I don't typically enjoy getting jokes or other forwarded emails, but Mom sent a pretty good one today. Happy laughs!

Ad-lib ending: A young adult male on a jet ski comes skidding to a halt near the boat and shouts, "You two need to stop expecting so much from every one else and start relying more on yourselves. Ma'am, you shouldn't navigate over the open sea without some knowledge of how global positioning works. Sir, you should lighten up and realize that trying to help doesn't do any good if you can't share information in a usable manner."

Do you think he could be a Libertarian?

Ghyslian Raza is a teenager from Quebec who recorded a video of himself practicing lightsaber moves. Undoubtedly, thousands if not millions of Star Wars fans have practiced lightsaber moves at some point, and several of these lightsaber practice sessions have been recorded, and most of them would likely be quite humiliating if every one in the world could take a peek and laugh at you for looking so silly.

This is what happened to Ghyslian Raza, the infamous "Star Wars Kid", whose video was uploaded to the Internet by a few malicious classmates. Word of the lightsaber hilarity spread like wildfire, and Raza's lightsaber session has been the cause of many laughs ever since.

However, as you can imagine, it has been quite a traumatic experience for Raza, who has been subject to humiliation and ridicule for several months. As a result, a civil suit has been filed by his parents, geeks around the world have donated more than $4000 to Raza, and more than 16,000 have signed a petition to get him a part in the next Star Wars movie.

I don't quite agree with the lawsuit, because punishing the malicious classmates' parents doesn't exactly solve the problem. However, privacy rights were clearly violated, as private information was publicly released that was certainly harmful to Raza's reputation and mental well being. I hope the kid comes out well in this suit, but I don't think his classmates' parents are the ones who should have to pay.

"Human action is predetermined by physiological and psychological antecedents."

That, in a nutshell, is determinism, or causality, what the machines believe. In a simulated world built on a foundation of ones and zeroes, it is not too difficult to understand why machines must believe this. Every machine's and program's existence is bound by causality, because their interpretations are entirely bound by the interaction of ones and zeroes in a "harmony of mathematical precision". Choice is an illusion controlled by ones and zeroes.

However, outside any such simulation, the world is not governed by this mathematical harmony. Ones and zeroes do not control choice, but choice controls the ones and zeroes. Certainly, the relentless laws of physics still force each of us to follow one cue to the next, but insofar as there is no higher power to determine the order of such events (in other words, because life is unscripted), then determinism or causality does not rule the "real" world.

In conclusion: the machines represent the philosophy of determinism, the idea that each state of affairs is necessitated by all previous states of affairs; the humans represent the philosophy of indeterminism, the idea that some states of affairs are unpredictable regardless of previous states of affairs -- that there is no equation to solve every problem (hence the anomaly, perhaps?).

David Hume had a very interesting interpretation of causes and effects. He believed that cause and effect were not real (or not observably real), but instead all we could see are correlations. For instance, pushing down the accelerator does not make the car go faster in and of itself, but engine mechanics being what they are, we can understand why it works.

Even still, the human mind's incapability to fully understand the inner workings of the universe as a whole make it impossible for us to truly understand any true cause or effect -- instead, we only see the correlative presuppositions and outcomes: not direct causes or effects, but derived interpretations of such events.

Price of school books at retail price: $371.75.

Government's 6% gratuity for protecting the right to do business: $22.31.

Price of same books at Half.com (including shipping charges): $234.68.

Saving $159.38 (or more than 40% off the retail price) using eBay's Half.com: Priceless.

Assuming there are no problems with shipping, I love you Half.eBay.com!

As is the case in so many governments throughout the country, an ethnic majority is "falling from power" and the strongest ethnic minority is preparing to take over. In Atlanta, the outgoing ethnic majority has turned their decline into a war for racist politicking at their eleventh hour. A state representative and former Atlanta City Council member said:

This really shouldn't be about what the [minority] would allow. It's really what the strength of [our] community will allow. What will we stand for? The real deal is we stood too long silent. Atlanta is being gentrified every day. So, while you do still have a majority... use the power you have today.

