Below you will find my top ten albums and songs of 2003. I won't include more than one song per album (just in case every song on my favorite album is better than everything else), but I will count compilation albums (like soundtracks and hits albums), but I won't count old songs from such albums (because they aren't 2003 originals).

Disclaimers: (1) I don't expect my tastes to match yours. (2) I heard lots of albums this year, but I only had time to get to know a select few of them. (3) I don't listen to the radio, watch music television, or otherwise listen to music through what one might consider popular channels. I am aware that many of the songs I like happen to be among the year's most popular though. It is an interesting coincidence. (4) I already typed all this up once, and my computer erased it for some stupid reason (probably operator error), so this is all a hasty, frustrated second attempt. Now, on with the music!

Top Ten Albums of 2003

Top Ten Songs of 2003

Finally, I have a point to make. Nielsen has released its year-end music industry report, which indicates a drop in CD sales (units by 0.8%, revenues by 3.6%) overall in 2003. Naturally, therefore, the assholes at the RIAA will continue to bitch about how the internet is allowing people everywhere to steal music.

But wait, the Nielsen report also reveals that last quarter sales are up by about 5-10%, and up by 20% at the end of December compared to the same periods of time in 2002. In other words, there is strong evidence that the most significant reason why music sales are down is the same reason why sales have been down in nearly every industry for the last few years: the economy hiccupped, and it has only recently begun to come out of it. As the economy takes off more and more (especially during the consumer-driven holiday season), music sales have obviously picked up, and much more than last year for that matter.

So eat it, RIAA. We're still buying your albums. If you're losing money, it's because the internet grants us access to a wide variety of independent and foreign artists to whose music we would not otherwise be exposed. True, the RIAA's profits may be going down, and the internet may be to blame, but it's not for the reasons the RIAA suggests. It's simply the way the market is moving.

I just delivered the granddaddy of all birthday presents. My dad just had surgery to repair a rotator cuff, and his left arm is essentially out of commission for the next few weeks as it slowly heals. This means that he must bathe in the bathroom upstairs, which is... was in very bad shape. I think I just got the best exercise I've gotten in weeks cleaning it up, and all I got was the tub.

Those of you who know this bathroom know how much work I just put into cleaning it, and you know why it's been allowed to get in the shape it was in -- no one else is going to clean it! So, at least dad's bum gets the benefit of sitting in a clean tub. In case you're wondering about my motivation, it's simple: there's no way in hell I'd want my netherregions sitting in that gunk, even if it is harmless (and it is, unless you try to eat it). But no worries... all gone.

A lot happens over the course of a year, and I was only addicted to the news for about the first third of this one, despite that I consider myself a member of the "attentive public". Below are the top ten subjects found in headlines across the globe that, as a result of my own biases, I think were the ten most significant news stories of 2003:

This is just my opinion: Kobe Bryant's and Michael Jackson's private lives should not be newsworthy! But the California wildfires and mudslides, the massive Earthquake in Bam, the horrible fire at the Great White concert, and the Beltway Sniper trials should be. But there are only ten spots in a top ten list, so this is what you get. Also, notice that the buildup to war was just as newsworthy as the war itself.

If you have any questions about my judgment, feel free to keep them pointed away from eyes and other delicate bodily orifices.

At last year's Golden Globe Awards show, which was aired live so no censoring was possible, Bono of U2 accepted his award for best original song for a film by exclaiming, "This if fucking brilliant!" Millions of viewers across America heard it, and thousands complained. The Federal Communications Commission responded, about nine months later, by clarifying that using the "f-word" as an adjective and not in a sexual context is not prohibited by their decency guidelines (See also CNN coverage). In other words, the only time "fuck" is not supposed to be heard on television or radio is when it conveys a sexual meaning.

Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas, with support, has responded by proposing the "Clean Airwaves Act", which will attempt to ban several profane words and phrases from network broadcasts, including six of George Carlin's "Seven Things You Ca Never Say On Television", which he originally performed in 1974. What Smith and Congress don't realize is that (1) he has essentially proposed a bill that directly conflicts with the First Amendment's guarantee of protection of freedom of speech, and (2) the freedom to use such indecent language does not guarantee that anyone will use it. Certainly, some movies with vulgar phrases might not be edited as severely when they are replayed on television, and South Park will be free of those annoying bleeps that only cover up the vowel sound of the word anyway.

