businesses -- worried about the war and other economic uncertainties -- have been reluctant to make big commitments in capital investment and hiring, forces restraining the recovery, Greenspan said in presenting the Fed's semi-annual economic report card to Congress... "[If] these uncertainties diminish considerably in the near term", then businesses may boost their investment spending and help the economy.

Greenspan also said, "the intensification of geopolitical risks makes discerning the economic path ahead especially difficult", in prepared testimony to the Senate Banking Committee. In other words, he tells us what to expect, then that we have no justifiable reason to expect it. Well, I shouldn't put it that way. He offers his personal opinion, but he esssentially explain that economics is all theory and can not be proven or disproven until after the fact. See full text of Greenspan's testimony.

In discussing federal budget discipline, Greenspan did not demand a cut on government spending nor advocate monetarist policies and ideas that he has espoused in the past, nor did he implicate the President's tax proposals. But he did emphasize the "need to re-establish budget discipline...light of swelling future federal budget deficits". Prediction: Democrats are going to run with that, suggesting that Greenspan has implicated Bush's tax cut, and Republicans won't dare stand up and advocate spending cuts (via privatization and consolidation) as they should.

All told, this is a very fair review, preview, warning, or whatever it is from Alan Greenspan. He's been the main man behind the wheel of the economy for years, and his policies have kept us in very good shape for a long time. Whether he's always made the right decision or not, he has proven to me that he knows what he's doing. I have no reason to doubt him.

That said, stressing budget discipline and deficit caution is necessary, but I will stand strongly by my argument that in economically slow times and in times of potential war, a budget deficit is often necessary. From Greenspan's testimony:

If spending growth were to outpace nominal GDP, maintaining budget balance would necessitate progressively higher tax rates that would eventually inhibit the growth in the revenue base on which those rates are imposed. Deficits, possibly ever widening, would be the inevitable outcome.

So if deficits would result because raising tax rates would actually lower tax revenues, as the tax hikes during Clinton's presidency did, then why raise them in the first place? If a deficit is going to result anyway, then doesn't it make more sense to let more people keep more of their money while still paying nominally the same to the government in tax dollars?

The most important line of the speech: "Achieving budget balance through actions that hinder economic growth is scarcely a measure of success." I wish he had chosen more succinct words, but he gets the point across. Through research I have conducted in recent weeks (which I hope to present fully reasonably soon), I have every reason to believe that nearly every aspect of Bush's economic proposals are exactly what this economy needs right now and in the short-term future. I'll give you more when I have time to fill in all the details.

Those who doubt the anti-Americanism of the French (including me, until now) should take a look at the latest headline from the Agence French Presse, which states: "France, Russia, Germany unite against US over Iraq" (emphasis mine). Note the emphasized words. France is the only significant nation that has so blatantly taken a stance "against" the United States over this. (By significant, I mean to include only the Great Powers of the interstate system -- United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan).

Something else that interests me about this web site is that they include Russia as a part of Europe on their map. I have pondered over this silently for some time now. Russia, since World War II and especially since the end of the Cold War, has more and more purposed to present itself as a European nation, even showing interest in joining the European Union. The rising power of the European Union would look even more powerful with Russia included.

While on the subject of the Great Powers, I'd like to share a thought. France and Germany are each on the decline, and the European Union is on the rise. I would therefore not be surprised if within the next few years the UN Security Council reorganized its permanent membership. I dare not call these predictions, but here are the five permanent members of the Security Council that would seem most logical to me: United States, United Kingdom, European Union, China, Japan. This, of course, still snubs India, Brazil, and Africa, but on the other hand it includes all of the European Union as a unified voice.

Of the other ten members (who serve two years, exchanging five each year), I would suggest that each year one country each from Africa, South and Latin America, and South Asia and the Australian Pacific region be chosen. The remaining two positions each year could be, as they are now, campaigned for by any nation that felt deserving of a positon on the council for two years, including individual EU nations.

And, of course, you don't care about this. If you stopped reading after the third paragraph (if you even made it that far), then you read all that you really needed to read about this.

Governor Sonny Perdue has said to expect details about the state flag referendum soon, but a spokeswoman for he governor says he'll keep the secret for at least another week.

Among many questions concerning the referendum is how it will be worded on the ballot -- will it be a simple yes/no question to choose a new flag, or will it include a list of options from which the public should choose?

Nearly a year ago, Perdue suggested that the ballot has to "have a yes-or-no question on keeping the flag" that was instituted in 2000. Since making that statement, the exactitudes of the referendum have become unclear. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution analyzes some of the ways that the referendum would be set up.

