"He said, 'I'm gonna' buy a gun and start a war,
if you can tell me something worth fighting for.'"
-Coldplay

It turns out there are about a million and one of these little error pages out there. Who knew? Well, I guess everyone except me. And I didn't even realize it until I did a Google search on "error 404." Well, actually the number of results on my search was 2,100,000, but I'm sure they aren't all parodies.

Still, it was entertaining to browse through the first dozen or so. This is what I ended up doing as I sat staring at a computer screen without a clue in my head as to what I was going to write. The lead-in quote doesn't even jibe with the content of this entry -- I just picked it because I've been listening to too much Coldplay the past couple days.

Anyway, for anyone as clueless as me about these clever little internet site gags, here's my short list of favorite error pages so far (not including the previously mentioned WMD page):

1. Comical Ali
2. Comical Ali II
3. Zork (I'm not exactly sure what this one's about, but...)
4. Jayson Blair
5. Fresh Air (the best advice I ever got from my computer)

And that's pretty much it for now.

"I was just guessing at numbers and fingers,
pulling the puzzles apart.
Questions of science -- science and progress
-- could not speak as loud as my heart."
-Coldplay

"I just don't think you should have to wait around for me."

Yes, those were her words. I told her I didn't mind (again), but she insisted my patience just confused her more.
I can recall when I first declared my love for her, the three words she'd said she only wanted to hear in the right context. And when I used those words, her blank expression left me with the impression the context was somehow lacking.

There was a time I believed our problems were rooted in her failure to respond in kind. But even that didn't faze me; I was dead sure of the declaration, even as she avoided my gaze -- even as I sensed her slipping away. But that sensation was already too familiar, almost a theme in my life. So, I could handle the looming threat of loneliness, as long as I was still clinging to the hope that my sheer will could carry the day; that her doubt could be canceled by my faith.

In retrospect, it really was an insane belief -- my whole life hinging on the idea that the purity of intentions, the sincerity of love, made it irrelevant what anyone else believed, or even if they believed in love at all. I just knew that was enough, and to me, it didn't matter whether she believed like I did.

As it turns out, it did matter.

In the real world, infidels aren't always convertible. Sometimes the seeds of doubt are sown so deep in a soul that only major excavation will uproot them. To me, anything was possible; to her, too much potential heartbreak lay around the corner -- and she just couldn't be brought to believe anything was worth that risk. My optimism alone became an annoyance to her, and the divergent perspectives we held drove us in opposite directions.

Years have passed, and looking back I can now acknowledge that I may have been too optimistic. Perhaps I would have grown impatient, or even resentful, toward her if I had stuck it out until she was past her demons. Maybe love, at least the version I practiced, doesn't really conquer everything.

Or maybe as we went our separate ways, she stumbled onto another opportunity to believe, to take a risk -- and maybe the intentions I tried to extend played in her head the way her words still occasionally play in mine.

And maybe she took a chance this time.

I have been trying to wrap my mind around the issue of gay marriage. Until recently, I couldn't find much to say about it, as I am neither gay nor married -- and I guess I just didn't feel especially qualified to comment on it.

Until now.
The President seemed to have it right a while back when he declared that gay marriage was a state issue, not a federal one. Even as he had pushed DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), he remained on the sidelines as it pertained to the actual legal status of same-sex marriages.

But in more recent statements, he has unveiled an agenda to get the ball rolling on a constitutional amendment to outlaw such marriages. Let me say that I thought his first answer was the correct one. Marriage, in this country, is and has been a state-sponsored institution, regardless of its roots in religious culture. To hold this line is not to necessarily to support the cause of gay marriage, but rather to support the constitutional concept of states rights.

I can only assume that the president knows such a constitutional amendment will not survive the process, and that he is merely putting this declaration out there to appeal to a political base whose intensity has been at least slightly diminished by a flurry of policy decisions made over the past couple years. While a majority of Americans do not approve of gay marriage, about as much of a majority of Americans also disapprove of a constitutional amendment to ban it. And Congress will not offer enough of a majority to support it either.

The real issue, though, is the Full Faith and Credit clause in the constitution. For the uninitiated, this is the clause that allows a married couple to get married in one state and be guaranteed the benefits of marriage in all states. I can't yet figure if the real opposition to gay marriage is on moral grounds, or perhaps on economic grounds.

