The Funky man over at Ales Rarus recently mentioned a browsing tool called Stumble Upon. It took me a few days, but I finally tried it out, and it's a pretty cool way to happen upon random sites that are a little more likely to fit my fancy. The main benefit is that the more I use it, the better it reflects my own tastes and sensibilities. I encourage people to check it out, and maybe become part of this intriguing web community. A link will remain in my sidebar, in the plugs section.

Also, in other website matters, I have uncluttered the list of regular sites today. It was not a matter of respect or disrespect -- simply the recent announcement that the USS Clueless may not ever be updated again (according to a recent den Beste post the other day). If this should change, I will consider re-adding the site, as I have truly enjoyed reading and being challenged by it; but for now, I'd like to limit the "eclectics" to sites where updates are at least intended. Anyone who hasn't checked out USS Clueless may still enjoy the millions of archived words that can still be found there, at least for now.

In what will be another tip of the hat to Ales Rarus, I found another useful bit on his site this morning -- this one's about a simplified primer on stem cells, especially as it pertains to diabetes.

A couple weeks ago, I wrote a post about my displeasure with Laura Bush's comments on stem cells; not displeasure because I disagree with her stance, but rather because I didn't see the need to mince words or come up with secondary excuses for her position, especially when the secondary excuse has no firm scientific backing.

After reading the above-mentioned primer, I have softened a little (not much, mind you), but I still think it's important to recognize that the harvesting of embryonic stem cells would be wrong even if it were proven to be an effective answer to diseases like diabetes. And as a diabetic, I am emotionally sympathetic to those who look to stem cells for a cure, but I am firmly against doing something I believe is wrong just to get where we would all like to be.

I am pleased to report that one of my more infrequently-updated favorite blogs has been updated, with a string of three new entries over the past day or two. New material from Cziltang is always a welcome sight.

The most recent of those three is about "Political Vegetarianism," in which he makes an interesting and, I think, plausible point correlating "ethical" vegetarians with certain far-left responses to specific geopolitical situations like the war on terror. In attempting to synopsize his post, I'm sure I've already done a disservice, so I hope readers will consider hopping over to the Ratlands to read the article for themselves.

When I was a child, I remember being in religious settings and hearing older people bemoan the liberal nature of other so-called religious folks. I suppose that's where it came from, this idea I held for years that being liberal was a bad thing. And so, for the first eighteen or twenty years of my life, I dared not allow myself to be perceived as anything but a conservative, truly believing that the more conservative I was, the more likely it was that I was following the right spiritual path.

I remember an argument I had once with an ex-girlfriend who happened to be from a Catholic family. It was just after I heard the results of some survey that suggested Catholics were more likely to support Democratic candidates than Republican ones. I wondered how this could be, and she (the ex) told me that it was just the way her family thought about politics. I continued not understanding it, and simply chalked it up to one more instance supporting my idea that Catholics were not really in tune with God's will.

How my perception has changed over the years.

It took years of consideration, most of it independent of many of the religious influences that had taught me all those ideas about liberals and Catholics, but I at some point started to realize that the story of Jesus Christ, the icon upon which my faith has been based, does not exactly endorse one political philosophy over another. In fact, as I've listened over the years to the same voices towing the "Christian Conservative" line, I've noticed a couple of discrepancies.

One inconsistency is when I hear endorsements of the capitalist system, as if it was passed down in some ancient religious manuscript the rest of Christianity somehow missed. I'm not suggesting that capitalism and all of its practitioners are purely evil, but it has become quite clear to me that anyone who clings to a system based on acquiring material wealth as if that were the holy grail is somehow missing the bulk of Christian theology.

And quite often, this phantom link between the Christian Gospels and greed is used, without further justification, to grant a sacred exemption to all those who make it their mission to accumulate as much personal wealth as possible, by any means necessary, as long as their backside rejoins the church pew every Sunday.

The philosophy is sorely lacking.

It seems that many of the classic liberal interests were driven, at least originally, by more spiritual motivations (think social justice issues, defense of the weak and disadvantaged, and skepticism of anything rooted in greed). Yet it seems like many of the more vocal Christian movements of recent years have been overwhelmingly supportive of right-wing politics. True, there are issues on which right-wing politicians tend to favor some traditional Christian issues, such as sanctity of life debates (at least in some cases). Unfortunately, many of their pro-Christian stances are strictly reactive.

True, the conservative movement generally is against things like abortion, though it lacks a more constructive agenda to distinguish itself as actually being pro-life (instead of just anti-abortion). But the fact is that many religious-minded voters who oppose abortion and see it as a pivotal issue will support a pro-life Republican over a pro-choice Democrat every trip to the voting booth. And most of them don't mind the lack of a truly constructive pro-life agenda.

Perhaps that is the pivot upon which the Conservative Christian movement hinges; if so, it may also be the greatest smokescreen of all time, because while beating the family values drum all the way to the voting booth, there are many other ways in which typical staunch conservative politicians make the family values mountain increasingly insurmountable for the average American family.
Think about it, how many times has degradation of American moral fiber been attributed to a lack of prayer in schools, or the general movement of society away from Christian principles? A more likely culprit is the breakdown of the American family. True, some conservative voices echo this sentiment, but how many would support measures that make it possible for lower income parents to spend less time at work, and more time at home with their kids? The two-income family has also been decried as a root of family breakdown, but how many conservative politicians support measures that would make it possible for the typical family to have a full-time stay-at-home parent? Surely, the lack of parental involvement plays a much larger role in kids growing up without principles than simply disallowing a prayer in school. And what would foster parental involvement more than holding large employers responsible for the kind of compensation that was once tradition?

Instead the conservative political agenda struggles to (and sometimes thrives at) finding ways to keep the minimum wage low, giving tremendously profitable companies incentives to move overseas and all the while telling us with a straight face that this is the way Christ would do it. It wouldn't take a bundle of new entitlement programs, just the guts to ask our corporate citizens to provide what used to be normal compensation.

The other inconsistency in conservative politics that someone pointed out to me recently is that sometimes conservative Christians tend to want government to pass legislation to make our society more holy, when, as Christians, we should all know that the battle is for hearts and minds, and that is never won by force. It's akin to the old knock on liberals for wanting government to fix all societal ills. Sometimes it doesn't work that way. The best we can hope for government to do is provide an atmosphere where we can achieve our ideals, and that's all I expect. Not to give a free ride; not to raise barriers to success; but to allow us the honest opportunity to reach our ideals.