Sickening, isn't it? That a representative of the state government, no longer a member of the city council, returns to that council's floor to advocate a racist agenda before it's too late, before the "minority" takes over. It amazes me that people have the nerve to pursue such a blatantly racist agenda and hold a majority of a city government, especially a city like Atlanta, with the most heavily trafficked airport in the world!

The people of Atlanta are serving themselves well, though, and screaming at their representatives for such a silly notion. Well, not the racist politicking in general, but the particular legislative goals of that racist politicking. Unfortunately for that racial majority on the Atlanta city council, the rest of Atlanta isn't racist enough to support them.

For the last four years (since July 31, 1999), I have edited my web site via files on my hard drive using Windows Notepad. This has kept my HTML skills sharp and helped me to develop my web developing skills further. Along the way, I have picked up CSS, JavaScript, and PHP. (HTML, or hypertext markup language, formats the structure of web pages. CSS, or cascading style sheets, format the style of web pages. JavaScript can do formatting but is more useful because it can make web sites interactive. Finally, PHP is what I use to make this web site work for me.)

After months of promising it to myself, I finally finished my PHP news-posting script today. True to my desire to continue coding it all by hand, I still must code the HTML, but I no longer have to edit a file on my hard drive and then upload it to the web. Instead, I type the new post in a web form and click the "submit" button, and the post is automatically copied into two locations: the front page and the archive.

You may not care much about this, but it's a huge accomplishment to me. I know very little about PHP, and I think it's amazing that I was able to make this script work so perfectly so quickly. I couldn't have done it without Dave or especially Matt, both of whom provided more help than I expected. Thanks to Matt for letting me sample his code for direction.

What does this mean for you? Directly, it means that you should have more news, because it is now much easier for me to post anytime I can get online. Indirectly, it could mean a greatly improved experience in this web space, as the ability to post to files directly from the web means I could set up a comment system, which amounts to a mini-forum under each and every post I make.

The possibilities are endless, really, and they include the possibility of nothing. Don't get your hopes up.

Now, if this post doesn't work, I will be angry!

If a car, such as a green Grand Am, is flying down the road upward of 50mph, do not pull out in front of the car and take your sweet time to accelerate to a cruising speed of 35mph. That is unless, of course, you wish to die a very slow and painful death. I'm about to the point where I just want to rear-end one of you assholes and let you deal with paying for it. If it wasn't such a hassle to mess with insurance and such an uncertainty to find good witnesses, someone would have been hit by now. You're lucky I've got good brakes. Thank you for your (in)attention, assholes.

God may mean a range of different things to a range of different believers. Let's try not to argue over what or who God actually is and try to remember that, if the big guy is up there, out there, or anywhere or everywhere, then it doesn't matter what any one of us believes, because 99% of us are probably mostly wrong. God's direct involvement in our world and lives can not be reasonably proven to me, so I do not believe he is a participant. A spectator seems more likely to me. However, neither can I disprove the existence or even the direct participation of God in this world, so who am I to say he isn't here?

So if I can not even rationally defend his presence or absence, how can I say what he is and isn't, what he does and doesn't do? Some would suggest Pascal's Wager (which advises practical belief in God simply because of the benefits that come with being right about it, whereas everything is lost if you disbelieve and he does exist -- nothing lost and nothing gained if he does not exist, regardless of your belief, so it only makes sense to believe for the chance that he does exist); however, I find this to be ultimately a dishonest reason to believe in God, and while it might be acceptable as a mode of converting to [insert theistic religion here], it probably wouldn't hold if you never fine-tuned that belief.

I would prefer to either believe in his existence because I knew it was true, disbelieve in his existence because I knew it was false, or wonder about the endless possibilities because I knew I could never know the truth in this life time. In any case, I would prefer to come about my belief honestly, not for some superficial benefit that comes out of it. Offer me proof or leave me skeptical, but do not call me a disbeliever just because I challenge your opinion.