Think of how Full Faith and Credit would affect employer benefits packages, where spouses are commonly eligible to collect certain benefits. The state in which a business employs its people would be irrelevant, as any legal marriage in any state would warrant protection in all other states. Is it that gay marriage will tear at the moral fabric of our society, or is it simply a matter of economic nuisance?

It probably depends on what you believe.

I don't know for sure if the chances of instituting gay marriage should be forever abolished, but I am sure that the decision to do so should rest in the hands of individual states. Then perhaps we could see an interesting debate on Full Faith and Credit.

P.S. > I got carried away while writing this entry and somehow slipped in referencing the wrong part of the constitution. All three places where you now read "Full Faith and Credit" had originally read "equal protection" when this entry was first published. In reading back over some archives, I now notice my mistake, and I apologize for any confusion the mixed-up reference may have caused. The issue central to my position in this entry is Full Faith and Credit, but I apparently wasn't operating at full capacity when I did my proof-reading (or my writing, for that matter) -- I may have been distracted by hearing the talking heads bicker over equal protection.

On the other hand, if you never saw or noticed this entry before, just pretend this entire post script doesn't exist, and read the post as I intended it to be in the first place. Bye now.

I have just seen the new film from Mel Gibson -- a little film called The Passion of the Christ.

I have many thoughts on the film, ranging from my take on the allegations of anti-Semitism in the media to my feelings (as one of the world's billion or so Christians) on why the film needed to be as gruesome as it was.

However, I'm not sure I want to go into detail on these thoughts. In short, if you are a Christian, and you want to remind yourself of what you claim to believe, you should watch this film. If you are not a Christian and are unlikely to convert to Christianity, you may just end up with a very cynical opinion of this movie. If you are curious about what Christianity entails, this movie offers a pretty good idea of the central concepts.

Other than that, I'll abstain from further review.

Here's a Google search to try:

First, go to Google.com; then type "weapons of mass destruction" in the search bar; then click on the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button. Read the resulting page carefully. Enjoy. (I actually came across this suggestion while browsing the comments section of Eyeranian.net, a blog published by an Iranian American.)

"My writing...is an attempt to recreate my childhood...it's an obsession...for me it's not a choice, it's necessity."
-Maurice Sendak

You always knew the children's book authors were the ones with the darkest secrets...

Anyway, I had a point. It had to do with the amazement I used to feel when coming across anyone who both (a) appeared to be normal, and (b) had a compulsion to write. I'd long been under the impression that anyone who wrote compulsively (as I often have) is trying to figure out their own demons (as I often did).
This impression is not only drawn from personal experience, but also from statements from people who really write, like the one above from the author of Where the Wild Things Are. Though, to be fair, a journey of self-discovery is among the strangest ones you can take. Even the most "normal" people can unearth some pretty odd discoveries along the way.

I don't write today for all the same reasons that I started trying to write in my youth, but there are still some similar reasons. I still write to figure out what I think of the world, though I may not start out as confused as I did when I was, say, thirteen years old. But then part of the reason I am clearer now is that I've worked through a lot of my previous confusion with a pen and paper. I do think it's a great way to gain clarity, even if the pen and paper I now use often looks more like a keyboard and monitor.

As I've gone along and had the opportunity to pay attention to more people, I've also learned that the other reason I've always written is the same reason a lot of people do many of the things they do -- to express or communicate something about myself. Whether it's through art, photography, writing, public speaking, conversation or any other form of expression -- we've all got something we think other people should know or from which they could benefit.

I've come to the conclusion that everyone feels this way about something, whether it's a personal need or a social observation. Whatever it may be, everybody has an idea, original or not (most often, as in my case, not). The variance between people who write (or express in general) and people who don't is still one of those things I can't fully explain.

So, I've now come to the point where it no longer amazes me when creative people appear to be normal. I'm not even sure normal is a stable value, as the term is so often used to describe people who seem just like everyone else -- as such, the definition changes.

I am sure that the illusion of normality is one in which I no longer have any faith. And truth be told, I find strange people much more interesting.

"The impulse to write things down is peculiarly compulsive one,
inexplicable to those who do not share it, useful only accidentally,
in the way that any compulsion tries to justify itself."
-Joan Didion

So, the elder statesman of American consumer advocacy is back for more in '04.

