I was outside enjoying the nice cool air when something abnormal happened.

One of the quirks about our apartment complex is that dogs often run free here. Our little cove is surrounded by fence and there aren't a whole lot of places for the animals to go that the owner can't retrieve them. Some consider this a bug, but for me it's definitely a feature. This place is a little more uptight (and/or nicer) than our last apartment so it added a sense of informality I like.

Anyway, this evening a man was working on his car out in the lot and his dog was out there with him. A Muslim mother and daughter were walking along and the dog walked up to them. I can't remember the last time I saw two people so terrified. Now some people are naturally afraid of dogs, but this dog was obviously very friendly. Most people I know who don't like dogs manage to stay calm, if unhappy, when approached by a non-threatening dog.

The man said "Don't worry, he's friendly."

The mother, frozen with tears streaming down her cheeks, asked him to please retrieve the dog. He called the dog a couple times, but it was curious about the (to it) strangely dressed people I guess cause he just kinda sniffed around, tail wagging. After what was probably fifteen seconds, the daughter (probably 13 or 14 or so) just burst into tears. The dog's owner wasn't quite sure what to do. He didn't want to approach too fast and make the situation too unstable, but he obviously needed to get the dog. The dog knew what he was trying to do and avoided him. When he got too close to the mother and daughter, it moved away. He corralled it back to his car as the Muslims just stood there embracing one another in utter fear.

It didn't take long for me to figure out: Dogs are unholy to Muslims.

That makes their horror explained in two ways. First of all, I can imagine if I considered an animal unholy I would not be comfortable anywhere near one. If one was sniffing around me, I very well may freak out, too. The second, and lesser reason is that if you have spent your life avoiding canines for religious reason, you have very little exposure to them. Even something such as a wagging tail may come across as threatening.

I can't imagine what my life would be like if I hadn't been around dogs. We had one, my best friends had one, my neighbor had two, and my aunt and uncle had one. It's hard for me to believe that they could ever be evil or satanic or however it is that Muslims look upon dogs as scornfully as they do.

It's one of the things about religion that I simply do not understand. It's not just Muslims, either. Jews and pork. Pentacostals and caffeine.

This isn't to say that I don't understand religion and religious dictates. I believe in God, Jesus, the Seven Deadly Sins and the Ten Commandments.

I also believe that God has a way of telling us what not to do apart from formal religious education. When we touch a stove, we feel pain. When we eat too much, we feel lethargic and get a stomach ache. When we act beligerently towards others, we feel guilt (or at least we should). Every superficial high has a low. Alcohol makes us lose our inhibitions but then leaves us hung over. The idea that God gives us things that make (some of us) feel better and gave no downside is just strange to me. I love dogs. I love taking care of them and playing with them. How can that be wrong?

In a sense, I feel sorry for the adherent Muslims whose faith takes a wide-eyed, tail-wagging dog and turns it into something evil. Something to be feared or hated. Similarly with Jews and pork. I don't even like pork all that much. Taking one meat that tastes as good as another with equivalent (or healthier) nutritional content and saying "Yes, you can eat one" and "No, you cannot eat the other" seems inherently odd.

I am the type of person that generally likes to try everything at least (and usually only) once. I honestly believe that one way to pay tribute to God is to appreciate the gifts He has given us.

How can this be evil?

In 1998, Land Commissioner candidate David Dewhurst scoffed at putting up a web page. He didn't heed the lesson that Rick Perry learned when RickPerry.com was snapped up (allegedly by opponent John Sharp) and he was forever forced to use RickPerry.org. Well, it's 2002 and Dewhurst is running his Lt. Governor campaign site at Dewhurst.org.

So who's laughing now?

I am.

At what became of www.DavidDewhurst.com.

I was rumbling through Chron writer John Williams's archives and stumbled across and article about the Pasadena rivalry between Former Mayors John Ray Harrison and Johnny Isbell:

Harrison was identified with blue-collar workers north of Spencer Highway, Isbell with their bosses to the south.

Isbell served off and on as either mayor or a City Council member for Pasadena for 24 years between 1969 and 2001. Son J.J. Isbell is now on council.

Harrison wielded power for 30 years starting in 1964 as a state representative, then as a district court judge, council member and mayor. Brother Don Harrison was a councilman in the 1980s.

Between 1973 and 2001, the mayor's job switched back and forth between Harrison and Isbell. No one else held the post.

City Hall housecleanings occurred when one replaced the other.

I almost married very close to the Harrison clan a year or two back, so I'm neither new to it or unbiased. I practically lived in Pasadena during the 1997 election when they two faced off for the last time. By that point, the balance of power had shifted and Pasadena had become wealthier so incumbant Isbell won in a landslide. Isbell's favored successor beat Harrison again in 2001 and Harrison died shortly thereafter.

I didn't vote for J.J. Isbell when he ran for my state house district in 2000 nor do I see myself voting for Johnny in his current race for my country commissioner seat. I think Garcia is an excellent City Controller and my Hatfield to Isbell's McCoy aside, Isbell's tenure was often contentious with the miniburb outside Pasadena where I was raised. He's the Republican and Garcia the Democrat, but Isbell himself was a Democrat until it behooved him to be a Republican this election. He made the switch in 2001. More to the point, Isbell strikes me a lot more like the current County Commissioner Fontino, who forever lost my vote when he put up a civics center over two little league teaball fields near my house.

Garcia isn't liberal, Isbell isn't conservative, and Garcia isn't a McCoy.

Eugene Volokh does a splendid job of explaining that while exclusion of atheists and gays may be the Boy Scouts legal right, it's ethically dubious at best:

But the Boy Scouts aren't focused on devout Catholicism, or even Catholicism generally, or even Christianity generally. As best I can tell, the Boy Scouts are open to anyone who says they're religious, regardless of the religion, and regardless of the degree of devoutness. Hindus qualify, Jews qualify, people qualify if they say "I'm religious" even though they never pray, never go to church, and don't organize any aspect of their lives around their ostensible religiosity.

This open-mindedness is generally to the Scouts' credit, but then what's the point of excluding atheists? An atheist in a group of devout Catholics might be seen as interfering with the group's educational mission -- but an atheist in a group of people of all religions, many of whom are nominally religious at most, wouldn't interfere with anything.

What's more, the Scout policy doesn't even exclude atheists -- an atheist can be a Scout so long as he pretends to religiosity, and keeps quiet about his atheism. Dishonest atheists are allowed; honest ones are excluded. Pretty counterproductive, I think.

Me too.

Liberals have cheered, conservatives have jeered.I don't agree with either camp wholly. I believe that, for instance, refusing the invite Cheney was definitely their prerogative. In his celestial shoes, I don't know that I would want Cheney there either. Conservatives who argue that they should have invited Cheney out of respect for the position actually weaken their other argument: This should have been a personal, not political, memorial.

And it should have been to a degree. I have no problem with speakers saying "He fought the good fight, we must continue that fight." Wellstone was a liberal crusader. A general call to arms on his causes is appropriate. I've no doubt Republicans and conservatives still would have complained, but I would certainly not have been one of them.

It gets slippier from there.

Using the podium at a memorial service to tell people who to vote for is one a bit tacky, but not a problem. De facto telling people "If Paul meant anything to you, you will vote Democratic." is a tasteless comment. Repeating that over and over again to roaring crowds is rude and disrespectful to those that didn't share his beliefs but thought him a worthy individual. Then there were the boos. Vice President Cheney was not invited because he was not welcome. Trent Lott and Jesse Ventura were. Numerous Republicans were. If you invite someone to a memorial, you respect them. You respect that they believe differently. You can laud all that Wellstone believed and accomplished, but you stop short criticizing people in the room. People that were invited.

Maybe they shouldn't have been. Maybe it should have been liberals and Democrats only as some people suggest that liberals are the only ones allowed to mourn his passing. If they had, we would have seen it coming and not been nearly as upset about it. Hell, I'd probably be defending that decision. But they were invited. Just as a deceased man's second wife must not dig at his first wife at the podium, restrained was called for.

As I read more about it, I keep stumbling across what I consider the most disturbing defense of it that I have seen: Paul Wellstone would have been proud.

Wellstone, after all, was a political creature. A liberal one at that. He would have loved for his memorial service to be a podium for his political party (and, by extention, his views). Maybe so. That's one reason I don't have a problem with speakers saying "We should continue his fight." He probably wouldn't have had a problem with them going into and promoting his issues. Would Wellstone really have approved, however, of a political rally where his Democratic friends and colleagues scream on the podium to a raucus crowd that boo and yell at his Republican colleagues that flew hundreds of miles to be there to pay their respects?

If so, that doesn't make me believe it's okay. It makes me believe that Wellstone is not the man I thought he was.

(note: this is where Page, as in The Last Page, rants about the jackasses who are certain to be responsible for the downfall of Western civilization as we know it. Since Page didn't see what I did this morning, I'll take a stab at it.)

I was at the convenience store this morning walking in as a man was walking out. A few seconds later, a look of horror overtook the clerk's face and he ran around chasing the man down. To no avail. Seeing the clerk run out, he high-tailed his Suburban out of the lot and in to the street. Confused, I asked the clerk what in the world he had done.

He stole the coin depository for blind children!

(The whole "Finding The Jackass Within" thing is likely not formally copyrighted, but nonetheless is the domain of Miss Turner. I only felt free to use it because... well... I'm a jackass.)

Well no, I wouldn't say it that way. However, Ravenwood draws a line in the sand and I find myself on the same side as... the... National... Organization... of... Women. Excuse me while I go wash my mouth out with soap.