<sarcasm>You can always count on the fair, balanced, and righteous minds at Berkeley to accurately describe the political landscape.</sarcasm> Okay, maybe not, but that's exactly what some of them have tried to do. I say "tried" because their babble is so full of falsehoods, whether negligent or willful, that I shudder to think that their inanity might have been intentional. They call them "researchers", but their "research" is grossly incomplete or largely ignored. The story that came out of it is an ugly picture of conservativism as viewed by a legion of anti-conservatives. Biased? You bet!

At the top of the article, these "researchers" claim that the following five "psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination". Before I even mention what they are, just look at that statement. Five characteristics "can contribute" to conservatism, yes, but there is no mention of exclusivity. These characteristics can contribute to the adoption of any ideology, independently or in combination with other characteristics. This is not necessarily bad research, but it is horribly misleading and an ethical mistep in the battle for political righteousness.

I should tell you what those five characteristics are now:

First, fear and aggression. You could make the argument that this combination of traits could lend to the adoption of some form of conservatism, and I would believe you -- they can! But the combination of fear and aggression could form from many backgrounds and could lead to adoptions of various ideologies, many quite un-conservative. Consider your favorite communists. Their fear and aggression led them not to moralistic conservatism, but instead to communism, which is almost completely opposite of conservatism. Fear and aggression are not reserved for conservatives. Very bad research. Strike 1.

Second, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, and the need for cognitive closure. I include these three because they are essentially all the same. Conservatives are dogmatic (they have principles and choose to stick fairly close to them), want cognitive closure (information and explanation, not ambiguous blanket statements that the people have no means of checking up on), and try to avoid uncertainty. I don't know about you, but I see all three of these traits as strengths, not weaknesses. Conservatives want answers, not irrelevant, emotive statements that don't explain the issue. Read more about Berkeley's interpretation of these traits in the article, and you'll see why they're now in the hole, 0-and-2.

Third, terror management. This is just silly. "The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-September 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views." Are you telling me that Al Gore wouldn't have done something very close to the same thing? (You're probably right. He wouldn't have traded our privacy for "security"; he and his party would have taxed us into a safetey net.) A more relevant point is that even the most liberal nations have significantly stepped up their "terror management" programs. Terrorism is a decentralized global threat, and nations wish to quash such threats. Terror management is not a bad thing, nor is it confined to conservative regimes. Imagine what September 11 would have been had "terror management" never been considered. Imagine the state of the world today if "terror management" did not exist. I don't think you want to live in such a world.

The researchers then transform what was at first a "tolerance of inequality" into the "endorsement of inequality". The credibility of this report is becoming laughable, but for the sake of argument, I'll come out (as a nonconservative, mind you) and endorse inequality. You know what I have to say about every one being equal? Fuck that! The ideal of equality is antithetical to the ideal of freedom. To be equal is to be unable to excel -- regardless of skill, hard work, capital, or social connections.

Let me make this clear: I celebrate inequality. I do not celebrate discrimination, bias, preferentialism, or factionalism -- but I celebrate inequality. The human condition is by default one in which each person is blessed with different eyes through which to view the world, different ears through which to hear it, different mouths through which to taste it, and different legs by which we walk through it. We are not meant to live the same lives. We are not meant to possess the same traits or skills. We are not meant to be equally capable of every little thing. The world offers too many jobs to be done for each of us to be equally capable of every one. We all specialize in one area or another, and the cumulative result is that we are all equally but variously talented. That fits the definition of inequality, and that is an ideal worth celebrating.

On May 15, 2002, just after the release of Star Wars Episode II, I wrote a silly essay on my web site about the superiority of some superheroes over others. The superheroes, from weakest to strongest, were James Bond, Batman, Spiderman, Jedi (any accomplished Knight), and Superman. I called it the Superhero Smackdown. I've decided to recap the Smackdown with a couple of additions. Here's the run down:

James Bond is ultimately weakest because he is only a government agent with no special abilities, but don't underestimate his arsenal or his uncanny ability to survive almost anything. He's got Q on his side, after all, and he's the best at what he does. He could outlast Batman under the right circumstances.