Don't get confused. I am in no way a cynic regarding Ralph Nader's budding presidential campaign. I believe it's a good thing. Though in just his first few hours in the race, he already has many detractors. One of Nader's early critics is Democratic New Mexico Governor, and former Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson, who insists that Nader is simply trying to feed his own ego. He also charges Nader with Al Gore's defeat in 2000. But I don't agree.
It is possible for someone as accomplished and accustomed to leading to become an egomaniac, but somehow I don't see Nader as fitting that bill.

I have a basic disagreement with liberal activists and political operatives of the Democratic party alike: Pointing the finger at Ralph Nader for their own failure is not only naive, but it avoids the real problem in a way that could hurt their chances for the second straight presidential election.

People voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 because something in his message resonated with them. It wasn't as if they liked Al Gore and just decided to throw away their votes. And people like Bill Richardson, who discount Nader's bid as an ego trip, are being disingenuous. This attitude presupposes that John Kerry, Al Gore, or any other serious contender is somehow devoid of personal ambition, or as some would call it, "ego". If Al Gore had somehow been able to reach the electorate with a message of substance, other than "elect me, because I'm against Republicans," he would have won in 2000. But he didn't, and now it seems the Democrats have learned very little from that failure.

But briefly here, let me explain why Nader's message reached people: it's basically true.

That's it.

Nader expressed concerns that many millions of Americans already shared. He spoke of a political duopoly (I keep meaning to check if that's a real word), and he spoke of the immense influence that corporations wield on both sides of the aisle. And he had a laundry list of basic concepts to which he has dedicated his life -- steadfastly. He pounded his message every chance he got, and for better or worse people knew where he stood and had little doubt of his sincerity. A track record like his will have that effect, even for people who vehemently disagree with him.

He waged a campaign that was only about issues, while the two parties were beating each other to a pulp with smear ads before an incredulous electorate. And in the end, Nader only drew a couple million votes -- of those who agreed with him in theory, there was a small percentage willing to vote accordingly.

For political hacks to parade themselves onto the Sunday morning news circuit speaking of Ralph Nader like he's supposed to be an indentured servant to the Democratic party shows how little they think of American voters. Their political machine is not driven by issues anymore, so it's natural for them to think in terms of which party wins, rather than which set of ideas wins.

The simple truth is, if John Kerry (assuming he wins the nomination) sets himself apart from George W. Bush he'll have a better chance of defeating him in November, and he will, at the same time, give would-be Nader supporters a legitimate reason to vote for him, too. But if the only true principle Democrats are willing to cling to is "Anyone but Bush," they will most likely lose, with or without Ralph Nader's help.

"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers.
This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly
by the Americans themselves."
-Albert Einstein

So, I had mentioned before (maybe a little over a month ago) that I would try to attend this meeting with a guy I know from work -- it was supposed to be about moneymaking. I didn't end up going on that particular day, but I did finally go yesterday morning.
Apparently, the company sponsoring this get-together is ACN. I don't exactly know what the letters stand for, though they do have a fairly sophisticated website. There is a company listed under the letters ACN on stock exchange listings, but I can't be sure if it's the same company.

Anyway, there was no free food, as I had been led to believe, and as with many moneymaking ideas, there is a prelude to personal profit that ironically (and quite predictably) involves spending money. Of course, if you visit their website or speak to a well-trained representative prior to attending the meeting, there will be no mention of a five hundred dollar buy-in -- at least not until you give up some personal information.

Don't get me wrong, my friend from work seems to be doing quite well with this business concept. But it does appear to require a good bit of evangelizing -- getting new people involved. I don't think it's really my thing, though I guess I could change my mind. In theory, the business concept seems very workable, and the products are well-reviewed, as far as I can find so far. My discomfort comes from the cult-like secrecy and obsession with money that seem to surround the whole venture.

Perhaps, if anyone out there knows anything about ACN, they could comment or send me email regarding this subject. I'd always appreciate a little enlightenment.

I just came across this bit of dialogue at Anthony's weBLOG. It made me laugh, just a little...

"Well, ladies and gentlemen, it just doesn't
take a lot of fuzzy math to count to zero."
-John Kerry

In the wake of more dismal news on the job-creation front, in this CNN.com piece the President appears to be turning the focus away from direct job-creation in favor of tax cuts.