Of interesting note, black legislators have pledged to boycott the referendum if the Confederate flag (1956-2000) is a choice on the ballot, while other groups have promised to make Perdue a one-term governor if it is not.

But not so fast, according to the same AJC article, the flag referendum might not even pass the Republican Senate. In the House, the referendum would have to get past Democrat leadership. Senator Ed Harbison (D, Columbus) calls it a "poison bill."

Still, some political analysts believe that the referendum will narrowly find the votes it needs to make it to a ballot -- because Democrats don't want to be left with the blame if Sonny Perdue can't fulfill a campaign promise.

Representative Calvin Smyre of Columbus, Chairman of the Democratic Party of Georgia, says that Perdue's price for having this referendum is to have it on the November 2004 ballot -- "to make sure that the issue appears on the same ballot with President Bush".

Read or post comments...

When Governor Sonny Perdue says he wants to cut the fat out of state government, he doesn't just mean the budget. He means the workers."

Governor Sonny Perdue has challenged state employees to join him in a weight-loss program, and the response has been overwhelming. Over 1,000 state workers had signed on by Friday's deadline, and thousands more are likely to be inspired (or dragged into it) by their colleagues and lunch pals.

The governor hopes to lose twenty pounds from his 5'11", 220-lb frame in six weeks, but he knows that it might take a little bit longer than that. Perdue's plan will involve healthy eating and fitness workouts, not one of those lose-weight-quick schemes that never seems to keep the weight off.

This has proven to be an interesting political move. Few have scoffed the weight-loss challenge seriously, and even Democrats in the Senate have praised the plan. Senator Connie Stokes (D, Decatur) commended the governor "for deciding we need to all be on a diet." And on the financial side of things, a healthier Georgia could mean financial improvements with regard to health care, though such improvements are impossible to measure (or even expect) from this vantagepoint.

Public health advocacy is already a significant part of Governor Perdue's agenda. Last month, Perdue proposed higher taxes on tobacco and alcohol products, hoping not only to profit from those who smoke and drink with regularity, but also to encourage others to shed those habits in order to lead healthier lives.

The "sin tax" hikes have come under heavy fire (and he is willing to back off if the legislature can find the money elsewhere), but there is little reason to discourage six weeks of healthy eating and fitness training. Perhaps six weeks of good behavior will develop habits for some, and maybe a healthier Georgia can result! When all is said and done, I believe Sonny Perdue's weight-loss challenge will do nothing but help Georgia, as well the governor's approval rating.

It has been overwhelmingly decided that I need to gain weight, so I shall pass on this plan. Read or post comments here.

I have read Fred Barnes's latest Weekly Standard column, among countless other conservative essays regarding the impending war against Iraq, and I still do not understand why so many conservatives believe that the case for this war is "irrefutable". It is refutable! I would think that proof of that would like in the fact that it is, in fact, being refuted on a daily basis!

Let me make something clear: I believe the case for war is justified (reasons here), but I am strongly opposed to war -- in all cases. I am an idealist in that I believe that war is never necessary. I am a realist in that I believe that war has occurred and will continue to occur because it is the quickest and most efficient shortcut to getting things done in the international system.

There are two tools which fight for primacy on the international scale: money and might. A strong economy makes it possible for a nation to bargain, to achieve its goals to some reasonable degree, without resorting to force or threat of force. When the money is not there to influence, then the importance of the pursued goal will decide: should international law be violated and peace threatened in order that we should have our way, or should we patiently endure while the international system sorts out what's ours? We can never know how often this question is asked or how often the patient position is assumed, but when a state threatens the peace and stability of the international system, then it must be confronted.

But the ultimate question here is: Why Iraq, and why now? What is the justification for challenging Iraq's sovereignty, for threatening war in the Middle East? First, it is important to understand that the United States has never threatened war against Iraq, but has only warned that failure to comply with UN resolutions requiring it to disarm will result in Iraqi disarmament anyway. The call for "regime change" is only a result of the current regime's consistent refusal to comply with the UN, which would be a very dangerous precedent to set.

Let's go back a few years. In 1990, Saddam Hussein led his military across the border and into the territory of its comparatievly rich but weak neighbor, Kuwait. Saddam Hussein declared that the nation of Kuwait no longer existed, and that it was now the nineteenth province of Iraq. He forcefully took control of a smaller nation, unprovoked, simply for material gain (the oil, which he later attempted to destroy so no one could have it -- is really trying to make things better for the world, or just himself?). A US-led UN coalition retaliated in order to let the world know that the world does not tolerate the bullying of other nations. (Say what you will about the United States, but you can not provide sound evidence that our government's goal is anything less than a universally peaceful and prosperous world order.)