Okay, NOW is basically arguing that television is biased against heavier women:

We all know that women come in many shapes, sizes, ages and colors. In an extremely informal count, however, we found 140 women on TV who were model-thin and conventionally beautiful, versus just 31 women who appeared to wear a size 10 or larger.

To which Ravenwood responds:

There is little mention of how the standards were set up to figure out who makes the fat-cow list and who doesn't. I also didn't see any way for actresses to appeal their banishment to the list.

There are two fallacies that make it circular thinking. NOW, for obvious reasons, never uses the term "fat-cow" as Rav does. Political correctness aside, they don't call them "fat-cows" because they are not even necessarily fat. Then he calls it an insult to be on that list and wonders if those on it want off (because they are, in Rav's words and not NOW's, "fat-cows").

Ironically, I suspect that NOW listed the actresses they did because they would not be controversial on that list. I strongly doubt 31 of 171 women on TV are as big as Camryn Manheim. In fact, I can't think of a single one that large that they did not mention. Size 10 isn't that large and I suspect they avoided those hovering at 12 or 14 because they might object. That's unfortunate as I'd love to see the list. Regardless of who they looked at, their criteria was size 10 or larger and 140 of 171 did not meet that criterion.

That's pathetic!

To say that isn't representative of the general public is an understatement. Of course it isn't, though, television was never meant to be. Agreed. I also agree with Ravenwood that it would not be appropriate to have heavy characters in a show like Friends (though Living Single incorporated that well). Half of the point of that show is that they are all attractive. On other shows, though, there is an obvious place for a normal sized woman. Are people really going to tune in to Jim Belushi's show to see his attractive wife? Why not Bonnie Hunt? Does she look fat? Like a cow? By Hollywood standards apparently, because it wasn't until she lost weight that her career picked up again (despite a significant role in Jerry Maguire).

Parts where appearence matters are going to waif actresses, but so are parts where appearence doesn't matter.

Take a look at women the street some time. Look at older women and younger women. Appreciate the attractive ones, but take the time and look at the ones who aren't a size eight (or, for that matter, a size 28). Are they ugly? Are you repulsed? Would you avoid watching a show because the women looked like this? Would you watch Belushi's show because of Courtney Thorne-Smith? Do you watch Drew Carey because the love interest is attractive?

I don't think ratings are the reason. I refuse to believe it makes that much difference. I would actually argue that it hurts ratings and is instead a product of laziness. I think directors and producers generally select from a single pool of actresses and don't even consider the alternative. It's ingrained in their mindset and it's easier to not even consider whether or not a stunning actress is needed. Why? Because when they find an alternative they make such a big deal out of it. They are so proud of themselves. It's like a Republican realizing that not all liberals are evil (or vice versa). The same applies when they pat themselves on the back for showcasing black characters and black shows when, at the end of the day, they are still underrepresented.

This in turn can lead to a backlash of sorts. You make a show with D. L. Hughley and keep making a point of how black to leads are and whites lose interest. You make a show like Ellen where the point of the show is that she is gay and straights lose interest. On a brief tangent, Ellen was not ground-breaking because it starred a gay character. Will & Grace was groundbreaking because it starred a gay character in a series where the point was not that he was gay. But I digress. The point I'm trying to make here is that they are so heavy-handed that it backfires. Then they learn the lesson not to do it again and they don't. You stock a show full of heavy women and make a big deal out of it and it fails. Oh well, we tried. Let's go with what works!

So with this single pool of actresses they delineate on a false scale. "We need a less attractive girl for our unattractive guy" and instead of hiring a less attractive woman, they pick a beautiful woman and stick glasses on her or make her have a nerdy voice.

You can say that they do this with guys, too, and it's true that they do. Not nearly as much, though. Many television fathers are heavy. That's off the top of my mind and not including those with large female leads (a la Rosanne), those not married (Drew Carey), those without kids (King of Queens), and those who are not severely overweight (Jim Belushi's show).

Heavier women are much, much more difficult. I know this from personal experience. When I was working on my first novel, for inspiration I casted the main characters with Hollywood actors to help me visualize them. Thin male characters? No problem. Thin female characters? No problem. Medium-set woman in her 50's? No problem. Heavy-set male? No problem. Medium-to-slightly-heavy-set woman in her 30's? Good grief! It's been five years and I still haven't casted the lead female role in the book. They're all either too heavy (and the selection on that side was slight) such as Manheim or they are size 6. What about all the women in between? Nowhere to be found. Except in older actresses who were thinner in their prime.

I'm not even asking for girls that are real heavy. They are underrepresented, but understandably so. I'm talking about normal girls. Marilyn Monroe for heaven's sake! Not exactly normal dimensions, but closer than I am used to seeing, that's for sure.

So where's the harm in TV barraging us with beautiful women? It harms our perspective. It has a pervasive effect on the way things "should be." Guys get the impression that girls that are not size eight have something wrong with them. I can see it in my friends. I can especially see it in myself. Or, at least, I could see it in the way I behaved when I was younger. I had completely and utterly fallen in love with a girl but I had to ponder for two or three days over whether or not I could deal with her appearence. Not because she was ugly, she wasn't, but because she wasn't what I had in mind. She wasn't like the girls even overweight guys on TV got. This is particularly true when it comes to size because that's immediately quantifiable.

It still happens, though I am aware of it and deal with it faster. My friends do the same. I can only imagine what that must feel like from a girl's perspective. I'm resistent to the argument that girls become anorexic because they want so much to look like Barbie, but I wonder how many do it just to look like someone, anyone, on television? To look a little more "normal."

Several years back, a movie called Beautiful Girls touched on this theme brilliantly. All of the men were never satisfied with what they had and went after girls like Uma Thurmon and Lauren Holly. Powerful as it was, ironically even the less-than-ideal girls included among their ranks Annabeth Gish and Mira Sorvino. In fact, the only person in that movie above a size 10 was Rosie O'Donnell. This in a movie about unrealistic expectations of men.

To be sure, this sort of thing would exist regardless of television, but it feeds into it. If Lauren Holly is the ideal Mira Sorvino is a compromise, where does that leave people this side of Sorvino?

Before I wrap up and ponder the difficulties of the day, let me make a few points clear:

1) I am not calling for censorship or to force networks to do anything. I am in favor of applying pressure, at least rhetorical, to challenge them to do a better job.
2) This is not an example of male cheauvenism. The appearence of women is more premium in both men and women. This could be a post unto itself, so anyone wishing to challenge me on that is invited to do so.
3) I'm not talking about shows where "attractive" is part of the script, such as Friends. I'm talking about shows that aren't aiming for the young-and-horny demographic.

Effective 6pm on Friday, November 1, RAWbservations may go on hiatus for approximately one month.

Details to come.

I'll let you know my decision at that time.

When my ex-boyfriend dumped me, he took me out to Landry's at the Kemah Boardwalk. Maybe he read a list like that one. Anyway, I was seventeen and so heartbroken I've become paranoid. Any time ANYONE wants to take me to a nice restaurant and specifically the Boardwalk I become suspicious. Honey, why do you want to take me there? Is there something important going on? How about we just go to Taco Bell instead. Mmmmh, tacos. Sounds good, doesn't it? No, no, I don't want seafood. You know what, I'm feeling kinda sick, how about we just watch some movies instead?

MSN has another one of those oh-so-great List'o'10s. This time it approaches the touchy subject of how to break up with someone.

10. Take her to a nice restaurant
Show her that you still care about her, in spite of everything, by taking her out for one last special night. Avoid any place with sentimental significance -- such as the restaurant where you shared a first date.

Yeah, it'll be kinda like that scene in Jerry Maguire where Jay Mohr fires Tom Cruise in a restaurant so that he can't make a scene. Except you're not exactly firing her because you're not paying her. Tell her to look at the bright side: her net income is actually going up because she won't have to waste gas coming to see you or buy you any more gifts! Yeah, she won't get your gifts anymore either, but you never buy her anything worth a damn, do you?

9. Give her a parting gift
Giving your former one and only something to remember you by is a nice touch, because it suggests your time together was special. Don't go for extravagant jewelry, but do choose something small and thoughtful.

It also provides her fodder to throw against the wall and stomp on as she curses your parents for ever concieving you. She'll get over it, though. Prepare for that, though, and get her something recyclable cause if that's all she's got to remember you by, she's not going to have much reason to remember you for anyway and it'll either be recycled or in a land-fill and you don't hate the environment, do you?

8. Talk to her folks
Let's assume the two of you had a deep and meaningful relationship, in which case you've probably gotten to know her parents pretty well. So if you want to offer a touch of class, give them a call a few days after the breakup.

Unless she hasn't told them yet. In which case you've not only dumped her, you've robbed her of the duty of telling her parents and/or have gotten her in trouble.

7. Shed a tear or two
Nothing says "I'm terribly sorry" like a little sensitivity, as long as your tears are genuine. You may think crying isn't manly, but honest tears will show her how truly sorry you are about the breakup.

In fact, if it is so obviously that painful to you, the other nine on the list become obsolete. Who wants to argue or yell at a man that's crying? It's like the Jerry Maguire thing.

6. Write her a letter
This doesn't mean you can let the mailman do the dirty work for you. You still have to break up in person; just have a written note handy to say the things that, verbally, are just "too painful."

And she'll bring herself to read it right about the time she thinks it's okay to. Then she'll experience the heart-breaking rejection all over again. Good work!

Maintain a friendship
As happy as you might be to be a bachelor again, you shouldn't leave her high and dry, especially if you really cared about her. Contact her a few days after the tragic event (preferably by e-mail, to avoid the initial awkwardness) and ask her how she's doing.