I guess I can sum this up (legally since I'm using the word as an adjective) by saying that Congress's attempt to restrict freedom of speech in America is fucking unconstitutional.

Please accept without obligation, express or implied, these best wishes for an environmentally safe, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, and gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday as practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice (but with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or for their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all), and further for a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated onset of the generally accepted calendar year (including, but not limited to, the Christian calendar, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures).

The preceding wishes are extended without regard to the ethnicity, creed, gender, age, physical ability, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of this wishee's intended recipients.

Really, merry Christmas and happy holidays to all. It's been a fun year and we over here at the house of purple monkeys wish you all the best. You may now look forward to the traditional end-of-year lists of a few of my favorite things, none of which were featured in that zany song in The Sound of Music.

I thought some of you might be a little more curious about my cell phone. I mean, considering how much I've avoided them for the last three years, it should come as a major surprise to many of you that I suddenly own one. It's a VX4400 made by LG for use on the Verizon Wireless network.

Funky Fresh thinks highly of it, as do nearly fifty owners of the phone who went out of their way to write up reviews at Epinions. I might add my own to that list once I've grown more accustomed to the phone. Apparently Roger Binns also thinks highly enough of the phone to have written up a huge list of frequently asked questions about it, which I suspect might help me in the future.

This is a little off-topic, but I'll ask nonetheless. If anyone has this or a compatible phone and would like to send me a Super Mario theme ring tone, I would appreciate it. email me for proper contact information.

In my "introduction to networking" class some two years ago, one of our assignments was to crimp our own patch cables to connect our workstations to hubs and switches in the back of the room. I was sitting in the first computer at the front of the room, so my cable was necessarily some forty feet long. This was annoyingly useless for the first year or so that I had it, but in the house in which we have lived since the first week of April, it has come very much in handy, allowing me to sit on my bed and surf the internet with a forty-foot cable running to the cable modem in the next room.

The cable has had its fair share of issues. It was bent too much at one point and didn't work for a short while, and it no longer works (for some reason) if I leave it coiled over a short distance (so I also own a seven-foot CAT-6 cable for short-distance connections). Just a few minutes ago, though, I took a peak at the more questionable end of the cable, and I noticed that two of the eight wires are completely severed. Luckily, they are the fourth pair (#7, brown and white, and #8, brown), which serve no purpose. Only the first, second, third, and sixth wires matter according to the EIA/TIA 568A standard, so the fourth, fifth, seventh, and eigth wires are just there for show. Lucky me, I guess. At least for now!

No, I didn't watch Titanic; that will never happen again. But I did the next worst thing: I got a cell phone. But it wasn't by choice! Seriously, it wasn't. Mom's encouraged me to get one for several months because she hates not being able to get in touch with me when I'm at work or with friends, and I've told her that I'm not going to pay for a phone just because she wants to talk to me. I mean, why should I pay $40-50 per month just because someone else thinks I should have a cell phone?

Well, it's been taken out of my hands. For Christmas, Dad bought me a phone and offered to pay for the first few months, so I basically have a six-month trial period with a free cell phone as long as I don't incur any ridiculous costs. I still don't think I'm going to use it to call home and tell Mom when and where I'll be (or when I won't be home), but at least I'll have it if she wants to call me. I guess. We'll see!

And no, you insensitive clod. I'm not putting my phone number on the internet.

Without a doubt, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is the greatest sequence of films I have ever seen. I knew this would be the case when I saw the first one, but I held my breath on that until at least seeing the middle part. Now that I've seen all three, there is no doubt in my mind that the cinematic quality of these three films, especially the last, blows away anything I've ever seen on any screen.

My opinion: Eowin had the best scene of the trilogy. Let me know when you see it!

Last Thursday, I bought three tickets for tonight's midnight showing of Lord of the Rings: Return of the King at the Amstar theatre in Macon (much better than the local Regal theatre -- better popcorn and more comfortable seats!). To prepare, I spent about eight hours watching the extended versions of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers over the weekend, and I am now eager to learn what happens after the battle at Helm's Deep.