Now, like I suggested earlier, it's not as if the liberal agenda is magically in tune with my Christian roots; it has many deviations from Christian theology as well, but at this point, the far more popular misconception as it pertains to Christianity and politics is that the current state of conservatism actually fits like a glove -- it obviously does not.

And if there's one idea I'd like to spread with these thoughts it's to encourage other Christians to think for themselves, not just accept that the alliteration between the words "Christian" and "conservative" are some kind of sign from God that you should automatically vote one way or the other.

It would just be nice if we do away with the pack mentality of accepting a whole political ideology because of one or two favorable positions.

Thanks by the way, to one specific (anonymous) catalyst for this post. For better or worse, I found a couple of the ideas passed along to be very helpful.

because Anthony's blog has apparently exceeded its bandwidth once again. That's either a good sign, because he's getting a lot of traffic, or a bad sign, because he's stuck with not enough bandwidth to make it past the early twenties every month. Either way, it's bad for people who like to read his blog, like me.

Speaking of which, I'm still using this ISP-provided web space, and I don't really know how much bandwidth I get for free, but apparently, whatever it is, I'm not there yet...

"Absence" by William Shakespeare

-A late summer sonnet from the bard

"If you listen real close, there's the audible sigh"
-Bill Mallonee

I have often wondered about people complaining, and I actually was talking to a friend about this last night, so it came back to the front burner of my brain. I'm not necessarily referring to everyone who complains, but rather those who complain about little things -- and I could put myself into this category sometimes. That specific segment of complainers fascinates me because I've heard it suggested that people who complain about little things are often trying to avoid thinking about bigger problems.

I have observed people about whom that statement seems especially true; meanwhile, I've seen a lot of people who put up a strong front, even though their problems are both huge and real. While I'm not totally sure about this, I suspect that those who complain the most are the most restless about their bigger concerns in life, either out of a sense of futility or lack of will to solve their problems. And the folks who carry themselves in a quieter fashion about life's bigger problems are those who have come to some level of understanding, if not resolution, concerning life's detours. Either that, or they're just walking around like human time bombs -- depending on the person, I suspect there are plenty of examples of each kind of quiet coper.

Anyway, in my discussion last night, I was thinking of a principle illustrated in Steven Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Covey bases some of his theory on the idea that we need to identify two circles:

• a circle of concern, made up of all the things that concern a person.
• a circle of influence, made up of all the things we can actually control (at least to some degree)

Part of Dr. Covey's prescription for a successful life requires a person to identify these two categories and then figure out which items appear in both circles, thereby limiting our focus to the things that both concern us and and which we can control to some degree.
I'm not a hard-core self-help book consumer, but I must admit that reading this theory in Seven Habits represents a crystalline moment in my life. So people know, I didn't just bring up the Covey book to promote it to everyone, though I'm sure there are many folks who could benefit from it. Truth be told, the aforementioned two-circle concept is by far the clearest recollection I have of the entire book.

I think it stuck with me because I immediately recognized the truth in it, and it wasn't as if Steven Covey was the first to think of the idea (indeed, I believe he goes out of his way in the book to suggest that his ideas are gleaned and compiled from other self-help models). But Covey was the first person I read that put it in a way I could instantly understand.

There are so many people who concentrate on what they can't do, and for the purposes of this post, "can't" is to be taken literally. Many of us, myself included, can benefit from focusing on what we can accomplish and prioritizing from that point. Everything else we can wish, hope or pray for, but our energies are better spent on what we care about and can do something about.

Anything else just gives you anxiety.

After all that, I'm completely unsure that I've done anything to address how this specifically fits people who complain about little things -- maybe it should have just been a grander statement about people who worry too much, whether they complain or not.

At least I meant well.

I quite honestly have no idea what to make of John Ellis O'Neill, John F. Kerry's longtime nemesis from the days of the Vietnam protests, recently revived in his criticism of Kerry's post-war activities (and apparently some in-war activities too).

On one side of my mind's coin, I don't buy into the criticism leveled against John O'Neill in this recent Newsday piece. Some Kerry defenders have latched onto his "lie" to Richard Nixon, as revealed in formerly secret Oval Office tapes, but I think O'Neill's explanation of it makes sense. People are sometimes casual in references, especially when they've no idea they're being recorded. This isn't to say I'm on board with O'Neill and the rest of his "Swift Vet" buddies; it's just that if you're going to try to catch someone in a lie, I'd like to think you'd want more than something that seems like a relatively innocent mis-statement.

But like I said, O'Neill isn't necessarily off the hook in my mind yet. I've heard people tout him like he has no stake in this argument, other than to defend the good reputations of fellow vets who've allegedly been besmirched by Kerry's various claims. This may not be the whole truth on his intentions. In following the career of John O'Neill (beginning with his usefulness to the Nixon efforts against Kerry), you have to allow for some possibility that his cooperation with White House interests may have played a role in some of the jobs he held that have been known to propel people to somewhat lofty perches in the field of law. To look at his career ascent in a total vacuum, disallowing any boosts from Nixon or his staff, would be rather naive.

But that doesn't mean O'Neill is lying, only that if he is, there would be a motive. Much the same can be said for John Kerry. My only point is to point out that anyone who suggests John O'Neill has no potential ulterior motives is being disingenuous or unaware of his history. I read a National Review article referring to O'Neill as the "Un-Kerry", which implies his status is very much dependent on the role he has played opposite John Kerry.

I tend to think it's at least possible such a dependence could factor into his motivation to get involved once again. Which isn't to say it does factor in, just that it's possible it could. The whole matter makes me wonder what it must be like to live your whole life as a derivative of John Kerry.

It reminds me of Wile E. Coyote, whose exploits may have made up a substantial portion of the Road Runner cartoons, but would have been conceptually insignificant without his speeding counterpart careening through every once in a while.

Beep-beep?

Well, Paraguay has knocked Iraq out of contention for either of the top two Olympic medals, but the Iraqi men still have a shot at bronze in the consolation match against Italy. If they get the bronze, it will only be their second medal in Olympic history. There's still hope for my adopted soccer team.