This all plays into what I'd already been pondering about the importance of creating jobs (or at least not giving them all away) in the manufacturing sector. I noticed a quote from the president in the waning portion of the CNN article:

"Tax relief is working, factory orders are up, housing is strong, the unemployment rate is down from 6.3 percent last June to 5.6 percent in January. Things are positive, but there's more that Congress should to do keep momentum alive."It's interesting that he mentions "factory orders" as part of his statement. It's certainly good news that what relative few factories are still operating in this country may be seeing an increase in orders; just imagine what good news this would be for our economy if the vast majority of our goods weren't produced in foreign factories. Better yet, what if we didn't give domestic corporations tax incentives for international relocation?

My second thought on this statement is regarding the idea that the unemployment rate has gone down seven tenths of a percentage point since last June. Hmmm... that would be a little over six months, wouldn't it? Upon closer examination, this decrease is only impressive until we remember the changes that went into the way the department of labor concocts their unemployment numbers. Few people are probably aware of these changes, which make it so we now only track those who collect unemployment, and as most people are aware, that stretch usually runs out after six months. But many can blissfully point to a decrease in the unemployment number, unaware of how much of that 0.7% comprises people who are simply no longer eligible for a check from the government, whether or not they have jobs.

The last point is a marriage of both the jobs myth and the reason why that will naturally hinder the housing market. Who exactly is buying all the houses? The numbers don't exactly amount to home-buying boom. When one mentions "fuzzy math," the clearest example that comes to mind for me is the incongruous relationship between the rising cost of homes and the diminishing nature of average salaries. I have heard many a business expert point out the importance of a large retailer like Wal-Mart to our economy while failing to explain how the majority of such a company's workers will be able to substantially contribute to either the economy or the tax base.
(While most people may like cheap goods, the American consumer's adoration for everyday low prices may well transform us into a nation of people who can only afford the cheapest goods. Already, most high-priced goods (luxury cars, big houses, etc.) are being bought with money their owners don't even have. But that's a whole other subject I'll try to ignore for now.)

Sometimes it strikes me that the only people who are benefiting from this recovery are those who have significant investments. While tax rebate checks and slight reductions in payroll taxes are beneficial, the average person's life won't be dramatically enriched by them. It would be nice if only more people did invest wisely, but that's not generally the case.

Most people I know who received tax rebates promptly spent them on leisure items -- as opposed to paying down debts, or investing in stocks or retirement accounts. And if I were the CEO of a large corporation, having received a proportional tax break, I'd be pleased as punch that the consumers are squandering their meager checks to purchase some product my company made for next to nothing in some remote, unregulated third-world factory.
So I guess business is good, at least for some of us.

"I can never understand why people who haven't seen me for a while
ask if I am still writing. They might as well ask if I am still breathing."
-Phyllis Reynolds Naylor

I noticed yesterday that one of my favorite bloggers is taking a break for a while. Steven den Beste, author of USS Clueless, announced in his most recent post that he is taking a break to recharge.

I've only been reading him for a few months, but I have to say I've been impressed by his ability to come up with new material -- and it most often challenges my own ideas. Even so, I guess it stands to reason that every once in a while a little recharging is necessary.

But there is much in the way of archived material worth reading on his site, if you haven't been and you like reading "writers." Maybe he'll be back soon.

That's all for me today.

My niece directed me to a site I can hardly believe I hadn't previously visited, The Simpson's official website. I just thought the lead-in page was hilarious, at least to lovers of the show.

Also, I came across this article on CNN.com about the potential security threats posed by Microsoft's dominance. I especially urge Internet Explorer users to read it.

And in the spirit of throwing my own little wrench into the Microsoft machine, I browsed on over to the Mozilla site a few days back (following a blog mention by Cziltang) and downloaded the new Firefox 0.8 browser and Thunderbird 0.5 mail client, both of which are pretty decent so far.

I had already been using the Firebird browser that preceded Firefox, and I haven't noticed too much difference yet, but the Thunderbird has some great new functionality, especially regarding the automatic sorting of junk mail. I have decided I like Mozilla enough to put their image link on the sidebar (just below the Crayon Box link).

"Don't admire people for their wealth,
but for the creative and generous ways they put it to use."
-H. Jackson Browne
(from Life's Little Instruction Book)

I was thinking about how much I admire Bono this morning.

Really, I was.