Luckily, I am one of the few fans who is waiting until after I've seen all the movies before I read the books, so the movies are not spoiled by their deviances from Tolkien or anything else. I've avoided reading the tons of spoiler stuff, unlike the my pre-treatment of the Matrix sequels, mostly because the end of the semester over the last few weeks has granted no time to look the movies up.

The 3:20 running time has me bouncing in anticipation. I won't get to sleep until at least 4:00 in the morning, and the probability is high that I will come here first to announce how amazing the film really is. See you in a few hours!

I may have expected four A's at the onset of the semester, but by the end I was expecting two A's, a B, and a C. The B I was expecting (in International Economics) turned out to be an A, and the C I was expecting (in Sociology) was, unfortunately, a C. I'm still waiting to hear back on Ethics and Public Service Management, but I am about 99% sure that anything less than an A in either of those is impossible. Yay for another semester in the past. Yay for making Dean's List one more time. Yay for Chubbchubbs.

UPDATE 16:15 -- Due to excessive absences, I earned a B in Public Service Management. I absolutely hate Macon State College's attendance policy. College students are mostly adults who are paying the school to educate them. If the students want to give the college their money and not go to class, yet they still learn (or otherwise know) the material and complete the assignments in order to earn the highest academic marks, the school should have no right to penalize them academically for spending their time elsewhere. We are adults, and we should be treated as such.

Senator Pat Roberts used the words above to describe Saddam Hussein yesterday, after learning that the former dictator of Iraq was basically denying everything we have charged against him. In line with other top Iraqi officials' "revalations", Saddam denies that his government had the means to develop unconventional weapons or that they had any, and he also denied playing any part in the insurgency of the last eight months.

My first instinct is not like the Bush administration's and the Republicans' -- you see, I am in no position of responsibility, so I don't have to issue statements that continuously and vigorously defend my belief that Saddam Hussein is lying. On the other hand, since that thought is already firmly planted, my first instinct is to question whether my own thoughts are valid. A skeptic to the end, I am, and often it is found to be rather annoying. But I find that I am more often in the company of truth by questioning the validity of my own interpretations of the world, because I do not allow myself to blindly accept lies or misconceptions.

Regardless of whether Saddam is being truthful or not (I still believe he is not, mind you), it can safely be said that some Democrats are handling this very well, while others are not (Andrew Sullivan is handling it well; he is writing about those who are not. Click the link to see what I mean.). I expect that the Republican half of the country will reap more benefits than will Democrats, but if any wing of the Democratic Party will earn more favor, it will be the more liberal wing, as the more conservative wing might have its faith in conservativism renewed following a perceived success for the Bush administration. Only time will tell, of course.

A visitor to a video games newsgroup, simply known as Gorf, posted the following short paragraph in a conversation centered on the effects on kids of violent video games like Grand Theft Auto:

Parenting is the most difficult job anyone can ever do. These CEOs who earn five, six or seven figure salaries think they work hard because they are in the office at six and get home at eleven. In reality, they hide from the real work. Their company will be liquidated long before their bloodline, so what's more important?

I certainly agree with Gorf's implication. I have played violent video games for years, and not once have I felt even remotely encouraged to actually perform any of the violent actions emulated in those games. Why? Not because someone was there monitoring the games I was playing and telling me that those things were wrong, but because throughout my life I have been taught right from wrong, including a strong moral foundation for avoiding violence unless absolutely necessary.

Violent video games do not have much impact at all on violent behavior, in my estimation. Rather, violent behavior influences such violent video games. The games, after all, are built from the examples we set, and I don't know anyone who plays any video game who confuses the reality of real life with the virtuality of the game. At worst, a violent video game might provide violent minds with new ideas, but that is very much different than spawning the violence itself.

Saddam Hussein was captured in Iraq Saturday night, and the various news agencies have had a field day with the news. Even more fun than trying to read through the spin of the supposedly objective worldwide press is picking up on the spin where it belongs -- in blogs across the internet:

Markos of Daily Kos is already suggesting that capturing Saddam alive was a bad idea. His skepticism shines through as he ponders Saddam telling the truth about weapons of mass destruction, asking "is the truth what the Bush administration really wants Saddam to tell?" I think this is a silly question founded on the Machiavellian assumption that a harmful truth should be shielded; Bush does not strike me as especially Machiavellian, although he is certainly knowledgeable of the Machiavellian style of politicking.