I was reading a BBC article about the eclectic support Ralph Nader's been getting, including some conservative support. Apparently, some Democrats think it's wrong for Nader to accept help from conservatives in his ballot-access struggles.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Once again, the big picture's getting clouded by big party ambition. Is it possible that Nader could play spoiler to John Kerry's presidential hopes? Of course it is, but what's more important -- getting a Democrat in the White House, or allowing people to think for themselves?

I find it chilling that so many Democratic efforts are focused on narrowing our scope of choices. If conservatives want to help Nader onto the ballot in Wisconsin, ulterior motives notwithstanding, aren't they still facilitating a truer democracy? It's kind of funny, I don't remember quite this much whining from Republicans after Perot took a much bigger bite out of George H.W. Bush's re-election effort in '92.

And what exactly is "airy-fairy" anyway? It must be a Brit thing.

Won't get fooled again...

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
-President George W. Bush

For the second time in four months, I have experienced disruptive virus difficulties. Both times I was using internet security software from the makers of the "world's most trusted" anti-virus solution.

Both times I ran complete system scans using the "trusted" solution; both times nothing was discovered. Both times I followed by installing a different (and vastly cheaper) anti-virus; both times I promptly discovered multiple infections in the first scan with the cheaper anti-virus product.

I figured, on the email front, it could only help -- as the virus and spam filtration software used on the AT&T mail servers is the same brand I have been using; so it might help plug a few of my security liabilities to use the cheaper product, especially since it seems to know how to catch bugs that slip beneath the radar of the world's most popular anti-virus program. I figure before I was just backing up AT&T's protection with similar protection, apparently complete with similar holes.

For the record, the new solution I've turned to is called AVG, from Grisoft. They offer a fine free product, which caught problems both times that the other, more pricey product didn't. Just in case there's anyone out there in need of anti-virus protection, but afraid to spend a lot for it, I recommend the AVG Free Edition. As they've bailed me out twice now, I actually went ahead and purchased the paid version (still cheaper than my former AV), but I wouldn't be afraid to go with the free version if I had to.

And while I'm on the subject of free software capable of fixing problems my former favorite paid program couldn't, there's also this Spyware scanning and removal tool called SpyBot - Search and Destroy. It works well -- the Terms and Conditions is a pretty interesting read, too.

Oh well, that's two separate plugs for software, so I guess I should probably be moving on. That's all for now.

So I dragged myself to see a movie last night called Code 46, starring Tim Robbins and Samantha Morton. The movie was strange, with a lot of interesting, if not disturbing ideas -- I guess that's why it could only be tracked down in the art house theater. I wanted to see it, but only because I've become strangely obsessed with Samantha Morton (?).

The film's a mixture of sci-fi, romance and crime drama, with cloning and genetic compatibility issues mixed in. I found it fascinating at points, but it's definitely not a film with mainstream appeal (nor is it suitable for younger viewers). Perhaps the highlights of the movie are both music related; one is the use of one of my favorite Coldplay tunes, and the other is Mick Jones playing a karaoke bar patron butchering Clash classic "Should I Stay or Should I Go".

No overwhelming recommendation here, but I thought I'd mention it. Good day.

One of my all-time favorite works of art was stolen yesterday. at gun point. by masked bandits. Two relatively expensive Edvard Munch pieces were pilfered. One was a version of The Scream, easily one of the most recognizable paintings in the world.

Nothing more to add... for now.

I was sent the following quote in an email received yesterday afternoon:

"Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese."
-G.K. Chesterton

And now I think I'm starting to take that as a bit of a challenge, though I'm not sure it was meant as such.

Maybe someday I'll be able to churn out a rhyme on the subject...

"The lust, the flesh, the eyes
and the pride of life
drain the life right out of me."
-Mike Roe

Upon reading a post in Omni's blog the other day, my mind was sent spinning as a result of what Craig R. Smith, among others, have noticed is the one of the most misquoted passages of the Bible. Omni's post began by asking if money is the root of all evil. She, quite correctly I believe, comes to the conclusion that money is not the root of all evil, but (and I can't be sure of this) she seems to be jumping off from the wrong point in her initial question.

For those more familiar with the Bible (specifically 1 Timothy 6:10), the actual phrase is "For the love of money is the root of all evil." So often, this verse is misquoted in attempts to categorically vilify money and/or those who have it. It's easy to do; all you have to leave out is "the love of" -- three little words.

But even clinging to the exact wording of the King James Version can mislead. When the phrase "love of money" is used, many theologians (of whom I am not one) argue that, despite the imprecise translation, the intent was to refer to the general concept of greed. Since greed can be a motivator to just about any objective (i.e. - affection, attention, pleasure, power, security, etc.), the phrase rings very true from this perspective.

Think about wars started for land, power or control of natural resources; lovers killed for jealousy; kids left hungry or abandoned so a parent can score some drugs; and there are millions of other examples that all boil down to wanting something enough that you're willing to disregard the welfare of others or yourself to attain it. Greed.

But Omni is right; money is not the seed from which sprouts all evil, but the shuffling of priorities to value an objective more highly than other, more worthwhile, objectives -- that certainly could account for a high percentage, if not all, of the evil in the world.

I'm not trying to rebuke anyone, so much as I've always been fascinated by the way different people decode (or edit) this one piece of religious philosophy. Read the linked articles from both Omni and Craig Smith if you want to compare notions. I could even be wrong about this...

"Having it Out with Melancholy" by Jane Kenyon

"If many remedies are prescribed for an illness,
you may be certain that the illness has no cure."
-Chekhov

Military Documents Contradict Kerry Critic

And it was just a few hours ago I was watching a duel on a news show, wherein the anti-Kerry talking head was saying the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (or so they said) were justified because they were angry about Kerry speaking against the war after he arrived home -- almost as if this anger would absolve the group for any potential inconsistencies (or dare I say, fabrications) that would surface?

I came across the above mentioned news item completely by accident this morning -- thought I'd sprinkle it in, for those who didn't trust the Snopes info I linked to last week. This article even mentions how Mr. Thurlow, a leading member of the "Swift Vets" group, refused to make his own military records available to avoid being discredited by the Kerry campaign. Turns out his fears of being discredited were well-founded.

Ugly, ugly stuff -- and it's coming from both sides.

So the Iraqi team lost to Morocco yesterday; I only saw the first half of the match, so I missed all the scoring. It's still the best story of the games so far, and they've still got a shot a some sort of medal, if not the gold.