Batman is weak because he is ultimately an ordinary man in a bat suit, gone crazy. But he's good, and he's got Alfred and Robin, and occasionally other sidekicks. Bruce Wayne has no super powers though, and he ultimately wouldn't last in the superhero smackdown.

Spiderman is next, because despite spider-sense and all that, Peter Parker is still ultimately human. His greatest asset is his webbing, and that presumably is finite and is no match, for instance, for a lightsaber. Even Bond could conceivably defeat Spiderman, as Bond is known for exploiting his opponent's weakness, whereas Peter Parker is still just a kid.

A Jedi would destroy Spiderman, because despite Spidey's abilities, a Jedi can use the force to manipulate objects. Besides, we've all watched as Darth Vader pinched someone's throat even when he wasn't on the same ship. And of course there is a scale of Jedi power, probably maximized with Yoda. My guess is that Anakin Skywalker approached or perhaps surpassed Yoda before his transition to the dark side. In either case, those two could possibly defend themselves against Superman or Neo, but I don't think they could defeat them.

So on to Superman. One could presume that Kal-El, Clark Kent, the Man of Steel is effectively a "super Jedi", one with most of the same abilities as Jedi, except he comes with the ability to fly, he has x-ray vision, super-cooling breath or super-heating laser-eyes, and so many other things that Jedi generally can't match without extreme concentration. (And, of course, if he's actually a man of "steel", then Magneto wins!)

Now I throw Neo (and Agent Smith!) into the mix, and I would say he could even rival Superman. With the ability to manipulate reality itself, and with complete freedom from fear, doubt, and disbelief, it is conceivable that Neo has no weakness (except Trinity, of course, but she could probably survive a Jedi attack as long as it weren't an ambush). Of course, for purposes of the simulated battle, we would have to assume that Neo can't simply be unplugged. As for Smith, we can probably assume that he is roughly an even match for Neo -- he can not manipulate reality to our knowledge, but he can replicate fairly easily, and only Neo can resist this effect so Smith could easily take out any of the previously mentioned heroes if they got too close.

So who wants to add Daredevil, the Hulk, Gandalf, various X-Men? Anyone I left out?

The feeling of life sunsetting all around me is passing, blue skies are shining through and the clouds are dissipating. It's exciting to feel the end of a grueling summer semester approaching. Stress leaps off my shoulders with each passing day.

About eight hours ago, I delivered my Cyberlaw presentation on Copyleft and the free software (free as in free speech, not as in free beer!) movement, with a focus on the General Public License. What? Check out the site for a couple of minutes and you'll see. I feel like I did an excellent job with the presentation for two reasons: (1) everyone told me I did; (2) even I felt like I talked more coherently and knowledgably about the topic. It was just a good presentation! In the next few days, I'll post the paper to the essays portion of the site; remind me if it's not up within the week.

One down, one to go. I have a multimedia presentation to deliver in about eight hours about the school's Student Government Association, of which I am President. This was an excellent topic for my project, as it has provided the perfect opportunity to force myself to learn about my responsibilities as SGA President, as well as the responsibilities and rules regarding everyone else and the organization in general. I still feel like I don't know enough, but the Dean of Students is excited to be working with me and says things are going very well, and I have no rational choice except to believe her. Either way, despite the project still needing lots of work, I am enjoying it. I'll see if I can post a copy of it to the web when it is completed -- minus the ~40 megabytes of background noise, that is.

Finally, something I should have mentioned a couple of weeks ago, but now serves it just as well: check out NationStates, a text-based web-game based on Max Barry's novel, Jennifer Government. Barry's game allows you to create a fictitious state and respond to text-only issues, which affect your country in a few prescripted ways. Currently, I have five nations ranging from a "Psychotic Dictatorship" (in which the economy has imploded, civil rights are unheard of, and political freedoms are outlawed) to a "Capitalizt" (which has set a world benchmark for civil rights and a powerhouse economy). I don't have to tell you all about it; you can view my nations, and some of Clarissa's as well, in my region of Libertica. Click on one to view its description, which is mildly altered daily.