Eventually, you can include her in some of your outings with your posse to show her that you still appreciate her company. Just make sure you don't give her any hints that you might still want her (read: casual sex is a no-no).

Nothing says "party time" with your posse like the angry, dejected ex-girlfriend. When you tell her you "still want to be friends," make sure that you haven't finished that steak. You may need it for your black eye.

Don't flirt with others too soon
Breaking up is more than just a one-day event. A lot of it has to do with the aftermath, that is, how you handle your first few days as a free agent.

And avoid getting spotted at some bar, hitting on anything that moves. If you truly cared about her, the least you could do is make her feel good by giving her the impression that she can't be replaced so quickly.

I.. well.. yeah... err... no comment.

Let her keep the gifts
One of the slimiest things you can do is ask her to give back whatever items of yours she might still have. Unless she has your Benz stashed in her garage, you can probably afford to replace those old sweatshirts or CDs. The last thing you want is to look like a jerk or a cheapskate.

Don't let it bother you that your autographed Mark McGwire poster is being burned in a ritual bonfire. Just think of it as the divorce settlement for the never married...

Talk to her friends
If you really want to convey that her well-being is your top priority -- which is what a real gentleman would do -- call up one or two of her closest friends and inquire as to how she's doing. Make it clear, however, that you don't regret breaking it off (or else her friends might report that you want her back). You just want to make sure she's all right. Maybe then her girlfriends won't think you're such a loser after all.

Your... uhmm... TOP priority? And when you break up with her, why don't you tell her "I'm doing this for you! You're too good for me!"... and keep that steak handy.

As for calling the friends and trying to convery a message, get them to properly interpret the message, and to pass it on to her. It would probably be easier to invent a time machine, go back, and negate the relationship from it's start. You could say "Even though I am still single and not seeing anyone (see #4), I have absolutely no interest in starting things back up with her, I'd still like to know how's she's doing." and it will be passed on to her as "He asked about you and told me that he was lonely without you."

Be honest
Okay, so maybe giving her the exact specifics as to why you're letting her go will leave you prone to bodily harm. But it's probably one of the most respectful ways you can broach it. Tell her exactly how you feel and the real reasons why you're leaving her, without insulting her too much. Telling her you're no longer attracted to her is one thing; mentioning that she put on a few pounds will garner you nothing but a body cast.

Being honest means letting her know exactly where she stands, without the risk of being misunderstood. And doesn't she, at the very least, deserve the truth?

If you decide to part ways, being a gentleman about it will at least help you stand tall and wash your hands from her without regrets, so that you can start with a clean slate when the next lucky lady comes along.

And doesn't she also deserve to have the breakup be something other than a pre-concieved checklist downloaded over the Internet?

What I guess I'm trying to say here is that most of these are re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Things are going to go badly (at first) and there is almost nothing you can do about it. Don't be stupid about it and try to be as genuine as you can and if things are going to work out (in the platonic sense, of course), they'll work out. How you carried yourself in the relationship will have a lot more to do with what happens then how you go about ending it.

UPDATE: This has gotta be a first. I don't think anyone has ever wanted to break up with me without the bother of actually getting into the relationship first. Heck, though, if Sisyphus (for lack of a more visible name) wants to buy me a parting gift and take me out to a nice restaurant so they can dump me, I'm all about free stuff.

I'm still wading through the Texas gubernatorial race and decided to peruse the web sites of Rick Perry and Tony Sanchez and here are some thoughts about what I've seen:

Homeowners Insurance

Both candidates seem to agree that homeowner insurance companies are using loopholes to avoid regulation. Their response actually seems pretty similar. In fact, Perry's seems more pro-active which is odd considering that Sanchez is hammering him for doing nothing. In fairness to Perry, this wasn't even an issue last legislative season therefore "doing nothing" is hardly a crime when no bills passed his desk (and he didn't try to kill any of them) as far as I know. In fairness to Sanchez, would Perry even be talking about it if he hadn't brought it up?

One interesting thing from Perry's site:

Texans purchase 3.9 million homeowner insurance policies each year that generate almost $3 billion in premiums. Three companies ? Allstate, State Farm and Farmers ? have a stranglehold on 66 percent of the market in Texas. Although those three companies are regulated, they have used a loophole in the law to move a substantial number of their policyholders into unregulated subsidiary companies. In this unregulated environment, Texas homeowners have seen insurance rate increases that range from 15 percent to 200 percent within the past year.

Well, there aren't three companies anymore. Farmer's insurance pulled out of the state (after this position paper was released). So, if they're part of a tri-fecta that has a "strangehold" and is abusing an unregulated environment, why weren't they making money? Are Allstate and State Farm rolling in the dough or is Texas just that undesirable for insurers? Neither Sanchez nor Perry seem to have much to say on that part. "We must do something" is the order of the day. I'm not sure how regulation is going to help here. Of course, unregulation hasn't either.

Advantage: Draw

Education

Tony Sanchez has one good idea surrounded by bad ones. His multimedia textbook idea seems promising and I'm not opposed to money going towards that if it's necessary. Is it? If the idea is as good as it is, why hasn't the private sector pounced on it? It seems like it would be a popular sell to school districts. On what computers would these be run? Twenty-eight computers in every classroom? That seems a long ways off and ought to be discussed first. The idea sounds good, but I'm not sure it holds up.

One big thing on the Sanchez education platform is a "different strokes for different folks" approach to teaching. Ostensibly I agree with that. That's why I support vouchers and charter schools. Sanchez doesn't (or at least doesn't say so). He prefers it on a micro level. The idea of different "learning styles" sounds great in theory. I know that the current system didn't serve my learning style well. However, on a micro level I don't know how workable it is. Is a teacher supposed to teach all 28 students differently? Or, if we were to follow typology temperaments, would everything have to be taught four times to accomodate each style or temperament? Would different teachers take on different styles and the students be fed in to them depending on the results of the assessment tests he proposed?

I may be nitpicking here, but he asks for something in return for this idea. He wants to minimize the TAKS standardized tests. Let students take it when they're ready. This would be gauged on progress assessment tests. This would create a reverse incentive in that the worse kids do on these tests, the less they would have to do in the tests that matter. This would either render the TAKS test pointless or it would leave students unprepared for them because they're still on the 6th grade tests in the eleventh grade. I have my suspicions of which and why, but either way it sounds like a loser.

When it comes to standardized tests, the flexibility he calls for is bad. To use my personal experience, when I was in the second grade or so we were supposed to take the CAT standardized test. My grades were pretty lousy at the time and I was an all around poor student. The counseller called my mother in for a special meeting to request that she exempt me from the test. They said I wasn't ready for it and that it would hurt my self-esteem to do poorly. It would also go into some infamous "file" that would scar me for the rest of my life. My mom denied the request because if I was behind, she had the right to know about it. The flexibility comes at the cost of an objective gauge of student progress (without the aforementioned reverse incentive).

He's in favor of raising teacher pay and lowering classroom size, both of which I support (the former more than the latter). He also wants to cut down on teacher paperwork, which I agree with but his intricate student auditing system seems to come in the way of that. To be fair, so does the TAKS, but at least with the TAKS we get objective information about how the students are doing on a statewide basis.

Lastly, he has some good ideas about increasing cooperation between universities and high schools:

*Develop a coordinated network of Laboratory Schools linked to all university and community college systems. University and public school professionals will work together to develop education initiatives.
*Re-direct to these Laboratory Schools some of the $150 million spent on remediation of incoming freshmen each year by our colleges and universities.
*The first laboratory schools should be located in districts whose students face the most difficulties. Over four years, the laboratory schools should be expanded to other districts, developing new educational techniques for all kinds of students.

Rick Perry has no less than 7 of 17 position statements allocated to education. Most of them deal with making college education more accessible and affordable. It's not as comprehensive as John Sharp's simplistic (and therefore inherently accountable) B-student plan, but it has some really interesting points. Particularly a proposal to beef up our distance education program. It provides maximum flexibility for students by allowing them to take distance education classes from colleges other than the one in which they are enrolled. The colleges like the idea and so do I.

Like Sanchez, Perry also has an idea on increased cooperation between community colleges and high schools, but Perry's is longer on specifics and proposed to increase a program that is apparently working in Dallas. I'm not completely sure I'm sold on this idea, though. Perry talks about existing private sponsorship, but it seems to me like they'd stop once the government took control of it. He also says that students participating in the program have the highest attrition rates. Well yeah, but that's probably more accurately stated in the reverse: Students with the highest attrition rates are most likely to participate in the program.

He also has a plan for enhanced math education. I'm little more than indifferent on this plan. His rationale is to boost our already impressive tech sector. However, if students are struggling in algebra and geometry, they're unlikely to excel in most computer related fields anyhow. Chances are it isn't their bag. In cases where it is, wouldn't it make more sense to beef up vocational training for the tech sector? What about a program that picks the most tech-minded students and put them in an environment where they can really learn about computers? Pasadena ISD has a program like this and it has done a lot of good. Still, it's hard to argue against increased training of teachers in the math fields.

He's also got some plans that focus on college afordability. One program for picking out possible first-generation college students and giving them extra attention. I'm not so sure about this one, either. Is trying to convince people to go to college the best idea? We have enough people who want to go but can't afford it. The college-is-not-for-me mentality is dying quickly and I don't think it needs the government's help to kill it off. In fact, I think the state government needs to start looking at vocational school alternatives to college for those that want and need training but don't want or need a liberal arts degree. That's probably just me, though.

He's also got some things to say on work-study and student loans that are some good ideas. I still prefer Sharp's plan, however.