This thought occurred to me as I caught a brief glimpse of CNN last night, and I have no idea whether or not the same idea has stricken anyone else yet.

I know, by virtue of a second look at the TV screen, that the phrase was "Casualties of War," but for some reason from the fleeting glimpse I got of it, I actually thought it said Casual ties of War. What followed in my mind were images of a marketing scheme centered around clothing accessories with images of war and combat on them -- perhaps a line of men's neckwear featuring camouflage designs in various shades and colors. I thought it would be perfect for some opportunistic designer. And it wouldn't shock me to see anything these days, that is, if it hasn't already happened.

If it hasn't, maybe anyone running with this concept could kick a few bucks my way? Maybe not...

Of course, another application of the same misunderstood phrase could apply to the way some people have cast elements of the War on Terror in a dubious light, connecting dots (both real and imagined) between high level U.S. officials and other interests in far off lands like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'm not even sure which of these lines of thought is more cynical.

I'm one of those who is extremely gratified by the triumph of the underdog, so it's only natural that I'd be glad to see the Iraqi men's soccer team doing its best Phoenix from the ashes impression over the early days of the 2004 Summer Games. Showing a ton of heart, they defeated the Portuguese and Costa Rican teams to start this year's Olympic tournament.

Beyond the mere underdog aspect of the story, of course, is the fact that the Iraqis are not only rebuilding in an athletic sense, but that they are also rebuilding in a national sense. Whatever my perspective on the way things have been going in Iraq, I can't help but feel a little glad that they are doing well so far. I hope it gives their national sense of morale a boost as well.

And on the other side of the coin, we have the mighty U.S. men's basketball team, which doesn't seem so mighty. Perhaps it's attributable to the sheer lack of desire (on the part of those who didn't have the guts to go to Greece, as well as some who are there). Maybe the brand of NBA superstar we've sent over this year isn't quite up to snuff with the quality of players from previous "dream" teams. It may be that one month just isn't enough time for an almost entirely new team to learn to play together. Or it could be all of the above.

There are those who are obviously trying, even with all the inadequacies floating to the surface of this team. But still, there doesn't seem to be anywhere near the heart in this team that the world has been witnessing from the Iraqi men's football team (yes, I couldn't resist at least once using the term correctly -- the way the rest of civilization does).

Whatever happens from here on out, it's been a great story.

These posts have become a little sporadic, mostly because I've been busy the past few days. Part of it's been real world business, and part has been thoughts-buzzing-around-my-head business.

On the thoughts side of the list is how strange it's come to seem to me when I observe people obsessed with advertising for well-known commercial interests -- not just advertising, but paying to advertise. Why do we do this?

I see the walking billboards everywhere I go: Nike, DKNY, Old Navy, and pretty much every other brand name of clothing known to humankind. I remember being in a discount store a couple years ago, comparing a $50 Nike windbreaker with a nearly identical $15 windbreaker. Yes, nearly identical, except for the prestige of the Nike name and logo. Aside from that, I imagine they were both manufactured in similar sweatshops -- I know they were both made in Malaysia. I bought the plain $15 item and went on my way. I just couldn't see how something was worth an extra $35 simply because of a "swoosh" logo.

Now maybe if Nike would knock a little off the price, instead of jacking it up, you know, as a way of thanking me for helping their marketing scheme -- that might change things. I don't particularly like buying items I know weren't made under especially humane conditions, but the truth is I sometimes do, out of practical concerns. I'm not proud of it, but it happens. The last thing I want, though, is to patronize a company that not only takes advantage of workers in third world countries, but also asks me to pay extra for the privilege of being a human advertisement. I guess things like that make me feel a little used

I have received some free items, and I wear them -- I just won't buy them with my own money. Though I will buy logo-wear from makers I find to be more conscientious with their business practices (-thus making me want to help advertise). I just can't figure out the appeal of paying to subsidize some huge corporation that cares more about making a few extra bucks (perhaps to pay some already-insanely-rich celebrity to hock their goods in more traditional advertising media) than ensuring the welfare of the people who actually work to manufacture the goods -- and why? -so we can all look the same?

But then, when I put it that way, it sounds so much better...

The ftp server's been down for a little while, so these thoughts are all at least several hours old by the time the first reader gets to see them -- at least there's no real current events in today's installment.

My how you've grown...

"Every time we say goodbye you're frozen in my mind as a child that you never will be, will be again."
-10,000 Maniacs

I visited the other day with a couple old friends, now a married couple, and their two adorable children. It was an entertaining and pleasant visit overall.

But just as I was about to leave, my one friend's younger sister dropped by on her way out of town (leaving for college somewhere in Kentucky). It was a strange few moments, and I wasn't sure what to make of it. This girl, who had been only five years old when I first met her (I was fresh out of high school at the time), is now all grown up, and I remember a distinct feeling of "oldness" setting in as everyone was saying goodbye.

I remember when she was five, and she seemed to think I was the coolest person on the planet every time I stopped by their house. Then I remember when my friends got married and she was thirteen. At the reception, I was approached by someone who told me that she wanted to dance with me, but she was afraid to ask, so it would be nice if I asked her to dance. I did ask, and we shared a dance, and I recall feeling old even then.

And here I was two days ago, watching the farewell ceremony, filled with the emotion of a young woman leaving home for a significant time, for the first time in her life. When it came time for me to say goodbye and wish her well, I think I probably should have done more than say "good luck" and wave on the way out the door. I think she may have wanted a hug, the way she started to move toward me, but I balked, unsure of the protocol of the given situation.

I guess I couldn't get the "old" thing out of my head. I know I'm not that ancient yet, and I rarely feel old, but it's still hard to explain the feeling I get in situations like that.

Well, I imagine she's in Kentucky by now, hopefully settling in okay to a new housing situation, and I hope everything goes well for her, but it still makes me feel a little old.

I recently received the following offer via email, and I hope nobody else responds to it before I do, because I just need a few days to consider it. I'll kick myself if, by the time I decide to accept the offer, it's already too late.

From:Rev.Dr.Felix Oredugba
NNPC TOWERS IKOYI LAGOS,
LAGOS-NIGERIA.