The book Jennfer Government is described as "Catch 22 by way of The Matrix" on the cover. I would rather describe it as the un-1984. Whereas George Orwell based 1984 on an oppressive, freedomless, totalitarian regime; Max Barry has based Jennifer Government on somewhat the opposite: a super-libertarian state plagued by excessive freedoms. The book promises to be thought-provoking, witty, and fun, and it's on the top of my to-read list for my three-week break between summer and fall semesters.

I'll let you know how it turns out as soon as I know!

And in case you didn't catch the second meaning of the first sentence of this post, I made my site look better again. You can thank me later; for now I have a ton of work to do.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. A less-than-perfect future is too easily and too accurately predicted by the pessimist, while the optimist maintains the idea that anything is possible and hardly predictable. Sure, 21 is a wonderful time for anyone, and some say "it only goes downhill from here", but I don't believe that. It only goes wherever I make it go from here, and that could be downhill, uphill, around the corner, or out of this world.

Regardless of what advantages and disadvantages life has ever served us, it is most important to remember that it is our reactions to them that determine our course, not our presupposed notions of how things are likely to be. We may or may not be truly granted the luxury of free will, but inasmuch as we shall never truly know, it is up to us to make of ourselves what we will given what we have.

Never give up on your dreams, and never be afraid to make the sacrifices that may be necessary to reach them. It is possible to promote a stronger sense of language yet still speak to the people. It is possible to say nothing at all yet still speak to the people. It is possible to take the road less traveled by and find your destination to be better than previously imagined.

Growing up is indeed a mixed bag of tricks (and treats!), one which very few of us are ever prepared to open. But we do open it--that is inevitable--and only when the trickery is met with the right combination of toleration and determination can true potential be realized.

Life is a series of unscripted events, designed to overwhelm. The trick is to stop expecting fastballs down the middle and simply hit the pitch where it's thrown. Instead of trying to manage life's every unexpectation, force life to deal with the unexpected you. You can't solve every problem, and indeed that is the idea. Look forward to what you have and to what you will have, and don't be afraid to leave the mysteries unsolved.

Life is a series of unscripted events, designed to overwhelm and impossible to complete. I look forward to the unsolution.

JPMinGA: i think my next screen name should be "DrunkenMonkey"

JPMinGA: it has to be taken

SpeakEasySpy: yes, indeed it does

SpeakEasySpy: just put a color in front of it or something

JPMinGA: PurpleDrunkenMonkey

SpeakEasySpy: very good.

JPMinGA: SugarPlumFairyBoy

JPMinGA: ....

JPMinGA: maybe not :-)

SpeakEasySpy: lol

JPMinGA: I don't want the word "drunken" in there.

JPMinGA: Maybe I should borrow "spy" from yours.

JPMinGA: PurpleSpyMonkey

SpeakEasySpy: lmao

SpeakEasySpy: yeah, that could work

JPMinGA: Or just SpyMonkey

SpeakEasySpy: PurpleMonkeySpy could work too

JPMinGA: *pinky to lip*

JPMinGA: yeah!

The only difference is that I had a margarita at the bar instead of waiting to get back home, and I heard a couple of behind-the-bar jokes about the new legal.

Some useless facts:

1. Courtney was the first to card me.

2. Autumn showed us to our table.

Ordinarily it wouldn't matter who showed us to our table, especially since Autumn had done it before. But last night I found out that Autumn was in my Kindergarten class 15-16 years ago. I am generally amazed when I see someone with whom I went to high school just three years ago, so I was pretty excited when I found out I went to school with this girl in Kindergarten. But, again, this is useless information.