I expected Sanchez to really shine in this area and Perry to fall short. Perry unfortunately doesn't call for vouchers, but he comes up with some intriguing ideas nonetheless. Sanchez's platform is much more fuzzy and I'm less confident in the rationale behind it.

Advantage: Perry

Economy

Sanchez wants a statewide business plan. He wants to assemble a commission of Texas's "best and brightest" to craft such a plan with agoal to Texas businesses, maximize economic growth, increase employment and efficiently use state resources." Thus far, he wants to promote Texas businesses with contract preferences to "recognize our most important assets in the new economy are well-educated and skilled individuals." He also desires to partner with companies to help them do a better job.

Not too keen on this, though not adamently against it. My first question is whether this is a solution in search of a problem. He talks about widespread economic concerns and fears that our talent pool is moving away. I haven't seen too much evidence of this, however. The economy is hurting all over and this is hardly a Texas problem. Is there another state with such a plan that is huritng less right now? Are people moving from this state to there? If so then we definitely need to do something. I haven't heard that to be the case.

Absent of a specific problem, it strikes me as little more than meddling. Why does the government need to help businesses do their job? The market should handle that for the most part. Some businesses will succeed and others will fail, but that's the way the wild wind blows. Maybe I'm not understanding what he wants to do correctly, but I'm not that impressed with it.

He also seems interested in helping displaced workers learn new skills. Great idea. His rationale is that people are leaving the state and I just don't see that happening, but I think it's a good idea regardless. We live in a tech-oriented state where jobs are more transient than in other places. Helping people move around to where they're needed sounds like a winner.

While Sanchez focuses on the bigger picture from the top down, Perry is looking more from the ground up. He wants to get input from small businesses about making our state more amenable to them. Cynically, this is a convenient way for Sanchez and the GOP to push tort reform (which I am against), but there are some good ideas there, too. Tax exemptions for small franchises seems like a good idea and keeping our economy as unregulated as it is (or making it moreso) is also a worthy goal. We got where we are with our flexibility. Let's keep it that way.

Perry also touts the Internet exemption tax, which is one of those little things that that is more publicity than substance.

Advantage: Perry

Transportation

Rick Perry has some plans to increase our freeway system. Tony Sanchez doesn't mention any. There are some areas where I think it's best for the government to take a hands-off approach. Roads isn't one of them.

Advantage: Perry

Ecology

Perry, as one might expect, has nothing to say on the subject. Sanchez stakes some honorable ground against the lowered speed limits, but it's rather tepid. Since I was expecting less from Sanchez, I'll give credit where credit is due. Perry, meanwhile, strongarmed the TNRCC into backing off of the limits (though the EPA still stands firm). Sanchez wants to make the TNRCC stronger. I am not their biggest fan right now. Sanchez wants tax rebates for low-emission and alternatively fueled cars, which I can support. He also supports the "Pollutor Pays" principal, but he's a little too adament on the subject and I don't want the refineries leaving for greener better pastures.

Advantage: Perry

Guns

Sanchez not only opposes any new laws, but takes pride in the gun culture in which he was raised. I suspect Perry's position is substantively no different, but I give Sanchez points on style.

Advantage: Sanchez

Utilities

Perry doesn't have anything to say here, but I like Sanchez's proposal a lot.

Advantage: Sanchez

Health Insurance

Perry has a plan to give health insurance to employees of small businesses, where it is most lacking (among the working folks, that is). I don't mind the state chipping in for that. Sanchez is more interested in sticking it to insurance companies than increasing insurance among the working. He's also worried about red tape for our children's programs and wants to cut down on that. Of course, it's always easier to say you want to cut down on red tape than to actually do it. He wants to speed up payments from the companies, which I believe is definitely important.

What I found most impressive, however, was Sanchez's overt threat to medical malpractice lawyers. Waste our time and we'll fine you:

Medical Liability and Lawsuit Abuse. "I will support aggressive measures to sanction lawyers who pursue malicious and frivolous suits. In fact, the State Bar of Texas will be reviewed by the Legislature next session and I will work to ensure they change the way they do business."

Impressive... but not impressive enough.

His initiative on providing incentives for doctors to reside in rural Texas puts it firmly in the "draw" category, though.

Advantage: Draw

Crime & Punishment

Perry says nothing one way or another, which I accept as the status quo. Sanchez has some interesting ideas on prison reform. I support raises for cops and teachers, and I'd include prison guards as cops. One thing, though. He calls for increased training and so forth, citing recent jailbreaks (which are a problem). However, most guards in Huntsville, as I understand it, are Sam Houston State students in their criminal justice program. Maybe that needs to be changed or we simply need more guards. Sanchez doesn't go into much detail, but I'll give him credit for bringing it up.

Advantage: Sanchez

Conclusion

So what now? It's one in the morning. Bed time.

I was talking to Jamie, a... well.. friend I guess last night. I had the re-emergence of an emotion that I am not accustomed to: Thank God things never worked out between she and I.

I used to have very strong feelings for her. Very strong. And enduring. She was thirteen and I was sixteen when we first met. Throughout the years we've footed this dance of moving around each other, always available when the other wasn't. Something always happening to keep it from happening. Sometimes it was her (relationship, health problems), sometimes it was me (relationship, emotional unavailability). There were a couple times when things were all coming together and then something would happen at the last concievable minute.

In February, after months of talking her through a relationship that had collapsed, I went up there to talk about it. While up there I met a friend of a friend of hers that I would later date instead. That was probably the apex and we'll probably never be that close again.

Whew.

None of this is to say that I dislike her or even that I don't care for her a great deal. I do. That's part of the problem. I would have gone to Hell and back for her... and she would have taken me there.

We talk almost on a daily basis about various things. Well, she mostly talks and I mostly listen. I hear all about the dramatic house that she lives in with six other college students. It almost feels like I'm watching WWF wrestling. This week so-and-so is the good guy and this-other-person is the bad one. Then this-other-person turns into a face and so-and-so into a heal. Alliances are set and broken again as problems are confronted day by day. Highs, lows, and I'm there for it all. I'm not there like I used to be. I used to try to talk her through the problems and deal with them one at a time, but I got worn out on doing that. She (and her roommates, for that matter) were always more interested in being right than in getting along.

I've never lost sight of what I saw in her. I still see it. She's extremely ambitious, smart, and loyal. She's going to be rich some day and will have earned every penny. We also have a lot in common. We're both right-leaning, headstrong, private, INTJs, and know what INTJ means. It's just not enough anymore, I guess. I can see now that we can never make it and, as importantly, that we never would have even if we had gotten together at our apex. We would have tried, though. We probably would have never given up trying. It's almost scary to think about. It's like the impending train collision was hidden from me all of these years and then suddenly the spell was broken and now it's all too apparent.

I'd like to think I knew it all along in the back of my mind. That's why it never worked out... because we both knew. I remember at one point when she was in a collapsing relationship, there was someone else waiting on the sidelines, too. I remember hoping that if we ever both pursued her at the same time that the other guy would win. It was a strange thought at the time, but it seems to make a lot more sense now.

No matter what we have in common and all the things I admire in her, we have irreparably different philosphies. Someday, I want to start a family and be happy. I want my kids to be happy. I want my wife to be happy.

I don't know that she's ever been really happy a day in her life.

Despite my delusions to the contrary, I never would have been able to change that. Thankfully, I didn't have to find out the hard way.

Kevin Whited takes issue with one of Democrat Tony Sanchez's campaign motto "We didn't elect him, we don't have to keep him" in regards to Governor Rick Perry, who ascended into office when Bush left.

But he was elected as lieutenant governor in a race in which then-Governor Bush campaigned hard for the Republican ticket (with sort of an implication he might run for President). In that sense, the election was about the person who might succeed Bush were he to head to higher office. And Rick Perry was elected.

I realize it's a minor point in a campaign where Perry and Sanchez continue to crank up nasty ads and essentially call each other liars, but I find this motto more grating than most of the retarded ads.

When I saw the ad, I thought it was kind of cute. Probably because I also see it as entirely ineffective. Texas doesn't have Gov-Lt.Gov tickets, so Kevin is absolutely right that Perry was elected to serve in Bush's absence. Added to that fact is that some Republicans and right-leaners I know specifically voted for Perry over Sharp because they didn't want the governor's mansion going into Democratic hands (and didn't want it hurting Bush's national ambitions). They admitted that Sharp was more qualified and not exactly a liberal, but it just would have caused a whole mess of trouble if Bush would have left the state in Democratic hands. It's quite possible that if Bush wasn't rumored to run for president, Sharp would have won.

I'm not entirely decided on the governor's race. I imagine that I will vote for Perry for a couple reasons:
(1) I think Sharp is going to win and I'm not comfortable with Sanchez-Sharp.
(2) Perry has made efforts to de-lower* the Houston speed limits.

*- I refuse to say 'raise' because it acts as though they are not just giving something back that they never should have taken to begin with.

One does not imagine, well over a decade ago, that Aaron Spelling drafted Beverly Hills 90210 with the idea in mind that "I will make this series to become an excellent platform for liberal causes week in and week out." Yet, later in its run, that is exactly what it became. I never watched the show regularly, but for a little while I did either because its time slot was super convenient or my then-girlfriend was watching it. I remember four straight episodes, the story went like this:

Opening: Character gets an opportunity
Conflict: Whether or not character should ethically get opportunity becomes questioned because opportunity runs counter to a liberal cause
Debate: Other character (usually Steve) argues that First Character should take opportunity anyway. First Character agrees.
Resolution: First Character realizes that it would be wrong to fight for opportunity because it would be wrong, because the liberals are right.