I mean, here's a guy who has everything -- money, fame and all the rest. So what does he do when he's not plying the trade of music making? He travels the world to advocate for the poor. He doesn't just give money, but he also uses a lot of it to travel and promote the causes of the less fortunate.

I guess I was raised on the old Gospel idea of Jesus saying, "Whatever you have done to the least of these, you've done to me." It's from these words that I get my belief that there are people who speak spiritually, and there are people who live spiritually.

And even though I believe the JFK inaugural line (also a Gospel paraphrase), "of those to whom much is given, much is required," I guess it still impresses me when I see people in privileged positions taking this responsibility seriously. Maybe that's because such examples are far too rare.

Anyway, what I want to get across is that I think Bono's one of those rare ones. I recently came across a compilation of U2 songs sung by Christian recording artists. The album's called In the Name of Love. It's proceeds benefit an organization called World Vision, which strives to help some of the world's poorest children. I'll probably buy it, because I'm a veteran U2 fan, and it's for a good cause. So I thought I'd mention it here.

"I have great faith in fools – self-confidence, my friends call it."
-Edgar Allen Poe

I have to hang out a shingle now. I got a phone call from a co-worker who wanted legal advice, and I had to find about five different ways to tell him I'm not a lawyer. Still he persisted...

"Yeah, I know you're not a lawyer, but just tell me if you think I need to call one," is something close to the question he settled on.

I don't mean to drum up business for the legal profession, but I've decided if I ever have to seriously ask anyone that question, it will be an attorney. Later...

"That's just the way it is; some things will never change."
-Bruce Hornsby

I came across a particularly interesting piece of historical reasoning at Anthony's weBLOG. It concerns the rather surprising importance of a horse's dimensions.

And in a side note, it has been brought to my attention that my "leave a comment" link at the top of the page was broken, so I fixed it. I am also now considering adding a real comment capability to the log, as soon as I can demystify the process..

"Baby I was wrong to ever let you down,
but I did what I did before Love came to town."
-U2

It's that day again. Since I ranted in the last entry about something my favorite female friend said to me, I figure this is the proper time and place to say I think she's pretty cool, even if she does think I'm weird.

So there.

My female friend recently suggested to me that I may be something other than normal.

Initially, I took issue with this idea, until I thought about what normal might mean. Is normal all those people obsessed with being like everyone else? Is it just another word for people too timid to be different? I think so, now that I've had a little while to let the thought simmer. And now I think I'm glad she doesn't think I'm normal -- that would be an insult.

After all, normal is buying the SUV when you've got no kids, no cargo to haul around, and the closest you come to off-road is when you accidentally back onto the lawn before pulling out of the driveway. Normal is pulling the big lever. Normal is AOL.
   Wal-Mart.
      Microsoft.
Normal is surrendering your will to the latest trend. Normal is the steady downward spiral of our education system. Normal is paying grown men millions of dollars to play kids games while teachers, police officers, fire fighters and soldiers barely make enough to get by. Give me a few hours and I can tell you all about normal.

And it's not as if I'm some raging extrovert, though I may seem so when compared to this woman who enjoys my company -- however strange she may find me. In fact, I think I could stand to be a little less normal. So, if I have this normal thing figured right, it's not a position for which I'll be applying anytime soon.

I got a bit of a kick out of this top ten list at IMAO. Someone recently questioned how I could put this guy's blog on my links list. The answer is simple: Though I may not totally subscribe to his brand of political thought, he's flat-out funny sometimes. For more of why I like this guy's stuff, you can also sample this page.

"A piece of writing must be viewed as
a constantly evolving organism."
-H.L. Mencken

A few readers have asked when I will add more poems to the site. That's a good question, and one I cannot readily answer.

I think of the Mencken quote above, and I realize this is why I have so much trouble predicting when anything new will be ready. I tend to let the rhymes simmer for a while before I seriously consider them ready to be seen by anyone not living in my own head. By "simmer" I refer to a rather informal process of review. In this stage of writing, I arbitrarily pick up a previously written draft and make some fairly insignificant changes, only to realize some of the slightest modifications can change the feel of the entire piece, for better or worse.

There are poems I originally wrote years ago that I revisit and change gradually through this tinkering process. Mencken's words give me some assurance that this may not be totally neurotic behavior. Still, I guess I tend to shelter the young drafts like birds not yet ready to leave the nest.