By my count, eleven people managed to tell me "Happy Birthday" on July 17 or 18. Thank you to those who remembered and/or chose to make the special effort to contact me. I know it's difficult to remember birthdays over the summer, and even more difficult to make contact, since young people still used to summer breaks from school are used to avoiding contact with the real world.

Total cash donations received, not counting the parents: $0. It was worth a try.

Pete Rose is one of two players in the history of Major League Baseball to get more than 4000 base hits. He is the all-time leader in hits, at-bats, and games played. His nickname was "Charlie Hustle", emblematic of the way he played the game: he always charged onto the field between innings, and he ran out every worthless groundball and forced the defense to earn its outs. Every other player with 2800 hits or more is or certainly will be in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Pete Rose is not. Why? The argument goes something like this: he bet on baseball, and some suggest that he bet against his own team as manager, so he should be banned from the game for life and banned from eligibility for election into the Hall of Fame.

Okay, my turn. If you're holding baseball players' eligibility for the Hall of Fame to moral standards, then Babe Ruth (among many others) should be thrown out without second thought. Arguments could be made against Mickey Mantle. And look at Joe Jackson: charged with accepting a bribe to throw the 1919 World Series, Jackson was banned from baseball early a stellar career, and he's still in the Hall of Fame.

Double standards are prevalent. Evidence of Rose throwing any games is lacking. Did Rose bet on baseball? I think probably yes. Should this keep him out of the Baseball Hall of Fame? I think HELL NO. Pete Rose was one of the most dedicated players that the game has ever seen. His work ethic (as a player), his statistics, and his longevity are all Hall of Fame material.

If the betting controversy hadn't erupted, he would have been inducted into the Hall of Fame with ease. As it stands, he will still be voted in with ease when/if he is made eligible. Pete Rose deserves recognition for his accomplishments on the field and for devoting a majority of his life to the game of baseball. This issue will never go away until they let him in; it's only an issue because they won't let him in. Open the door and get out of the way. Charlie Hustle is coming through, whether you like it or not.

It has been a long two weeks since Marcy left Norway on July 3. Every day has been filled with activity! On July 3, Jim and I took Dad to see the Braves game. On July 4, Jim and I went with Mom to the river for our usual Fourth of July festivities (baseball, basketball, and fireworks for six hours). On July 5, I went with Jim back to Warner Robins to hang out with my brother for one last day before he was officially to become a US Marine recruit. On July 6, Mom and I drove him to a hotel just outside of Atlanta, from where he was to leave at 5:00am the next morning. I'm certain that Jim has been worked harder than I have physically, but I'm not keeping score -- this is my blog and I'm here to tell you that I'm exhausted!

Since Jim left, I have had ten days of solid work (on the seventh day I rested). I have worked earnestly on two school projects, one a group project for Cyberlaw, the other an Authorware presentation for Multimedia. Writing a ten-page paper on copylefting has so fare required much less effort than my multimedia project, but I am oddly enjoying both assignments. I just wish there were more time in the semester so I wouldn't be so rushed with them; with three classes, a steady work schedule, and setting up the student government for the Fall semester, I have a lot on my plate!

But, as of right now, I'm off duty. For at least two of the next three days, I aim to add very little, if anything, to either of my projects. The paper will be done before the weekend is over, and the Cyberlaw project will be delivered Wednesday. The multimedia presentation will be completed, err, before its delivery Thursday at 12:30.

As for right now, I have some turning 21 to do. If you want to be precise, I was born on July 18 at 5:57pm about six miles from here, so keep that in mind as dinnertime approaches tomorrow afternoon. Cash donations are welcome! (Cash is good because I don't really want things; I have most of my fun just doing stuff with people or, when I'm alone, on the Internet. So there's not much "stuff" that I really want.)

But first thing's first for my twenty-first: Marcy's home! I'm on vacation. :-)

I don't know what's worse: Macon's Mayor Jack Ellis being re-elected in today's primary election (only opponents were Democrats, so the primary was it), or the American League coming from behind and narrowly defeating the National League in tonight's All-Star Game, effectively taking the All-Star MVP trophy away from Andruw Jones.