The two I can remember specifically are Brandon becoming a scab for the local paper and Jeanne Garth (what was her character's name?) wanting to adopt a child that had been designated for a gay couple. Really, it doesn't matter what the other two were. Liberals that saw this show most likely didn't think much of it. Just another dime plot. Conservatives took note of it as yet another example of liberal entertainment doctrinism for use later in a blog that they would start years later. Well, maybe not all conservatives, but that's what I did. I also stopped watching the show.

Several years ago, Aaron Sorkin began what I consider one of the best television shows ever produced and the last one I ever made a point to watch week after week, whatever plans I had. Before long, however, it became infected with a high-minded liberalism that diminished the quality of the show. One episode after another, the characters would get on their soapbox and argue that gun control was a necessity, hunting was inherently wrong, the Confederate flag is an abomination, and (said point blank) only bigots support vouchers. However, when Sorkin created Sports Night, I don't believe that the main thing going through his mind was "I will create a show about a nightly sportscast and I will primarily use it to advance liberal causes!"

In both cases, however, that's ultimately what happened. So is Beverly Hills 90210 a liberal activist show? Is Sports Night? Was Designing Women designed to be a comedic platform for liberalism? In all three cases, despite the political dispositions of its creators, I don't believe that to be the case. Rather they had these shows ostensibly about certain things (high school students, sportscasters, and... err... designing women) and their politics crept through. Any time 90210 wanted to become socially relevent, it would invariably choose a liberal cause. Whenever characters on Sports Night characters needed a conflict between doing what their corporate heads want and what's "right", it involved them going left.

But are they inherently liberal shows?

No, they're not... but yes, they are, and they are the most frustrating kind of liberal show in existence. The kind that weren't designed to be, but by the predelictions of its creators became such. The politics are sporadic, infectious, and virtually unquestioned. It's even a step further than that in that the writers assume that you agree with them to begin with. And hey, if you don't, then you're like the amoral, immoral, and/or stupid distortions we've got depicting the other side of the argument.

90210 at least made the effort to have an established character make the conservative arguments. However, that they chose one of the most superficial and least thoughtful character isn't exactly by chance. Of course the socially unaware rich kid driving the expensive car would make that argument. Of course. Why would an intelligent character do so? They're... intelligent. And thoughtful.

That's one of the biggest things that I would change if I ever were to get the chance to write movies or television scripts in Hollywood.

In a debate on Greg's Opinion site, I said that I would love to make some conservative shows. The question immediately entered my mind what kind of shows I would make with a conservative theme. Most of the ideas were actually somewhat horrid. Mostly because I don't like preachy shows. I can implement conservative themes, but to be fair many of them are implemented anyway. They're just rarely expressed. For instance, a good old law and order show with conservative themes might be The Commish. They rarely, however, actually take on the liberals, though. They merely depict a positive show about good cops doing their jobs in a world where police are generally the good guys. They don't rail against the ACLU or even defense attorneys all that much. Therefore a liberal can watch the show and enjoy it without feeling like their views are being mocked.

Conservatives are rarely given any such courtesy.

My views were regularly disrespected in Sports Night and are regularly so in West Wing. If a show bends to the left, it is generally quite merciless. If it becomes a big enough deal, the ratings fall. I know a number of conservatives (myself included) that liked West Wing at first, but as it became more and more ideological ended up leaving it behind. One would assume that if a conservative show were to do the same, the same thing would happen. Producers know this. This is where the liberal politics of Hollywood really come in to play.

If a producer is confronted with a script that is blatantly disrespectful to his views, he is likely to ask it revise so as to not offend the audience. This type of thing happens to blatantly anti-conservative scripts, but execs are less likely to pick up on it. If the ostensibly apolitical 90210 were to want to air an episode in which Brandon comes to the conclusion that abortion is immoral and this went unchallenged, an executive would (quite rightly) say "this will alienate the millions of Americans that have undergone one." If there is an episode in which fundamentalist Christians are depicted as hateful and that went unchallenged, they'd be less likely to see that it would alienate and anger the millions of fundamentalist Christians out there, their response would range from "Well, they're wrong anyway" to "They should understand we're only talking about the most extreme."

Well, how extreme?

Pro-life Christians? 40 some-odd percent of Americans are pro-life. Christians that believe that homosexuality is morally wrong? I'd say that number tops 50%. Christians that believe that abortion clinics should be bombed and gays hung? That's obviously a minority, but little distinction is made. If there is a debate among Christians in the show, it's likely to be between a liberal one and a conservative clinic-bombing one. More likely it would be between the nonreligious main characters vs. religious extremists. No distinctions made. They would argue that they don't want to argue theology, but they don't stop to think they already are.

Just as the intelligent Christian voice is rarely on display, the intelligent conservative one is rare as well. In many cases, I suspect this is because the producers don't know any. In many cases, they don't even know what an intelligent conservative would say. So they pit the best of their side (eloquent) against the worst of the other side (spiteful and mean). That's only if there is a debate, which itself is rare.

Before I go too far off the deep end, though, there are some shows that buck this general trend. Anyone who remembers Picket Fences, liberal or conservative, should remember the thoughtful manner in which it approached issues. Debates were set up, lines were drawn, and there were no mouthpieces for All That Is Left and Good. It generally settled on the liberal approach, but it at least gave the alternative approaches a platfom. It made for really engaging television. Law & Order does this to a degree by exploring issues that they confront where when the bad guys get away or get off lightly, you're sometimes enraged and sometimes feel "You know, they got away, but there was a reason for that."

That's all most conservatives are really asking for. The problem is that they are so few and far between that they are the exception to the rule. Most lawyer shows are about defense lawyers exposing the foolishness and/or vindictiveness of prosecutors and police. One doesn't have to be a conservative to see that as a fallacy, but it is conservatives who are most enraged by it. Losses here and there are fine and make for good drama. Shows in which conservative institutions like the criminal courts and police departments are always under fire and doing wrong is enough to drive someone batty.

It's also not something I would want liberals to have to go through. So even if I did head out to California to write conservative TV shows, I wouldn't likely be a conservative response to the liberal claptrap on television today. Not that they would have to go through it anyway because they could just turn the channel. Conservatives don't have that luxury. Instead we just turn the TV off (and then, ironically, face criticism for being "culturally unaware" as President Bush has).

InstaProf is trying to make a point about CNN coverage of the Washington Sniper, but I'm still not buying into it:

Likewise, it may well turn out that -- despite rather a lot of suggestive evidence -- the sniper attacks by a guy named Muhammad who said he supported the 9/11 attackers and who seems to have had a lot of money and airplane tickets for a homeless guy will turn out to be pure, garden-variety nuttiness. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people seem to be bending over backward to be sure it looks that way, and that's why I'm harping on the issue.

It's pretty obvious to me, though I'm open to being proven wrong, that the Sniper is a domestic Islamist nutcase. Islamist, however, is the adjective and not the noun in my view. If I call him Williams instead of Muhammed it's not because I'm subtlely trying to make it appear as if he's something that he's not, it's because I think of him as a Williams and not a Muhammed. If it turns out he was getting the money and airplane tickets from al-Qaeda or an affiliate organization, I'll concede that he falls into the Islamist Terrorist category. Nothing I say between now and then will change what turns up.

Now, if Glenn's fear is that since they view it that way they are unlikely to follow leads that point in the direction of collusion between Mohammad/Williams and al-Qaeda, I'm with him 100%. I don't think that to be the case, but I certainly want to know if it is. As it stands, Mohammad/Williams is from the Nation of Islam, which is the equivalent to fundamentalist Islam that Mormonism is to fundamentalist Christianity. NoI isn't even considered the real deal by anyone except it's members. Remember the Islamic fundamentalists are so tightly wound that they get into wars with one another over whether or not they are Sunni, Shiite, Wahabbist, etc. So they're going to pawn off money to this black redneck who doesn't even fall into any of these mainline categories? That strikes me as implausible. Maybe they did. I don't know. However, the idea that it should be the main assumption and those of us who don't make that assumption are naive doesn't strike me as right, either.

Now, back to the name of the Sniper. Whether the media and public recognizes someone's changed name is always iffy. Cat Stevens is still known by most people as Cat Stevens and not Yusef Islam. Cassius Clay, on the other hand, is more known as Muhammad Ali. John Walker Lindh is rarely recognized as Suleyman or whatever name it was that he came up with for himself. There are reasons for each of these. Stevens is still Stevens because he wrote songs and performed under that name and hasn't really done much musically since converting. Ali did most of his most famous stuff under that name, so it has become accepted. John Walker Lindh never officially changed his name, so it's still Walker, Lindh, or Walker Lindh. Williams was unknown until his arrest, so people didn't know exactly what to refer to him as. We're given two names at once. People who believe him to be a part of the aggregate forces of terror we're at war against chose his newer, Muslim name. People who believe him to be a nutbar that happened to choose Islam as his outlet take his birth name.

I don't think either side is deviously trying to shape public opinion.

Take, for instance, the arrest warrant that was made out for Williams instead of Muhammad. Would the police really put the wrong name on a warrant just to shape public opinion? It shouldn't cause any problems, but crossing the T's and dotting the I's is a pretty important thing for arrest warrants. They screwed up. It happens.I am probably technically wrong when I refer to him as Williams, but it's how I view the man and the situation and hardly a conscious effort to bend backwards to admit anything.

I think I'll just stick to The Sniper.

Andrew Sullivan:

So we have a Muslim convert, sympathetic to the murderers of 9/11, terrorizing the nation's capital, and coming close to shutting its daily life down. I don't see that it matters whether he was formally a member of al Qaeda or some other group.