Hello,
Good day,
I am the Chairman of the Contract Awarding Committee, Federal Ministry
of Petroleum Resources, Nigeria I am in search of an agent to assist us
in the transfer of (US$50,4m)FIFTY MILLION, FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITED
STATES DOLLARS.

And subsequent investment in properties in your country.

You will be required to:
(1) Assist in the transfer of the said sum
(2) Advise on lucrative areas for investment
(3) Assist us in purchase of properties.

If you decide to render your service to us in this regard, 20% of the
total sum will be offerred to you.

Respectfully,

Rev.Dr.Felix Oredugba

Chairman Contract Awarding Committee {CCAC}

-It's amazing how many exciting and lucrative offers are coming out of Africa these days; you'd think with all that cash, they'd be able to find a better financial advisor than me.

the previous

i was an innocent traveling on,
watching the scenery, stumbling upon
myst'ries and secrets all scrawled in a book,
almost revealing, but i never looked.

all this time we remained unaware
with each generation is more weight to bear.

but i was a young man and ignored the call;
i had the pride that remained from the fall,
living a life so oblivious:
that mine's the result of each previous...

still, so much time's been thrown away,
trying to pretend that we've not gone astray,

but

this is my history, here with the ghosts,
moving through wet grass and grave marker stones.
whose are the remains left under my feet?
-souls who have gone now, their maker to meet.

---

Usually on Fridays I link to some poem by a writer of greater literary significance. This week, I decided instead to share the above poem, which came to me as a reflection of a trip I took to visit some ancestral sites, one of which was a hillside cemetery where some of my family's forebears were laid to rest. (One may notice that I sometimes lose interest in capitalization, which believe it or not, has nothing to do with any influence from e.e. cummings -- one of the few significant American poets to whom I never paid much attention. Which is not a judgment on his work; I just never spent much time on it.)

"I know that embryonic stem cell research is very preliminary right now, and the implication that cures for Alzheimer's are around the corner is just not right, and it's really not fair to people who are watching a loved one suffer with this disease."
-Laura Bush

Having been away from political observation these past few days, I have yet to comment on Laura Bush's appearance at one of our local hotels, not to mention her stellar contribution to the overall traffic situation in the area.

I will start by saying I am, and have been for over half my life, a type 1 (juvenile onset, insulin dependent) diabetic, and therefore I am among the group that many believe will benefit most from less restriction on the funding of stem cell research. But I am against it. I agree with the President's position on this issue, not on practical grounds, but rather, on moral grounds.

Having gotten that out of the way, I would like to wonder to the world now, who is writing this stuff coming out of the first lady's mouth? In her speech, she glosses over the moral implications as if they were nothing, but she goes out of her way to make some bold statements on what is, as of yet, a vastly incomplete area of science.

In addition to that leap of logic, Mrs. Bush also made it sound like proponents of embryonic stem cell research have promised a cure for Alzheimer's disease is just around the corner. While it's probably safe to say there are uninformed folks who do believe this (of which Mrs. Bush is apparently one), many of the high profile advocates of more liberal funding have gone out of their way to stress that Alzheimer's is not the most likely of diseases to benefit, especially not in the immediate future. Much closer to the top of that theoretical list are diseases like Parkinson's and, oh yeah, diabetes. Yet in her speech, which had been carefully written by someone else, she specifically dispelled a rumor that has only been purported by the least knowledgeable about the issue, if by anyone at all. And the backdrop of physicians who were applauding her entire speech (or most of it, at least), were mostly there just to support Bush's proposed caps on medical liability. But the onlookers of news broadcasts nationwide were, by and large, left believing that the doctors were endorsing the first lady's statement on stem cell research, thanks to the usual 15 seconds most newscasts bothered to air.

It's starting to become clear to me that all the President's men, and his woman in this case, are no longer comfortable with doing things because they are right -- that now it is also necessary to find (and if that's not possible, contrive) other reasons, in what could only be an attempt to convince people whose hearts aren't really on board with the conservative agenda. But to do this by framing the issue dishonestly or simply making up facts that are far from confirmed -- that's just weak.

I disagree with opening the floodgates on embryonic stem cell research because I believe it's wrong. I simply don't believe it's okay use good ends to justify lousy means, no matter how hopeful or well-intentioned the ends may be. As much as I want to be able to think differently about the stem cell issue, that's why I'm against it. We shouldn't seek to do right by doing wrong.

Incidentally, that's also why I think the speech Mrs. Bush regurgitated the other day, and by extension the recent Bush approach to stem cells, is wrong. I agree with the President's position on stem cells, and I do so strictly on moral terms -- something else we used to have in common.

Why are people still taking advice from Donald Trump about money? Well, I suppose if all you're trying to learn is how to make money, then he may be a help to you; but history suggests that if you want to learn how to actually run a successful business, you may want to do your apprenticeship elsewhere.

There are plenty of folks out there who've not only made money (even more than Trump has) and have actually proven useful in avoiding credit problems and bankruptcy for their businesses. So why do I still hear business talk show hosts trumpet him as a source of sound financial advice?

Make no mistake, people are following his example in large numbers in this modern economy -- whether it be by design or default remains to be established.

I heard one banking analyst the other day talking about how vital consumer debt is to our economy, and, as always, it made me shudder. There's something terribly disturbing about such huge cornerstones of our economy being predicated on financial liabilities like personal debt. Look around; have you noticed how fashionable it is to be in debt? If not, why would we sink ourselves into perpetual debt just to drive a new car every few years, or buy the biggest house for which we can possibly get financing?

Does anyone realize when they look at another person's nice new luxury car that half the people buying those cars aren't buying them because they can afford them, but because they want to look like they can? There's something insidious about a philosophy that suggests you should make yourself poorer so you can appear richer.

Maybe we all just want to be like "the Donald."

*For the most recent statistics available from the Federal Reserve, please go see the most recent Federal Reserve Statistical Release on consumer credit.

Thanks to Ales Rarus, I came across these two pieces: one from snopes.com, dealing with the Republican-generated rumors about John Kerry's military service, and the other is a news piece about a Tennessee Republican running for Congress.

One I found informative, and the other was just plain scary...