Over the next twelve years, the UN Security Council passed seventeen resolutions specifically limiting Iraq's military and weapons programs, and for twelve years those resolutions have been violated. Now, at the onset of the thirteenth year, the UN can wait no longer. Iraq has been afforded many chances too many, and the latest resolution grants them only their "final opportunity" to comply.

Why now, you ask? Well, why wait? The entire world has waited long enough! Saddam Hussein has proven to the entire world that he has no intention of honoring any restrictions placed upon him by the United Nations. This is not a war of the United States. This is a war led by the UN with the US as its most aggressive ally. Some scholars might say that we know best the importance of putting Iraq down now. Others might say that we are too aggressive and that war is not necessary.

True, war is not necessary. But if Saddam Hussein fails to comply with seventeen UN resolutions this last time, then it will come to war. Not be necessity, but because an Iraqi dictator refused to disarm after proving time and time again that the purposes of arming himself was to gain power.

Saddam Hussein is an emperor, and his chief motive is to expand his empire and his worth, by whatever means. The case for war is not irrefutable, but war is justifiable. To deny either of being true is irresponsible and idiotic.

Dave Matthews shares his thoughts on Iraq. Unlike some celebrities, Dave Matthews illustrates his point in a peaceful, rational manner. So what if he fits the stereotypcial celebrity profile with regard to political views -- he's rational and he argues his point simply and effectively, although without much to back it up.

That's all, for now.

I sent Michael an email in response to these comments, in which I pointed out that Dennis Miller was on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews last Friday night. You'd be surprised about what this "Hollywood liberal" had to say, but that's getting off the subject. Here is Michael's response to my email, followed by my response to that.

I'm actually still a liberal who is very tired of the way some zealots have taken over what true liberalism should be -- tolerance of views and the ability to change the way you think based on rational argument. I guess that makes me a conservative these days huh?

I think of liberalism (in America today) as discreet advocacy of socialism, thus liberal progressives are those who seek to further socialize the American system. Liberals tend to believe that the government is better at taking care of individuals than the individuals themselves are, thus the government needs to have a hand in everything.

I think of conservatism as a discreet opposition of socialism, thus conservatives are those who advertise an opposition to the further socialization of the American system, but who actually do little to stop it lest it should hurt their chances of holding political power. They make their moves in baby steps, which is really why they are conservative -- they want to change things for the better, and they need to flex government muscle to do so, but they generally avoid drastic change.

I think of libertarianism as an in-your-face anti-socialist, pro-capitalist philosophy. Libertarians only concern themselves with advancing the principles of freedom as they see them and reducing government intrusion into what should be personal affairs -- that's nearly everything. Libertarians are the true revisionists, but they are virtually powerless in American today.

Given that... I'd call you a libertarian who believes the government needs to provide a floor for those who can't make it on their own but a ceiling for those who take advantage. You want people to be generally good and responsible, and you want freedom and security to be maximized. You will follow whichever group you truly believe has the right answer if it can be logically proven -- rational argument wins the day, right?

That being key, that makes you an independent whose leanings may shift at any moment. That's a good thing. It keeps you on your toes and eager to be informed. We should all be so motivated!

None of the above, or below, seems to fit me at all:

I'm really getting sick to death of hearing the terms Hawks and Doves. Just thought I would share. How about Patriots and Pussies?

What about the in-betweens, like me? Are we hawkish doves, dovish hawks, both, or neither? Or are we patriotic pussies, or pussy-loving patriots? (I can already feel the search-engine referral spike for that... Sorry to disappoint!)

I think it's great how so many people on both sides (of anything that has sides, including conflicts and fences) always find it necessary to label the two sides. Black, white. Male, female. Hawk, dove. It's exactly this labeling scheme that allows discrimination, of any and all kinds, to endure.

Then again, who says discrimination is bad? We are allowed to discriminate! Only the government can't discriminate! You and I are not just free but compelled to discriminate when choosing potential sexual partners. I'm not a racist, but I'll admit that I prefer to date women of my skin (so-to-speak), just as most others do. And, of course, I discriminate on the basis of gender! ...and education, values, etc. How would you like it if a woman you didn't want to date could take you to court and force you to date her because you discriminated against her because she was [insert racial minority here]? See my point?

That said, someone asked a