I suspect that this is going to become a widely held belief in the consertarian region of the 'sphere, but it's not one I am buying in to. Whether or not he was "formally" a member of al-Qaeda or not isn't as important as whether or not these groups supported him (or gave him the orders to do it). All indications suggest otherwise at this point. That's important.

Many liberals have said that our war on terror ought to include abortion clinic bombers and militia groups because they are, after all, terrorists too. So's the sniper. They are not, however, members of the organization that we should have dead in our sights right now. They are (1) domestic and (2) independent operators and/or members of groups with only mild common cause and overlap.

Because they are domestic, they should necessarily be handled by police rather than military personnel. They are crimes. What al-Qaeda did constituted war because they are a foreign entity. We can't keep an eye on them like we can domestic terrorists. We can count on local authorities cooperating to the maximum extent possible (as opposed to authorities in Indonesia and Pakistan). When we set out sights on Afghanistan, protesters argued that we didn't bomb Alabama because of Timothy McVeigh. The thing is we didn't have to bomb Alabama or anywhere else because there was no question that if found he would be caught and if caught arrested. If the Governor of Alabama (which, when you think about it, was a random selection on the libs part) declared that he would not rigorously pursue the terrorists and would not allow the federal government in to do the same, you can bet troops would be sent down. Remember the occupation of Little Rock?

Because of assumed local cooperation, we don't have to go into all-out war mode like we did in Afghanistan and may in Syria or other nations. Because we don't have to go to war, police work should take care of the job. Different methods, different tools, different war.

Secondly, unless evidence surfaces that the sniper was aided or (directly) aiding al-Qaeda, we can assume they were operating independently. It appears as though he's something of a copycat inspired by 9/11, but that doesn't place him in the aggregate organization. If a killer pops up and a copycat appears and the police capture the copycat, it can hardly be announced that "We have struck a blow against the killer!" unless the two were working in concordance. The arrest of the sniper is a wonderful thing, but not a victory in the war on terror. It's a victory in the war on crime.

Stuart Buck recently pondered whether or not this was meant to be a distraction. Looking at what I've seen, I don't think that it is. That is something that should be investigated to make sure that they are not connected, but at this point the evidence does not indicate a connection. Right now his actions are more analogous to that of a serial killer and sometimes a duck is a duck, no matter how he's dressed. No puns or metaphors about nooses or rabbits forthcoming.

There are two observations I have in conclusion to this entire ordeal:
1) Our behavior in regards to it all has not been particularly stellar. I can understand how we lost our cool due to the randomness of all the tragedy, but this is something we're going to have to get used to in the longer run. While we were panicking over here, 14 were killed in Israel by terrorists over there. We need to learn to be patient and calm, cause something like this will happen again.
2) I'm very glad he was an American. I wouldn't want to give the primary enemy the satisfaction.

Apparently, Houston music bar Fitzgerald's changed their web-host (and have a spiffy looking site at the new place). Where it used to be, is this 404.

According to this test I found at Ravenwood (it's on the left menu), I'm a left-leaning staunch libertarian.

According to this one by Owen Courreges, I'm 73% conservative.

A lot of it, of course, has to do with what is being asked. I am radically libertarian when it comes to questions based purely on ideology. In Alexland, how would things be? To say that I would radically overhaul the education system is an understatement. Same with Social Security.

In the real world, I am left to choose between two political parties with two ideologies It's less about how I would have things be and more about which side am I on in the inevitable tug-of-war and how hard would I pull. I think Owen's test reflects that very well.

I mentioned in my Worlds Apart or my John McCain post (can't remember which) that everyone views the world through a certain prysm. There are a certain set of ideals and every individual position we take (that we seriously consider) is a reflection on that prysm. At some point soon I plan to articulate mine more clearly instead of attacking issues one at a time as I have been doing.

Right now, though, I'm pretty mentally dry, hence the decline in posts.

I always used to complain about the Fabulous Satellite Lounge. It's layout didn't suit. It's too crowded with substandard air conditioning and ventilation. In fact, of the six or so music clubs I regularly go to, it's a distant last. Except that I keep going there. Week after week and month after month, they brought in some of the greatest acts. They've showcased Bob Schneider, Charlie Robison, Reckless Kelly, Slaid Cleaves, Patrice Pike, and the list goes on and on. Robison and Schneider have got record deals now and I imagine Reckless Kelly will before too long. They also gave small-timers a chance, including Drifter and Carter Pagel's bands Blind Luck and Box Socials.

But no more. Complain though I did, I'm really going to miss that joint.

Kevin and Kuff will, too.

There has been a man that has become increasingly dissatisfied with his job. He works for the London Metropolitan Police's public relations department. Over recent years he has become wary of behavior on the part of the police and government at large that restrict personal freedoms in the name of security and the public good. The department for which he works has become increasingly maternal. With each passing year, he becomes further convinced that they will continue to peel away at liberties until there is nothing left.

One night, while reading a classic novel, he came up with an idea. It must make the point clearly, though not so clearly that his co-workers and superiors would become suspicious. When he presented it to them, not only weren't they suspicious, but they loved the "concept." He snickered, took it home, and took it a step further. Upon bringing it back, there was much applause. He could barely contain his laughter as one level after another in the bureaucracy approved it.

When he passes his poster on the street, he wonders to himself, "could I have taken it even a step further? Could I have actually mentioned Big Brother?"

Well, maybe I made this entire story up, but I'll be damned if that's not the only way I can explain this.

I'm running out of clothes until I next get the chance to do laundry, so I'm stuck wearing a button shirt of a major computer manufacturer that I picked up at a thrift shop for some reason at some point (probably when I ran out of clothes). It reminds me of a while back when I was at a Texaco mart picking up some beef jerky and Mountain Dew. A man asked me if I was a salesman with the company that was on my shirt. Since that's probably where the thrift store got the shirt, it was certainly a fair enough question. I was a little slow on the uptake, and I just kind of replied "Huh?"

The man went on explaining how he was wanting to buy a laptop and wanted to know if "my company" had good deals.

I told him, "Sir, I get a 30% discount and I don't even buy our computers."

He said "oh" and went on about his daily convenience store business.

Yes, yes, it was a lie... but it was for his own good. Trust me.

Forbes.com presents a list of the fourteen wealthiest fictional characters.

This is a joke, right?

Everyone knows that Lex Luthor (#9) is wealthier than Bruce Wayne (#8).

[Thanks, Asp]

Stuart Buck tracks down an interview with Juan Williams on how a black liberal gets tarred a black conservative.

WILLIAMS: Well, people then attacked me. Once he got into trouble with Anita Hill, and there were all sorts of questions about my behavior -- have you told any flirtatious jokes, who have you flirted with at the paper? All sorts of accusations.

I mean, it just felt like the world had crumbled in on my head. I couldn't believe that so many of my friends who were in the newsroom at the time -- really, it was as if, well, you are no longer truly black. You don't belong and have the right to hold that seat.

As a matter of fact, I was, at that time, doing "Crossfire" for CNN. And I was then saying, listen, I think a lot of these charges against Thomas are ill-based.

And at the time, CNN said, well, you can't sit on the left side here and argue from a black perspective because you're not holding the official black position. So, you know, you can't, literally, appear on this show and do your job as the host on the left.

I read Anil Dash's increasingly circulated entry, noticing a factual shortcoming no further along than the third sentence:

Yes, I recognize that English is a living, evolving language, where additions are made by usage and not by mandate, but understand, neither are they made through sheer repetition.

Actually, those are exactly how new words are added to the language. It is either the product of some official proclaimation ("We call this new network the ARPAnet!") or casual (sheer) repetitive use ("D'oh!"). When a word is used with enough frequency, it becomes part of the language whether it is "official" or not. Once it's definition becomes understood without explanation among ones peers, it is functionally a word. Even if most people haven't heard of it, if the intended audience understands it, you don't need to search for a "certified" word that explains the meaning in a less concise manner.

As it happens, I don't use the word Idiotarian because it doesn't hold a precise meaning to me that I don't find another word more suitable for. But I have a laundry list of words I don't use for various reasons: gal, pro-abortion, anti-choice, soda, pop, soda pop, weenie, etc. Others use these words and I will hardly begrudge them that or infer that their arguments are weaker for it. I say "y'all" and "ain't" and hope they extend me the same courtesy. The inevitable definition of idiotarian is the purveyor of idiotic policies. There have been attempts to define what idiotarian politics are, but the word is a subjective one by nature. As it is, one group of likeminded individuals generally use the word so what a left-wing blogger may consider idiotarian will likely never be called so. That's the liberal's choice, but attempts to dictate what libertarian-minded bloggers can say to one another are futile at best, obnoxious at worst. Since they won't use it, idiotarian will likely imply a certain ominous tone.

A good example from the left is the term "Big Oil." Generally when someone says it, it carries with it an adversarial tone because generally liberals are the ones that use the term most. If liberals wanted to save themselves the effort of hitting a spacebar and start saying "bigoil," once the term became used frequently enough it would functionally become a word.

The same applies to Fisking, which is a word I use from time to time. Anil struts his English bonafides and points out that "Fisk is not a transitive verb; It's a surname." Oh yeah? Well hey is for horses and if you say "what the fuck" you are using an active verb where a noun oughta be!

When your arguments are reduced to cross-referencing word usage with the Oxford English Dictionary you're on shaky ideological ground.

What's sad is that Anil goes on to make substantive arguments. Arguments for less rhetoric and more debate. Stuff that I would agree with and be more inclined to defend... if he hadn't started off by telling me that I'm making a fool of myself for speaking in slang and that my opinion isn't worth a shit.