"Everybody's got a secret buried underneath the ground;
You can take it out once in a while when there's no one around."
-Bill Mallonee

I ordered a couple CD's a couple last week, and I got one of them today. It's called Audible Sigh, from Bill Mallonee and the Vigilantes of Love. I've been listening to it the last couple hours, so I'm starting to get a feel for it, though I had a head start, having heard several of the songs before (both in concert and from a friend who had the disc before I got it). Actually I bought it for a good friend a couple years ago, and I would have bought myself a copy too, except the one I picked up for him was the last one in stock at the store. It's a pretty good album from a guy whose music I almost always like. This isn't a review, but I did want to give a little plug for one of my favorite obscure artists.

Bill Mallonee is usually on the folk-rock side, with a bit of gospel influence as well. There's a lot of soul and emotion in his stuff, and some pretty good lyrics, which probably explains my inclination toward his music. Anyway, this is another one of those mentions of something I guarantee you'll like if you're exactly like me -- but you may still enjoy it even if you're a little different from me too.

If at first you don't succeed...

try, try again -- but if the hometown folks just aren't giving you the electoral love you think you deserve, why not try moving halfway across the country?

Alan Keyes officially entered the U.S. Senate Race in Illinois yesterday, in a move that gives him one more in a long string of chances at winning an actual election. Keyes has been tapped by the GOP to oppose the Democratic boy wonder, Barack Obama, in the upcoming election. Maybe Keyes and the GOP believe the third time's a charm. The theory kind of works, if you limit the count to just the times Keyes has run for U.S. Senate.

I recall the first time I saw The Sixth Sense. The original decision to see it hinged mainly on the fact that it was a movie starring a major actor, written and directed by a local guy no one had ever heard of, and filmed on location in Philadelphia. For us locals, that would have been enough to pack theaters for at least a week or two, but what we (and the rest of the majority of moviegoers) got out of it kept it alive in theaters for much longer than that. It was, and still is, one of the best suspense movies I've seen -- right up there with The Usual Suspects (another movie that caught me completely unaware when I was dragged to it by my best friend).

We in the Philly fraternity were all proud of Night Shyamalan and the respect he'd garnered for himself, as well as for the Philadelphia area as a film backdrop.

Then came the letdown, specifically, Unbreakable -- another Bruce Willis role, again set in Philly, adding Samuel L. Jackson to the mix. It should have been great, given the talent between those two alone, but it was a disappointment, to say the least. Perhaps if we hadn't seen Night's first suspense effort and thus been made aware of his potential, it would have been enough to see the real Philadelphia locations in a moderately dramatic film. But, alas, the bar had already been raised too high for that.

With Signs, we saw the quality bounce back, though it still did not compare with Shyamalan's record-shattering ghost story from '99. But with scenery snatched from Bucks County's own historic farmlands, it was especially cool, made only cooler by the sightings of Mel Gibson in area restaurants and shooting scenes on streets just a few minutes from my house. I liked the movie well enough, but as with Unbreakable, I didn't bother to see it more than once.

Enter The Village, Night Shyamalan's fourth major film release. It's probably not as momentous as his breakout thriller, but it's still satisfying. It features a few decent twists, while offering enough accompanying substance to warrant praise as more than just another surprise ending.

The film is an interesting critique, but of what, I'm not entirely sure. I've heard some say it's aimed at the current state of homeland security strategy in the U.S. Others have suggested it might be a sermon against gated communities, or perhaps even a cautionary tale to parents who obsessively shelter their children. I think it's all of the above, in that I don't believe it takes a specific aim at any current situation. It has applications to many societal conditions, but is not overly preachy about it. One over-arching idea I thought it was most critical of is the tendency of some in authority (whether the authority is over a family, a community or society as a whole) to utilize fear as a way of keeping their subordinates in line. While that critique may resonate with many who believe our government has been using terror alerts in such a way, I think the assumption that this movie is just about that may be a bit of a leap. But to each his own, I guess.

Its suspenseful qualities are sufficient, which should be expected from a film-maker like Night Shyamalan, and the multi-faceted message (should you choose to observe it) is probably going to remain relevant long after the days of intermittent, color-coded terror alerts (hopefully) pass.

Add to these factors the solid-to-excellent acting from well-known names like William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Adrien Brody and Joaquin Phoenix, with a film-stealing performance from Dallas Bryce Howard (daughter of Ron), and it's not hard to think that this film might be Shyamalan's first feature since The Sixth Sense to receive serious Oscar consideration. But far more important than that (to me) is the simple fact that I thought it was an excellent, thematically fascinating film.

In a sidenote, I would like to explain that I know Shyamalan has directed six films (the two remaining efforts were Praying with Anger (1992) and Wide Awake (1998). I titled the entry "The Fourth Night" not because I am unaware of his lesser known films, but because I chose to focus on his offerings in the suspense genre. No offense to fans of the two earlier films.

It's always gratifying when someone I read finds me worthy of linking. I was pleasantly surprised to find out last night that I have been linked to by the one and only Omni. Normally, I like to send a thank you email to someone when I learn that they have linked to this humble weblog, but since email is not an option in this case, I thought I'd take a minute or two to post a general acknowledgement. Thank you!

A union WalMart and how big business looks out for workers

I seem to have missed the news earlier this week, though I'm not sure how. It appears workers at one WalMart store in Quebec have won the right to organize as a result of an August 2 decision by the Quebec Labor Relations Board. There will be an appeal from Big Blue, no doubt, but just getting this far is something many people thought would be impossible.

One note mentioned in the article is the difference between a secret ballot certification vote and employees signing union cards individually. It mentions one common objection voiced by union opponents in these matters: that the traditional process of union card drives leaves employees open to union "coercion."

What these people who oppose union card drives neglect to mention is that in the secret ballot process, employees can easily be subjected to coercion from their employer. The other half of the objection most companies have to card drives is that it doesn't give the company ample opportunity to launch their own anti-union drive. Card drives are often done person-to-person and can be finished before the company has a chance to sufficiently propagandize its employees against unions.

Secret ballot votes, on the other hand, can take months to set up (assuming management doesn't outright refuse to allow an election), allowing a company more than enough time to launch its campaign, and there have been reported cases of companies firing suspected "activist" employees during this time period also. I'm sure some executives must simply see this as analogous to throwing Jonah overboard (to avert the scourge he has brought upon them).
Anti-union tactics, which have long been heavily used by companies like WalMart, can be extremely intimidating to workers who are desperate to keep their jobs. I walked into a WalMart a while back (before I became enlightened on the matter) and I just happened to be wearing a hat with a Teamster logo on it -- I didn't even remember what was on my hat until after I was approached by two different supervisors within a minute or so of entering the store. They didn't try to kick me out, but the conversation was akin to a police officer asking a stopped motorist where the driver is headed. They made sure to ask if they could help me, and I said I was just looking for a few things in the auto section. The second supervisor asked what I needed in the auto section.