-until I feel like they can fly on their own, at least. Until then, I'm grateful that anyone's even checking out the rhymes.

Thanks for reading.

So I was watching some talking heads discuss the latest round of political jostling over the military service issue. The longer I listened, the more absurd it started to sound, as they theorized on whether the President had gone AWOL, a term which, incidentally, doesn't apply to the branch where the President did serve.

I guess it was spurred by some campaign-based allegations from the John Kerry camp. And if you've been watching the same talking heads (God forbid) that I have, you've been reminded a hundred or so times of Kerry's persistent assertion over a decade ago that military service shouldn't be such a big issue in choosing a president. But then, he was at the time defending a man who had been labeled a draft-dodger.

It's fascinating, if not disenchanting, how the tables turn. I'm not even sure who started this whole inane argument over military participation by those vying for employment in the executive branch. However, I am fairly sure that most people who raise this issue for political purposes are being disingenuous.

It's not that military service has no value, because it well may. I just chafe at the way the same old political operatives change tune, not based on principle, but based on the qualifications of the candidate they're trying to promote (or derail) at any given moment.

In 1992, it was the Republicans going after the draft-dodging challenger, while they boasted of a war-hero incumbent. In 2004, the presumed Democratic challenger is the one with the medals, while the incumbent is the one with questionable military involvement; and this hasn't escaped the attention of the Democratic strategists.

I'm thinking that nobody should be surprised or upset with John Kerry for changing his tune, now that he sees how beneficial the military service paradigm is to his cause. After all, that's what you do, whether you're Democrat or Republican, when it serves your political interest.

And the partisan armies follow in lock-step...

And now for credit where credit is due...

Steve over at the Bloghole is the man who came up with some code modifications that now allow me to offer collapsible entries.

See what I mean? It works so far in every browser I have on my machine, so I think it's a pretty useful code -- and it only took me about three hours to figure out how to get it to work, but that had more to do with my failure to follow some pretty simple instructions. Otherwise, it might have taken me all of five minutes to install.

That's all for now.

"If you're lonely and want to talk to someone, instead of paying three dollars a minute to call a 900 number, try a 901 number. There are probably lots of people in western Tennessee who wouldn't mind talking to you."
-Rich Hall
(from Self-Help for the Bleak)

Another decent weekend is slowly withering, and I am considering writing a short essay on why a service economy isn't as swell as some believe it to be. I probably won't post it here, only because I know how long entries intimidate me when I'm reading blogs, and not everyone will care as much as I do about our dying manufacturing sector (though perhaps they should).

Suddenly there's water everywhere, and I'm not even thirsty...

Not only did the temperatures start to linger at higher levels the past couple days, but a steady rain has been falling as well. So, as the clouds turn to water, so do the snow banks of the past month. The cars that don't succumb to the moisture end up with a pretty good undercarriage rinse. It's got to be better than just road salt.

Meanwhile, I was pondering the best lines from country-style songs not written or performed by country singers/groups. I have a list of my three favorites so far:

1. "It's not as though I really need you;
   if you were here, I'd only leave you."
   -R.E.M.
2. "You can't call it cheatin', 'cause she reminds me of you."
   -Gin Blossoms
3. "Ever since you hung up on me, I'm hung up on you."
   -Fountains of Wayne (one I just discovered off the new album)

There are a couple other songs by non-country groups I like that fit this category, but I'm getting stuck on short, cleverly turned phrases right now.

I have this tendency to stay up late some nights, mostly due to the fact I sometimes get home fairly late, so I take a few hours to wind down. One thing I like to do late at night (besides offer these inane little essays) is watch cable news and c-span.

C-span is a favorite because from time to time I get to watch British Prime Minister Tony Blair speaking in the House of Commons. Far beyond entertaining, I also find his performances quite impressive. I sometimes wonder how most of our political leaders would fare given the opportunity to answer tough politically-charged questions point-blank in an unrehearsed setting. But this is only half of what impresses me.
Unlike most American politicians, Mr. Blair doesn't appear to be afraid of breaking ranks with his normal political allies, as evidenced in his steadfast support of the war in Iraq. In fact, I sometimes marvel that he seems more capable of defending the war effort in such a confrontational, unpracticed setting, than the U.S. administration seems to be able to do in the relatively rehearsed, controlled environment of a White House press briefing.