I don't like this undeniably pessimistic tone. It seems to indicate some partisan desire for Bush to be revealed as a failure to his nation, at the expense of undermining America's current operations in Iraq and indeed everywhere else. Regardless of one's partisan interests in American politics, the effects of such a negative portrayal of the American president should not be underestimated. If America's pretenses for war were proven to have been false, America's credibility will be irreparably damaged. Not the Republicans' credibility, but all of America's -- the public masses of the various nations worldwide do not follow American politics; they merely follow the headlines of American political action. There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans to the average non-American.

The other irrational, recurring argument that annoys me is that Saddam should have gone out like a valiant soldier who would not be taken alive, or that he should have practiced what he preached and volunteered his own life for the cause in the form of a suicide bombing. I make no claim to understand the politics of suicide bombing, but I like to think that I know at least a little bit about political leadership. In short, a leader's responsibility differs from the responsibilities of the people he leads.

Upon imminent capture, Saddam's task is not to blow himself to bits and take as many of the enemy with him. Rather, his duty is to represent his actions and his orders with some dignified response. He can never expect his captors to understand his reasons, but for his character to keep its integrity in the minds of his followers, he must stand firm in ways that they can not, which in this case will likely be in some court of law.

Finally, today's Cheap Shot Award goes jointly to Mowaffak al-Rubaie and Andrew Sullivan. Ian Fisher of the New York Times describes the initial interrogation following Saddam Hussein's capture, in which Saddam was described as "defiant and unrepentant, but very much defeated". To sum it up, Saddam's verbal reaction to the brief interrogation following his capture was particularly vulgar. Rubaie described Hussein's vulgarity as "[using] all his French" and "exercising his French language". Andrew Sullivan called this "lovely little irony". Check a dictionary, Andrew; that's no irony. It's plain, purposeless insult.

For more information on Saddam's capture, check any news web site. I prefer Fox News or Google News, but no one can resist this story so it makes no difference where you go.

You can not be told how to beat Super Mario Bros. 3 in eleven minutes. You have to see it for yourself. I can not imagine how many times someone would have to play SMB3 to be this good at it. However, I am not surprised at all that this game is the one that features such a miraculous exploit -- no other video game in the history of video games has sold as many copies as SMB3: some 15+ million worldwide.

One of my daily, geekly vices is to visit alt.movies.the-matrix and add a few words to frivolous discussions about the stories of and surrounding the Matrix. Over the last couple of days, though, one conversation with a Polish Matrix-lover of the female variety led to interesting results. Here's my latest contribution to the conversation, prompted by her asking the question, "You weren't seriously looking for Miss Right, were you?":

A guy can't "seriously look" for Miss Right, or he'll never find her. Two people who are right for each other can only find each other when they are specifically not looking for that connection, because only then will they each truly be themselves. The relationship will only work perfectly in that situation because neither of them want it to, and each will fall in love with the other's flaws, which happen to perfectly correspond with what each person was really looking for.

The best of lovers bring out the best in each other because they go out of their way to dish out their worst without bring blatantly nasty. We are automatically emotional because we're torn up about what is happening, defending against that which we are specifically trying to avoid. It's a conflict of interests, and in the right moment it isn't the interests that match, but the conflicts. If we embrace our darker sides, there's nothing to the rest of it.

I should add that I agree with this year's BCS picks for the national championship. Oklahoma's loss to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship, regardless of the 28-point margin, did not remove Oklahoma from their number-one-ranking in my book. And Louisiana State has the best defense in the entire country. The next best defense is Georgia's (who LSU beat twice) and in third is Oklahoma, allowing four points more per game. LSU's average margin of victory is third behind Oklahoma and Boise State, and BSU's schedule is crammed with third world teams that couldn't have winning records in Division II. Suffice it to say that the University of Southern California does not deserve the number-one ranking in any Division I-A polls right now, and neither does LSU -- that distinction belongs to one team alone: Oklahoma.

Now think about from whom this is coming. I don't like to advertise my biases, but when it comes to college football, I know I am completely biased in favor of the SEC. I won't be shy about disliking Oklahoma; I wanted them to lose to Kansas State, and I want them to lose to LSU. But I'm still going to be fair, and to be fair I have to recognize that no team has played a better season than Oklahoma to this point, and if Oklahoma beats LSU in the Sugar Bowl, then Oklahoma is my national champion regardless of the result of the Rose Bowl between USC and Michigan. (For the record, I am not only rooting for Michigan to quiet the USC fans, but I also think Michigan will win by a decisive margin.)