That's when it hit me that I was wearing that hat!

Of course, I wasn't there to organize; I wasn't even that involved in union activity at the time, but apparently they were concerned upon seeing me walk in the door.

That's when I started to recall all the horror stories I'd heard from actual union organizers, as well as from former WalMart employees who'd claimed that being seen with union representatives had gotten them fired.

It struck me that maybe they didn't want me out of the store so much as they were trying to make sure I didn't have to start anything resembling a conversation with a non-management employee. I then assured both of them that I knew where to find my needed auto supplies and I would be just fine along the way. They stopped asking questions, but I swear I kept seeing one of them every couple minutes (from one corner of the store to the other and back) until I paid for my purchase and walked out to my car.

That may be the pivotal moment for me -- the beginnings of my awakening to the idea that maybe some people are actually telling the truth when they make claims about such happenings. I won't suggest that unions have always been perfect or that they have never coerced anyone to sign a union card, but that's what the appeal process addresses. And keep in mind that the people most engaged in the current struggle "for" secret ballot votes are invariably those who have vested interests in stunting union growth.

When you see "right to work" movements, claiming to be all about worker rights, check to see just how grass-roots they are. But don't be shocked when you find that there's no uprising of the "little people" behind these movements, just a lot of big corporate money and spin. And when you see an effort to "protect" workers from union activity (i.e. H.R. 4343), check to see if the cry is emanating from union-oppressed workers or from employers desperate to avoid providing benefits or a living wage.

But like I said, prepare for the shock of discovering it is usually the companies, not the employees, who feel "oppressed" by union activity.

Also keep in mind, a card drive occurs either because an employer agrees to it, or the exact opposite (and this is what happens far too often): the employer refuses to allow an election. In that case, a card drive is initiated, as a way to get around management stall tactics. But you probably won't hear that side of it from many "right to work" groups.

Joshua Micah Marshall at Talking Points Memo came up with a relatively short post on the spurt of veterans organizations dedicated to specific political candidates and points of view. My favorite potential organization, though not specifically a veterans group, appears in the last couple sentences.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
-George W. Bush

Yes, I understand what he meant to say, but there seem to be a lot of people out there who believe this is what he actually meant. What a way to slip up while signing a bill...

"Mr. Grumpledump's Song" by Shel Silverstein

A lovely friend of mine and I had a short discussion last night about whining, so naturally, I came home to look up the right poem for the topic -- thank God this one was posted online, and hopefully she'll appreciate it.

Incidentally, for those with significantly faster connections than mine and the desire to watch them (or have your kids watch them?), there are four animated poems from Shel Silverstein available for online viewing at Noggin.

I remember a girl I used to know.

We were friends for a fairly long time, but from the start there was this strange type of thing that kept happening. I recall many times I would call her on the phone; she would answer the phone, hear my voice and say something like "I was just thinking about you," "I was just about to pick up the phone and call you," or "That's funny -- I just walked in the door and the phone started ringing."

I kept wondering if she was embellishing, though she didn't seem the type who would feel the need to do so. I asked here about it a few times, mainly out of disbelief, but she insisted it often happened just the way she'd claimed. I can't say for sure whether or not it was true, but I did observe that I rarely got her machine -- she almost always answered the phone personally. And I knew she wasn't always just sitting home by the phone, so I guess that reinforces the phenomenon in my mind a little bit.

Anyway, for a while I was sure that this strange synchronistic pattern, this cosmic timing we seemed have, was indicative of a deeper connection. As time went by, I came to my own conclusion that this theory wasn't going to bear out, as we never really hit it off as much more than casual friends.

I can, in fact, also remember one or two other females with whom I've had similar timing. In one case, the girl assumed that my impeccable timing was a sign of true love. I'll avoid any sense of suspense: it wasn't any such thing -- we actually didn't get along very well at all, though we kept up the experiment for far too long.

But the endgame here is that I've also met other people with whom I feel much more compatibility, or at least desire to be compatible, and we haven't always had so much in common, much less the fabled sense of timing that some people have confused for the hand of destiny.

A recent post by Omni carried a parallel line of reasoning, as it pertains to folks who think that a couple has to have everything in common to be compatible. I second her insight on the matter, and it's probably what led to my aforementioned recollections and today's observation: people shouldn't attach only to people exactly like themselves. If we all did that, there'd be this huge blind spot in every relationship, just like a company whose CEO hires too many executives who will only tell him what he wants to hear. The same could be said for governments with leaders whose advisors share an intellectual monotone, but today isn't for politics, so...

My point is, like Omni, I don't want a parrot for a mate, nor do I want someone who thinks exactly like me. There's a reason it's not good for people who are too genetically similar to mate, and in a parallel to that idea, I think too much commonality in other areas can also be a disadvantage. Timing's not a bad thing, but it's not absolutely vital either. It would be good to get the basics down, but there are a lot of insights I'd miss if I only surrounded myself with folks who conform to my ideas and offer no dissent. And looking back on the earlier examples of inexplicable timing, it may have just been that I had too much in common with some of the girls I use to know.

So differences, even challenges, in a relationship might not be such bad things after all. That goes for all kinds of human relationships, not just the romantic kind.

For better or worse, I posted two new poems, which serve as the initiation for the newest page of poetry, titled "Ways to Fall" -- or perhaps just page six, for those keeping count.

It's a little bit of a departure for me (in a couple ways), so I apologize in advance if the experimental nature of the two new rhymes is that obvious.

As always, comments are welcome, by email, guestbook or otherwise. Thanks for reading.

As a result of my continual problems with Blogstreet (they have been fairly consistently down for the past couple days), I have decided to attempt to solve my RSS difficulty another way. I am now trying out an RSS feed generator known as List Garden. While I have not received any feedback on their tool from anyone I know or trust, I sincerely hope this works. (Anyone having firsthand info on this program can feel free to offer it, good or bad.) Assuming I do stay with this new tool, readers who had subscribed to the old RSS feed will hopefully update to the new feed address. I'm optimistic, as the new feed will be hosted on the ATT.net server that also hosts this site (and I have not noticed any significant downtime on it yet).