I just wonder how well Don Rumsfeld would keep it together in a setting like the House of Commons -- at times, he barely seems able to control his temper in the comparatively serene company of the Washington press corps.

And the President, though I don't get fooled by those insidious dumb jokes by stand-up comics and beltway foes alike, would probably get at least a little flustered if he were to walk a mile in Blair's shoes, too.

If only we could get past that requirement that the president has to be born in this country; or that other pesky requirement about having to be a U.S. citizen; then I bet Blair would make a pretty good write-in.

Oh well, it was just a thought.

This next item has something in common with the last, but only a little, I suppose...

Cziltang's Ratlands features a fresh rant entitled "Butter Police." I enjoyed the "heck" out of it. (Just watching my tongue.)

In case you haven't heard, a seven-year-old school girl in Pittsburgh has been suspended for swearing. If that was all I heard about it, I'd probably say it's about time the public schools took some kind of stand on decency, especially for younger students. I'm all for teaching the elementary school children not to use foul language. But then I heard the rest of the story.

Apparently the little girl, who is from a religious family, was chiding a classmate, saying he'd go to hell for swearing to God.

Granted, the school's policy on profanity doesn't define what is or isn't profane, but how can "hell" be considered profane when used in the literal sense? It's not as if the word has slang roots; it is, in fact, proper English (if such a thing still exists).

The ACLU has gotten involved on the girl's behalf, and that's probably the heartwarming segment of the story. At least it reaffirms my contention that they are, if nothing else, consistent in their defense of the First Amendment.

Otherwise, this story just confuses me.

I received two comments on the Janet Jackson entry from yesterday. Both comments made sense, and cause me now to add this amendment to my previous commentary.

While I don't think it's necessarily good practice to flash women's breasts on national television, especially while children are likely to be watching, there are many worse things to fear for our children (of which I have none, so "our children" is purely figurative).

One comment reads in part, "can you believe that we live in a country where parents are probably buying a CD for their 8 year old's that contain the lyrics 'I'm gonna have you nekkid by the end of this song,' yet are up in arms about the exposure of a small part of the human form not lasting two seconds?"

The other post reads in part, "what I might find a bit difficult to explain" to children "is the humping and bumping (aka., "dance") that went on for the 5 minutes prior."

These are two valid points, offered by the blog mistress of justbishop.com(I hope it's okay to refer to her that way) and my brother-in-law, respectively. There is so much indecency available to young people these days, it really seems as if Janet Jackson's right breast would be the least of our problems.

As an aside, I do trust my brother-in-law (and my sister) to offer competent parenting commentary -- after all, I trust them with five of my favorite nieces/nephews.

It's late again (or early, depending on your perspective), and I have not much to say. But I did catch the Super Bowl halftime show, even though the momentary exposure of Janet Jackson's right breast somehow escaped me. Maybe this was because I wasn't staring at the screen from only a few inches away, and my TV screen is not one of those wonderfully humongous ones, either.

I guess the thing I'm wondering, as it pertains to all this moral controversy, is how hard were critics looking in order to discover the indiscretion in question? I did see the performance (including the exposure) with my own 20/20 eyes, and I wasn't immediately sure what I had seen. But then, like I said, I wasn't exactly fixated on the view at the time. It's just that sometimes I get the impression the people most outraged by such antics are also the people most obsessed with watching them.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
-Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall
(at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII)

As much as I defend the military accomplishments in Iraq, this statement from over 50 years ago has an eerie ring to it, especially given all the name-calling that emanated from right over the past year. I did support the overall effort in Iraq, but I also felt uneasy about the accusations flying from both sides, none more disturbing than those from government officials and conservative talk show hosts labeling those who opposed the war as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

I have been fortunate to personally know several true pacifists whose motives in protesting the war had absolutely nothing to do with politics or hatred for their country.

As citizens in a democratic society, we must cleanse ourselves of the notion that dissent is unpatriotic.

I stumbled across a certain blog template, and I got a real kick out of the background image. The author calls it "Reservoir Hobbits." It doesn't quite fit the color scheme I'm going with at the moment, but I actually thought about downloading it. To view the template, go to www.justbishop.com, click on the "browse my blog templates" link in the sidebar and scroll down to the hobbit template link.

I just got a kick out of it, that's all.