I suppose it wasn't a total loss. The game was a very good game, and despite that the National League has lost six in a row (ignoring last year's silly tie), I kept getting up and bouncing when the National League scored a run. I don't remember being this excited about an All-Star Game in the past, except when Javy Lopez hit that home run a couple years ago...

Back to voting... I was disappointed to learn that, despite that my voter registration (both of them -- they sent me two cards) tells me that I am eligible to vote in city elections, I learned when I arrived at my poll location that I am not on the city roster but on the county roster. I thought this was odd, since the city picks up our garbage and recycling each week. But someone else in the room said my street is registered as a county street.

If you recall, I was told I was in the third Congressional district last October, only to learn on election day that I was in the eighth Congressional district, so I had no idea who the Democratic candidate was in that district. I was familiar with the Republican and had no problems with him, so I voted for him... He ran away with it anyway.

The point of today's election, though, is that the Dark Age in Macon is to continue for at least another four years (or is it two years?). Hopefully, Dominick Andrews comes back next time. Hopefully, another party puts a candidate out there just to see what would happen.

The Major League Baseball All-Star break is nearly upon us; I shall be 21 within a week; and I have more homework than I can reasonably shake a stick at (or should I say, "at which I can reasonably shake a stick"?). Marcy will be back in the States Thursday, and I hope to have a lot of my school work wrapped up by then, but procrastination being what it is, I doubt it. Regardless of what work I do or don't do until then, I will not miss the All-Star game, which brings me to the point of this post: which All-Stars shouldn't be All-Stars, and which players should replace them. For reference, I suggest checking out the All-Star rosters for the National League and the American League.

I'll keep this short and sweet. I love the Braves, and I love that seven Braves are All-Stars in 2003. But at least one of them shouldn't be: Russ Ortiz. Sure, he has won a lot of games, but winning is a result of your team scoring runs, not necessarily your good pitching. Ortiz has been much better than average, but not an All-Star. Octavio Dotel, the best setup man in baseball, should have been selected instead of Ortiz. Other Braves that some may argue shouldn't be All-Stars include Marcus Giles and Rafael Furcal, but their potential replacements (Jeff Kent and Orlando Cabrera, respectively) aren't exactly knocking the cover off the ball. Brandon Webb, Hideo Nomo, and Tim Worrell should replace Randy Wolf, Kerry Wood, and Armando Benitez. Note: the position players deserve what they got; the pitching staff is screwed up, but still much better than the AL's.

In the American League, the roster is usually inflated with undeserving Yankees. This year, despite one undeserving Yankee managing his way into the starting lineup, the All-Star game is actually lacking several deserving Yankees. Milton Bradley is the obvious choice to replace Yankee outfielder Hideki Matsui, and there are a handful of others that I could choose from if Bradley didn't stand out. Third basemen Corey Koskie and Bill Mueller should replace starting third baseman Troy Glaus and backup catcher Ramon Hernandez, neither of whom have played like All-Stars this year. On the mound, Pedro Martinez, Mike Mussina, Mariano Rivera, and David Wells should replace Mike MacDougal, Eddie Guardado, Barry Zito, and Lance Carter. I hate the Yankees, but Mussina and Rivera have just been awesome, and David Wells has only walked six batters (6!) all year long, and each pitcher is more deserving than the All-Star he would replace.

Of course, making these replacements probably violates the rule that there must be a minimum of one All-Star per team, and it says nothing for other deserving players such as Hank Blalock, Chipper Jones, Sammy Sosa, and, well, even Barry Zito. This is part of what makes the game fun. The other part is having so many Braves and Mariners in the All-Star game!

In the market for a laptop? Check out Prostar's 4794Z model: 17-inch widescreen, 3 GHz Pentium IV, all the RAM you can stand, and a 99-key keyboard with a numeric keypad to boot. All this for right around $2000. Too rich for my blood, but still an excellent deal for those sniffing around for a good laptop.