Now for some early predictions:

Miami (Ohio) will destroy Louisville in the GMAC Bowl, 12/18.

Boise State will marginally beat TCU in the Fort Worth Bowl, 12/23.

Nebraska will defeat Michigan State in the Alamo Bowl, 12/29.

Texas will stomp Washington State in the Holiday Bowl, 12/30.

Minnesota will stomp Oregon in the Sun Bowl, 12/31.

Arkansas will beat Missouri in the Independence Bowl, 12/31.

Iowa will handle Florida in the Outback Bowl, 1/1.

Georgia will crush Purdue in the Capital One Bowl, 1/1.

Michigan will narrowly defeat USC in the Rose Bowl, 1/1.

Florida State will squeak by Miami in the Orange Bowl, 1/1.

Tennessee will beat Clemson in the Peach Bowl, 1/2.

Kansas State will narrowly defeat Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl, 1/2.

No one outside Georgia and Oklahoma will watch the Humanitarian Bowl, 1/3.

LSU will narrowly defeat Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl, 1/4.

While I may call for some teams to "stomp" or "crush" others, I am mostly interested in the wins and losses. However, where I mention a narrow victory, I acknowledge a higher probability of being wrong. The games I have left out are either too close to call or too pointless for me to waste my time predicting.

And for consistency, I'm rooting for Auburn over Wisconsin in the Music City Bowl, 12/31!

If you think the BCS is BS, welcome to the club. While in Chattanooga last weekend, someone in the group mistook "BCS" for "bestiality", which led to the undeniable truth: "People who like the BCS like bestiality." We laughed, we cried, I almost died... Oh, it was a good weekend!

For those who don't know, the BCS stands for Bowl Championship Series, a series of football games that people are supposed to watch for the first four days of January. One of those games is the national championship game between the two top-ranked teams in the BCS rankings, which is, of course, what this is all about.

The BCS rankings take five things into account: (1) voters' polls (an average of the AP and ESPN/Coach's polls); (2) computer rankings (an average of the best six of seven computer rankings based on complex formulas); (3) strength of schedule (2/3 opponents' winning percentage plus 1/3 opponents' opponents winning percentage); (4) quality wins (weighted points for teams in the BCS top ten); and (5) losses. Hopefully, I can explain problems with this ranking system clearly and concisely.

Overall, I like the way the BCS works, adding the averages of the voters' polls, computer rankings, and losses. My main concerns lie with the strength of schedule and quality wins components. First, each component is redundant, since the voters' polls (in the form of bias against teams who play weaker opponents) and computer rankings (in various forms) already take them into account.

Beyond the redundancy, the strength of schedule component is biased in that it does not accurately consider the weakness of opponents or opponents' opponents. Wins are all that matter at the end of each game, but if there is to be a genuine strength or power component, it must include something more than merely W's and L's, because those do not indicate power, but merely the ability to do just what is necessary to win.

A bigger problem with the strength of schedule component is that it relies on the strength ranking rather than the actual percentage. This hurts teams with huge gaps in strength over weaker competitors. A true strength component would need to consider strength as a percentage, not a ranking, and it would also need to include some component for margin of victory -- a one-point victory over Florida State should count more than a ten-point victory over Army (no offense, Rangers).

Even worse, though, is the quality wins component. This would be acceptable, I suppose, if there were (smaller) weighted points for defeating teams at each ranking between 1 and 117, which would in turn reduce the bias for defeating top 10 teams but not the number 11 team. Still, I think a better idea would be to throw out this component altogether, since a more appropriate strength of schedule component plus the bias effect of the polls would more than offset the need for a quality wins component.

The BCS is neither inherently good nor bad for college football, because there has been no universal agreement on how the national championship should be decided. Many people like the idea of a tournament structure, but that is unfair to so many teams who don't make it due to revenue imbalances and such, not to mention the strain on the students (college football players are students first!). I personally like the bowl games, but I think there needs to be a better, universally more agreeable standard for determining champions and the high rankings.