You know you're tired when:

1. You can't remember if the new subtable is a Log, List, or Index and can't name it until you figure it out. You find the word "Thinger" covers all three quite nicely.
2. The vendor you're trying to contract doesn't have the last name "Duke" but rather "Dooooook" and you have no qualms of pronouncing it as such to his receptionist.
3. You could tell that I really loved an article like this one, but couldn't concentrate enough to read it. (I caught a nap earlier and can now. Still love it. It might even get a full entry tomorrow.)
4. Even after a couple hour nap, you still forget to actually provide to a link that you herald.

While I'm thinking about it, I have some questions y'all may be able to help me out with:

(1) I'm looking in to digital cameras, both camcorders and still cameras. Anyone have any advice? I want the best one possible, but my funds are limited. I could possibly justify up to $500 on a still-frame and maybe up to $3,000 for a video camera (it would be necessary, of course, for RAWbservations: The Movie).

(2) Has anyone run into a problem with Microsoft Office trying to use it on multiple profiles on a WinNT/2K/XP machine? I was furious when it turned out that Windows XP hadn't corrected the problem. I complained to a friend about it and he (also a solo IT guy) said he had never run in to it before. Basically, the problem is that if you install it on one account and try to use it on another, it wants to reinstall itself. Except it usually doesn't actually reinstall. It just sits there. I recall Word working alright on Win2k and Excel seems to work (albeit reluctantly) on XP, but Access (my stock and trade) works on neither unless you reinstall it on the new account. I have run in to this problem at UH (it was a real problem in the computer labs), at my apartment, and now at my job. Any hints on how to get this working would be greatly appreciated.

(3) Another Microsoft problem. On both Win2K and WinXP (both editions) machines, I am having some trouble with synchronization. I right click on a folder and the "Make Available Offline" option isn't there. Is there a reason why it is there on some computers and not on others? Is it an option that has a default lever of deselected?

A couple months ago Alex and I had a conversation on ICQ about Jeb Bush and his daughter in Florida. Since it seems to be in the news again, I thought some people might find it interesting.

PG: You there?
RAW: For a bit longer
PG: ?
PG: Are you at work?
RAW: For a bit longer
PG: Alex! Its sunday!!
RAW: I know, I know. Look at the bright side. I'm about to leave a little earlier than I thought...
PG: It doesn't count as leaving early when its SUNDAY
RAW: Well I'm going to count it, so there! :-P
RAW: What's up?
PG: You hear about Jeb Bush?
RAW: What about him?
PG: His daughter got caught trying to sneak drugs into detox
RAW: [sigh]
PG: Do they have a three strikes law in Florida?
RAW: dunno
PG: So what do you think?
RAW: It?s bad?
PG: Duh.
RAW: Well should I have another opinion? What?s yours?
PG: I?m talking about drug policy. You know, the ones that don?t seem to affect rich kids?
RAW: hold on
RAW: Well, my views on drug laws aren?t affected by the governor of Florida?s kid. Republican or Democrat.
PG: You don?t thnk it?s the least bit hypocritical that Bush is a drug warrior and his kid is hooked on drugs?
RAW: Depends
PG: on what?
RAW: On a number of things. Is Jeb a real drug warrior? I haven't heard him out front on the subject. Even before his daughter got arrested.
PG: I dont remember him being against it
RAW: Is he against it now?
PG: Probably not when it coms to his daughter
RAW: I don't know. It strikes me as problematic to take his private dealings and try to make a statement about his policies. The dealings of his family I mean. Jeb wasnt the one who did drugs. It was his daughter
PG: and Dubya
RAW: Probably.
PG: Would it help if I gave you the definition of hypocrisy?
RAW: I'm still not seeing it. Let's say Bush did coke in the 70s. Is it hypocritical even if he were to agree that he shouldnt have done it?
PG: Yeah because he didn't go to jail
RAW: A lot of people don't go to jail for it
PG: Rich kids, like Bush
RAW: and you ;)
PG: Hush. I've never done cocaine. I also dont think there should be laws putting people in jail for just having a couple ounces.
RAW: You ever drank alcohol?
PG: Yeah
RAW: You're underage
PG: So? What if I think the drinking age should be lower?
RAW: How low?
PG: I don't know. 18?
RAW: You ever drink before that?
PG: Yeah
RAW: Should you go to jail for it?
PG: I don't think you go to jail for drunking underage
RAW: True, then should you have paid a fine?
PG: If I got caught, sure.
RAW: If you got caught but could get out of it, would you?
PG: Probably
RAW: If you got caught and later realized that the law was right and you were wrong and believed that tougher laws would have prevented you from doing it, would you then be a hypocrite if you weren't willing to go back and pay a fine or go to jail for a law in place to prevent you from doing what you haven't done since?
PG: Huh?
RAW: Drug laws aren't punative ones, they're deterrant ones.
PG: Except they don't deter anyone
RAW: Sure they do. They just don't deter everyone.
PG: I thought you were against the drug war
RAW: I'm against it in its current form.
PG: Bush isn't, though
RAW: I don't know that for sure, but you're prolly right. But just because he and I disagree does that mean I should punish him for what his daughter's doing?
PG: It's not about his daughter. It's what he's doing.
RAW: OKay, well what is he doing exactly?
PG: He's going to keep her from getting in too much trouble like poor kids on drugs get in to.
RAW: He is her father... that's kind of his job
PG: He's also the governor.
RAW: Hey, I gotta get going.
PG: You mean you're actually going to leave work? WOW!!!!
RAW: Har har. Anyway, Bush is in a no-win situation. Either he fishes her out of trouble or he doesn't. He's so closely scrutinized that no matter what he does he's going to either come off as a hypocrite or a heartless bastard. If he tries to keep it private he's "hiding something" or if he makes his decisions public he'll be exploiting the situation. If he keeps her out of trouble he's a hypocrite if he lets her hang he doesn't love his daughter. People that don't like him will find a way to punish him for this no matter what he does. If he fishes her out like you think he will... well I can't say what I would do in his shoes (even if my views on the drug war were the same as his).
PG: We'll see I guess
RAW: I'm out. Will you be on when I get home?
PG: Probably
RAW: Talk to you then
PG: Bye
RAW: adios

Well, Bush didn't try to bend the law to save his daughter. I respect him for it, even though I think his drug policy as as wrong as most of his policies are). Apparently Alex was right there at the end, though.

Note from RAW: I cleaned up the HTML, which blocked off part of the conversation. So if it looks different, you're not crazy.

I also wanna revise and extend my remarks a bit. When I say that Bush is free to act on behalf of his daughter, I do not mean that he is free to do so in an official capacity as governor. I'm talking about hiring her the best possible lawyer and so forth, not pressuring judges or anything like that. I don't think Jeb would do that, but I just want to make that clear.

Mac Thomason, a librarian and a comic book fan, isn't too pleased with talk of a Comics 101 class at libraries.

I think it's a wonderful idea. In fact, even prior to reading the article, I planned to hook my kids on comic books early on to get them reading.

I was a very, very poor reader when I was young. I never read for pleasure so I never built up the ability to read quickly and perceptively as most of my friends did. By the time I graduated high school, I had read less than 20 books. I read slowly and couldn't read for very long without burning out (approximately 10 pages a sitting, 20 max). Some time when I was about fourteen, I picked up my first comic book and loved it to death. I started reading like never before and it helped me make up for lost time by presenting them with pictures and the like to keep me understanding what was going on even as my mind would wander.

When I got to college, my reading skills had increased remarkably. Now I could read 100 pages or so in a sitting. I read much faster, my reading vocabulary was better and my ability to concentrate on simple text had improved (many of my favorite comic books, such as The Watchmen, were very word-intensive). I don't really read comics much anymore, but I have them to thank for most of what I do read.

Nothing gets me to clean my desk area faster than when I lose my paycheck in the pile.

Kinda sad that this has happened enough times for me to notice the pattern, but it's a positive one.

Now where did I put that durn thing...?

UPDATE:

Me: I can't find my paycheck...
RAW: I had it a minute ago, then got a call and put it somewhere
Abor: oh shit
Abor: i forgot to leave mine with [husband] tim
Abor: damnit
RAW: glad to spread the self-directed anger around... :)
Abor: gee, thanks :P

UPDATE TOO: It was in the trash can. I don't know. I don't want to know. I just want to cash my check and make my money.

I was looking for something on The Simpson's voice star Harry Shearer and I ran across this very interesting interview with him and Rob Long regarding the politics of Hollywood. They agree that insofar as Hollywood's tilt but there is an interesting debate as to (a) why Hollywood is liberal and (b) what does and does not matter about it.

Rob Long: Well the good news though, as I had said once is that, you know, one out of every three Hollywood Republicans goes on to become President of the United States. The other side of it is that, I think, that in the '60's, somehow, things changed, so that people's, in Hollywood too, and the world, and the country, that people tended to think of their membership to the Democratic Party, as not a, I agree--I support this general set of--sense of--set of, principles, but these are--these are my credentials as a good person, that--and I think--I think you can get away with a lot of childish, idiotic beliefs if they also, are sort of officially sanctioned. Not--not I think by Hollywood, but I think by a, I mean, I hate to sound like Nixon here, but by--by the east coast sort of liberal intelligencia?

Peter Robinson: You could probably sound like Nixon.

...

Harry Shearer: ?I think Rob is probably is a--is a probably the--the living example of the emotionalism that Medved implanted. But the meetings that I've been to, or the discussions that I've been to that are on the liberal side are absolutely as thoughtful and analytical as the conservatives like to believe theirs are. So I don't think that--that's--I think that--that sort of is a flattering view for conservatives to believe about Hollywood, but I don't think it--what's your second explanation, you had a second?