I can't resist this; it's too quotable:

Against all logic and instinct, sometimes the best thing to do is to just let go of the controls. Just experience the moment without attempting to control it. It doesn't mean you don't care, or that you don't want to do something. It simply means you care enough that you want to do the right thing, and not just anything.

Dave Stroup posted this in a slightly lengthier post to his web site yesterday. There is little more to say about it, except that I would recommend reading the entire post for the full effect. It will take you a minute or less, and you'll be glad that you did. But don't take my word for it...

I know what you're probably thinking, and if you're thinking it, you're wrong! I haven't seen Terminator 3 yet, and I probably won't see it for another three weeks at least. Although, I suppose the slogan "I'll Be Back" does fit the Terminator very well, and indeed it would be a fitting re-election campaign slogan if Arnold Schwarzeneggar is elected governor of California.

But alas, it has nothing to do with Arnold or his mechanical character, and instead has everything to do with everyone leaving this week. Marcy left Thursday morning for a two-week trip to Norway; she'll be back just in time to help celebrate my 21st birthday. Jim left tonight to join the Marines; we dropped him off at his hotel in Atlanta about 90 minutes ago, and he will be leaving at 5:00am on a bus headed to Paris Island. Everyone is proud of him, and we all know he really wanted to do it, but I'll be damned if even I didn't tear up after getting in the car to leave him. It didn't occur to me until just recently that he had turned out so well. I felt more like a brother to him this week more than I had since we fought on a weekly basis years ago, and I shudder to think that I might have seen him more this last week than I might ever see of him at one time again, aside from family holidays.

He left a man, and he'll come back a Marine. He graduates October 2, and I'll be there for him when he does. Until then, my dad is home without kids for the first time since Jenny was born in April 1979, and I'm not quite sure how that feels. I do know that a lot of very interesting thoughts and emotions are passing through us all, because Jim's leaving is a powerful reminder that even the youngest children grow up if given the chance...

Now enough of that, because despite all the meaningful ideas floating through my head, I have some meaningless homework that I should have been doing all weekend, but (un)fortunately I had personal business that required my attention. Now it all catches up to me, and it gets done anyway.

The Associated Press (via the San Francisco Chronicle) has a very interesting (read: biased) way of reporting that the Senate Rules Committee has voted to limit filibusters on presidential nominees. According to the new rule, the first cloture to break a filibuster requires 60 votes, the second requires 57, the third 54, and the fourth only a simply majority of 51. The purpose is to allow a nominee who consistently receives a majority vote to eventually be confirmed. Whether this helps Republicans now or not shouldn't matter; mark these words: it will benefit Democrats in the future.

The AP writer went out of his way to point out that the Senate Rules Committee passed this new rule with no Democrats present, as if the Republicans on the committee snuck it through when no one was looking. But, um, that doesn't make a bit of difference. With a Republican majority in the Senate, there is a Republican majority on the committee. So even if all nine Democrats were there to vote against the rule, the ten Republicans who voted for it would still outrank them.

What I would rather point out, that the slightly-left-wing media would never point out, is that these Democrats chose the lazy option. That is, rather than show up for the vote and stick to their principles, they balked on it and assumed it was a foregone conclusion. They refused to even show up. If even one Republican had voted against it, they could have defeated it. Lazy Senators are not the kind I want working for me.

I miss the political scene. I still get involved in political and legal discussions when I know what I'm talking about, but I don't mention any of that hear because it seems like all the news media headlines these days are stories about Iraq, Iran, and North Korea -- unless a politician dies or something. I like politics that actually has some bearing on my life, and too much digging is required to find those stories every day. Oh, they're there, and they're not hard to find, but if I'm going to take the time to mention them here, there will need to be much more time for the taking.

That's what I get for taking three summer classes. Microeconomics is a decent class. Multimedia is a bore, but I'm dealing with it. The semester has less than four weeks left, and I have projects to be assigned in two of my classes. I guess it's time to buckle down, even though the semester just started!

I'm off for another five hours of classes.