I also want to see the worst-ranked teams in the nation to play for the bottom four positions (and some extra revenues) in the Salad Bowl and Toilet Bowl.

We walked into a McDonalds in Chattanooga, and after Travis, Dr. Taylor, and I accepted another trio's challenge to tackle the 50-piece McNugget meal, I felt a mild discomfort in my chest. I had felt it before, and it has had me wonder if I don't suffer from mitral valve prolapse like my mom. But this time it was different. This time it was sharp, and it lingered. After a few seconds, I felt the blood rushing from my face, I felt chilled, and I felt the sensation that I was about to pass out. I cautiously made my way to the McDonalds restroom, where I splashed my face and just stood to recollect myself. Dr. Taylor made a quick visit to make sure I was still alive, and to his relief I was able to communicate to him that I would return to "dinner" in a few moments, where I helped them to put down fifty nuggets (I think I had about 20 of them).

So after resuming the regular business of things with the gang after the snack, I pondered on the cause of what I was calling my "near-death experience". The first suggestion was heartburn, but I thought that was typical after eating, not before. Then we wondered if I didn't have some kind of pulled muscle or perhaps even a strangulated hernia, which I suppose is still plausible since my chronic coughing and body-contorting could easily aggravate such a condition. Another plausible explanation is that I experienced a bad combination of dehydration and caffeine-and-sugar high, which could have spiked blood pressure.

But this all leads to what is probably at the root of my problem: a condition known as mitral valve prolapse, which unfortunately runs in my family, which means it is probably what hit me Saturday night. The caffeine and sugar could certainly aggravate that condition, and the lack of water during the day definitely would not have helped.

I've done a minimal amount of research, and I'm relieved to say that it almost certainly was not a heart attack or anything that serious, but unfortunately it is either mitral valve prolapse or a hernia -- and I'm leaning toward the likelihood of MVP. I'll let you know how that turns out.

I'm not making any predictions until the end of Spring Training, because you never know how a team is going to look until just before the season starts, but as of right now it is looking bleak for the Atlanta Braves. Parent company Time Warner was expected to make considerable paycuts to the team, and they weren't kidding. Gary Sheffield has already signed a contract with the New York Yankees, and the Braves did not offer salary arbitration to Greg Maddux or Javy Lopez, meaning neither of them can be signed by Atlanta until May 1. What that means is that each of them will have already played one month for another team.

The major sports networks haven't caught on yet, but I think the Braves are interested in Vladimir Guerrero, which combined with Chipper Jones and Andruw Jones would keep the Braves lineup in great shape. However, I don't know how the Braves can recover from the double-whammy loss of Sheffield and Lopez unless someone steps up big, be he a pitcher or a position player.

And while most of the baseball fans don't care about the management shuffling, the Atlanta Braves president, Stan Kasten, also left the team today. What will happen for the Braves in 2004? Your guess is as good as mine, but as I said above, I shall make no predictions until I see who we've got and what we're up against.

I rarely have time to scan the headlines for news any more, but I had a few spare moments this morning, and I came across Matt Drudge's report of Hillary Clinton accusing George W. Bush of "attempting to dismantle the 'central pillars of progress in our country during the 20th century'". Specifically, Clinton says she is convinced that Bush is trying to "undo the New Deal".

YES! YES! YES! I'd vote for him ten times over again if we could undo the New Deal! I'll pray to whatever invisible man you want me to if you just give America back its glory days and rid it of the discriminatory programs the New Deal has provided! (Obviously, that is an extreme position. But if you hear extreme and even remotely move toward it in a minimal effort to compromise, we'll be closer to what I really want.)

Too many people in this country see Franklin Delano Roosevelt as one of this country's greatest presidents because of his New Deal policies. I, on the other hand, view him as one of the greatest simply for his ability to lead (especially during a war), but as for job effectiveness, he's way down the list in the middle somewhere. Why? Because his New Deal policies, the ones that we praise so highly today, didn't help anything on a national scale! Okay, some people are appeased and we now the American blend of capitalism has that distinct socialist-welfare flavor, but is a socialist welfare state really what America needs to be? There are already so many of those!

Any time Hillary opens her mouth, even to insult someone, I agree with exactly the opposite of what she says. Not because I choose to, but because she is seriously a communist (look up the word and you might agree) and I am seriously a capitalist.