And in other news, I was about to publish a new poem for the Drafts index (my August addition), but I've decided to hold onto it for a couple more days, just in case I think better of it later. If I don't chicken out, it will be there by the end of the week, I think...

It seems that the fine folks at Blogstreet have been having some maintenance issues recently, and since they host my RSS feed, I have been unable to update the feed for a day and change now.

There aren't too many subscribers, at least that I'm aware of, but I thought I'd acknowledge that I'm aware of the problem. (Come to think of it, that link in the first line of this post will be pretty much useless until they're back up and running.)

Teamster.Net

Electronic Frontier Foundation

There's this guy named Phil. Like I am, Phil is a union member. Phil also runs (pretty much on his own dime) a website dedicated to letting his fellow union members express themselves in an unrestricted forum. He does try to comb through once in a while and filter out some of the profane language that sometimes finds its way onto his message boards, but he believes that it's important to allow the free expression of ideas, about politics, union matters, various employers for which the participants work, etc.

Phil's website is fairly well traveled, by almost any web standards. He has had over six million visits over the past couple years, so there are bound to be some ill-informed people posting on his boards. But after all, this is the internet -- so what do you really expect?

Recently, Phil was notified that he is being sued by officers of one of the local unions that were allegedly libeled by a few of his website's visitors. If the plaintiffs in this case prevail, this will set a chilling precedent regarding online freedom of speech. But even if the plaintiffs don't prevail, Phil could lose his savings (much of which has already been used to retain an attorney), his house, and basically every material thing he has.

This is not just some union issue; it's a matter that could easily spread (and in some cases, has already) to any other kind of internet forum that has similar free expression policies. I don't know how others feel about this. Perhaps you think restricted online speech would be a good thing, but if that idea disturbs you as much as it disturbs me, I would encourage you to visit his homepage to read more about it -- maybe even help.

I know there are readers of this website who care about these issues. Money isn't the only way to help -- any sympathetic webmasters and surfers out there can help simply by getting the word out about what's happening.

Phil would appreciate it. His homepage, Teamster.Net, is also at the head of this post, as is the site for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Help if you can and want to, or simply educate yourself on these matters.

Thanks for reading.

Speaking to Florida law enforcement officials on July 16, Bush claimed the Cuban leader shamelessly promotes sex tourism.

"The dictator welcomes sex tourism. Here's how he bragged about the industry," said Bush. "This is his quote — 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world' and 'sex tourism is a vital source of hard currency.'"

The above excerpt is from an MSNBC article that I was pointed to by a post at DaltonRooney.com. I don't know how I missed such an entertaining little news trinket (though I can probably blame the convention for distracting me).

Apparently the fact checkers at the White House aren't quite up to snuff. They should be more careful, especially if they're going to misquote something they find on the internet.

"I can't believe you. You bend your words
like Uri Geller's Spoons."
-Toad the Wet Sprocket

I tried my best not to get sucked into posting too many thoughts this past week on the dearly departed Democratic convention. Although I am thoroughly fascinated by politics, I do recognize the pageantry of party conventions. And like all pageantry, these conventions fall seriously short in terms of substance, while employing quite a bit of style. Don't expect the Republican event opening in New York later this month to be any more substantial, either.

In my observation, it seems that conventions are good for peering into the future, catching a glimpse of each party's rising stars; Barack Obama, for example, appears to fit this category. The other effective use of a political convention is setting tone, which is where style really comes into the picture. Aside from these purposes, such mass convergences of political compatriots, once occasions for hammering out important policy and personnel decisions, are now merely pep rallies.

Still I watch.

While listening to John Kerry's speech last Thursday night, a close friend of mine spoke to me about being confused by politics, not knowing which way to lean. She has not been particularly active in the electoral process to this point, and I have been encouraging her to participate, as I have with many other people. While she expressed her feelings, she said something that hit me with startling clarity: "I wish someone would just tell me who to vote for."

At first, I was tempted to shovel my personal political beliefs on her, but this gave way to the disturbing realization that there is no shortage of people who do just that; they tell people who to vote for. And even more disturbing is the number of people who automatically follow such suggestions.

Given these factors, I want to point out that there are several ways to find out more about political choices that face voters. The most obvious sources of information include political ads, which by themselves, will only confuse people more, as each side tends to construct a mutually exclusive world view. So, I would advise those seeking information on candidates to generally take these sources with a grain of salt. At least let the information be tempered by less partial information from the news media -- and don't be afraid of using different news sources. (Yes, it's true. Every source is biased to some degree -- even Fox News.)

There are also non-commercial, politically unaffiliated organizations that offer information on political issues. Sometimes even these sources have agendas that may or may not favor particular politicians, so again, don't be afraid to sample differing views from different sources.

But perhaps the most important step of the process is to figure out what's important to you. Many people think of politics as something they don't understand, much less have time to learn about. What many of these same people don't understand about politics is that the decisions being made on election day (whether or not you take part in the election) affect the direction taken by our government. Ralph Nader may have said it best: "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."

If you already have deeply-held beliefs on any major issues, you have a head start, and you may be able to find your candidate by simply reading position statements from the candidates themselves. Or at least you may be able to rule out candidates based on this information.

But the point is that we the people are paying the taxes for our government to operate. It doesn't make much sense for us to not be involved in choosing who gets to spend that money; who gets to make the laws we have to live by; who gets to represent us to the rest of the city, state, country and even the world. (Yes, even local elections are important.)

I leave you with a short list of sources of political information. By no means is this list authoritative or complete, but it should be a good start, especially for people who are just starting out.

Informational Organization Websites:

• League of Women Voters (not just for the females)
• Project Vote Smart (inexperienced voters might check out the Classroom section of this site, too)
• United States Elections 2004 (Government-sponsored site)

News websites:

• CNN - America Votes 2004
• Fox News - You Decide 2004
• USA Today - Politics
• ABC News - Vote 2004

Presidential campaign websites:

• Bush / Cheney (Republican Party)
• Kerry / Edwards (Democratic Party)
• Nader / Camejo (Independent)
• Peroutka / Baldwin (Constitution Party)
• Cobb / Lamarche (Green Party)

If you are an eligible U.S. citizen, please consider making democracy stronger by getting involved.