Peter Robinson: Well no, the second explanation was the one I actually derived one day from Rob Long, who said that it's money, the money comes fast, it gets to--goes to people who haven't had it, and so they acquire the syndrome of people who inherit a great deal of wealth. They--they--they feel it came to them capriciously, and they feel a certain amount of guilt. So they do things like give large sums of money away to various charities and support the Democratic Party as a--in a certain sense, as a way of absolving themselves.

Note to Orrin Judd: They discuss the liberal nature of drama and the consensus is that The Simpsons is a conservative comedy.

I come from a family of University of Texas grads, so while I am a University of Houston alum UT is my other school. So after last week's frustrating loss to Oklahoma, I was reluctant to read (pro-OU, anti-UT) Kevin Whited's stellar weekly round-up of Big 12 football. I almost congratulated him on his relatively restrained and non-gloating round-up of the game:

Oklahoma 35, Texas 24
The two quarterbacks struggled in this game, but part of that was surely attributable to two really good defenses. But Oklahoma answered with an innovative game plan that featured 5-6 Quentin Griffin, and sprang him for 248 yards rushing. The Sooner defense completely shut down UT's star running back, Cedric Benson, and Lance Mitchell, Teddy Lehman, Andrew Woolfolk, and Tommie Harris came up big for the Sooners (as predicted). And the Sooner special teams dominated their UT counterparts. Overall, the Sooners outplayed and outcoached the Longhorns, leaving Chris Simms and Mack Brown (whose overly conservative game plan didn't help his team) befuddled for the third straight year. Next week, UT will try to avoid being outcoached again at Kansas State, and Oklahoma has to deal with Iowa State, whose quarterback Seneca Wallace is the sort who has given the Stoops/Venables defense difficulties this year.

Then I read his entries below.

Really, though, Oklahoma played a hell of a game. The coaching was frustratingly phenomenal and aggressive. There was never any doubt that OU was playing to win. Griffin, the OU RB, tipped the scales of what was an excellent defensive game for both teams (sans the last quarter). I'll be glad to see him graduate and wish him all the best when he's playing for a team that is not OU. They got lucky at points, but unlike UT they never failed to make an opportunity of the chances they were given.

Texas played much better than the score suggests, but absolutely fell apart in the last quarter. Mack Brown has been thoroughly criticized in some quarters, but I believe a lot of that is due to the stellar coaching on the other side. Brown never seemed to have faith in his team the same way that Stoops did on the other side. OU played to win while UT seemed to play to avoid losing. The problem with the latter tactic is that once the other team takes control, your entire gameplan is rocked and the team falls apart, much like what happened to the Horns in the fourth quarter of this one. I honestly think that UT would have done better if they hadn't scored first.

Of course, one reason Brown might not have as much faith in the Longhorns as Stoops did in the Sooners is a tall blong guy named Chris Simms. Contrary to Kevin's assessment of Austin turning on its own, no town is more critical of the Horns than Austin, sycophantic sports writers aside. Reaction around me to Chris Simms's appearence on the cover of Texas monthly was a mixture between "You think?" and "Oh, dear..." as opposed to "Damn straight!" Most folks I know are still somewhat bitter over Major Applewhite's getting the boot last year in favor of the erratic Simms. My brother is about the only Simms defender that I know, and I'm not quite sure what's going through his mind right now.

But erratic is definitely Simms problem. he's like ShinerBock, one of my old computers (yes, I name computers after beer). When it worked, it worked great. The problem was that it found the worst possible times not to work. I tried and I tried, but it wasn't reliable so in the end I had to junk it. UT can't exactly junk Simms at this point, but I suspect Simms's frequent Blue Screens of Death are going to be a continuing problem throughout the year. Brown bet on the wrong horse, but by the time be knew it it was too late. Brown was criticized heavily for putting him in last year, I think it was in part to get him more experience so that he would do better this year. Hasn't worked out that way. Maybe next quarterback.

All in all, the Longhorns are better now than they have been in some time. I remember when people were wondering if they would ever be the chief school in the state, much less the conference or country. One down, two to go.

Today on the RAW Cooking Show for Bachelors, we will discuss a simple and easy way to diet eating everyone's favorite breakfast food: bacon.

For this, you will need:
Two (2) strips of bacon
One (1) Frying pan
One (1) Plate
One (1) spatula
One (1) empty stomach

How to prepare:
1. Take two strips of bacon and cut them up by the inch.
2. Place into frying pan, turn frying pan up all the way.
3. Allow bacon to stew in its own fat as it cooks.
4. When thoroughly cooked, take bacon from flying pan and put into plate.
5. Remove food from plate and place into empty stomach's receptical (aka your mouth).

Now, I know what you're asking. You're asking "How can this qualify as a diet? Are you talking Atkins or something?"

Why no, I am not. Trust me on this one. The lynchpin to any diet is taking in fewer calories and fat calories and/or carbohydrates. This takes care of all three.

Prepare it as above and eat it and YOU WILL NEVER WANT TO EAT ANYTHING EVER AGAIN!

WORLDS APART

I've gotten used to it over the years. If voting were restricted to my former girlfriends and love interests, Ralph Nader would have won in a landslide. Expand voting rights to all my friends, it would be a toss-up between Nader and Libertarian candidate Harry Browne. For whatever reason, I draw (and am drawn to) people with eclectic and countercultural philosophical beliefs. Political discussions around me are very often quite lively and you never know where someone is going to stand. Or we avoid having them so no one will get violent.

A week or two back, I was poking around the LiveJournal of Ora, the girl that I could credibly say was the first one that I ever really loved. When I saw that she had a post about the Iraqi war debate, it piqued my interest. When I saw that she had enough to say to warrant a "MORE" link at the bottom, I reached for the antacid and clicked on it. True to her Naderite ways, she is stridently opposed to any military action in the region.

I've posted on Iraq before and I will again, but this entry is not going to take up that debate. Nor is this post going to be about her and me and what we did or did not have. Most of her specific arguments (and the phrasing thereof) are immaterial as are most of the specifics of our relationship (then and now). Instead, what compels me to write is the amazement I feel that two people, who once thought the world of one another, can live in seperate but parallel dimensions.

In her world, George W. Bush is am immature child pretending to be president. He wants war so badly that it doesn't matter what Hussein does, Bush just wants to destroy him. It's a religious thing for Bush. He is on a mission from God to purge the Earth of what runs counter to his religous calling. Bush will lie, cheat, and do whatever it takes for there to be this bloodshed. It will be bloody and "millions and millions" will die. It will expand as Iraq's fellow Arab nations will be so outraged by our actions that we will essentially be at war with the entire region. Our economy will plummet, prices will skyrocket, and so on.

In my world, George W. Bush is a president with amazing focus and discipline. His administration has long believed that Hussein is a direct threat to our national interests (including security foremost) that needs to be eliminated. They believed that before 9/11, but after the attacks all issues of national security have become considerably more urgent. Bush will do politically what he has to in order to enter this war for the national good. It may or may not be bloody, but will hardly be the Vietnam that many of its critics claim. It is very unlikely to expand into a war with the region as Hussein is strongly distrusted by his fellow nations and they are unlikely to go to the mat for a secular, regional power with imperialist ambitions of its own. We will prevail.

Most people fall somewhere between our very different views of the war and are likely to disagree with us both. However, when it comes to a gulf as wide as this one, it's more than just a difference of opinion. It's even more than a different philosophy or worldview. It's a seperation of realities. A few years back, when we were discussing the effect we had on one another, she commented that she had never dated anyone as conservative as I was. I had never loved anyone as liberal as she. The Republican and the Naderite. The establishmentarian and the flower child. It was 1996 when I had last seen her. The year I had proudly voted to re-elect Bill Clinton. My lurch rightward had yet to occur, but even then I believed in the institutions as she moved further and further into opposition of them. Our courses had already been set by that point, moving further and further apart.

When opinions differ so wildly, it's easy to dismiss their arguments as those of an idiot, heretic, or fascist. It's particularly true when you are surrounded by people that more-or-less share your worldview. I've probably been dismissed by most of whatever left-wing bloggers know of me. Liberal bloggers are often suspect in my eyes until demonstrated otherwise, as is often the case even when I am left unconvinced of their views.

When it's someone you know and care about, it becomes more tricky. I can't say that she hates America because I know that isn't true. She can't say that I am some sort of fascist Nazi because she knows that I'm not. Yet we can't agree on anything, however much we'd like to. We once meant the world to one another, now we don't even seem to live in the same one anymore. As far as establishmentarians go, I'm somewhat libertarian-minded and suspicious of government. Not many of her fellow flower children live in a family littered with cops and soldiers that she loves no less for it. Much of the fiction I write is more akin to Southpark than 7th Heaven. She dresses traditionally and looks forward to marriage and children. Moderated though we are in our respective worldviews, it makes little difference. We remain worlds apart.

"What makes a person so poisonous righteous,
That they'd think less of anyone, who just disagrees?
She's just a pacifist, he's just a patriot.
If I said you were crazy, would you have to fight me?"
-Moxy Fruvous, The Gulf War Song

It's barely an asterisk on the news, but it's what I found most interesting. I knew Ron Paul would vote against it because he's a staunch isolationist. I was curious who the other seven were and why they voted the way they did. Were their reasons analogous to more liberal opponents or were they a sort of Pat Buchanan conservative opposition? So I thought I'd do a little investigation. Here is what I came up with:

John Hostettler (R-IN) does not believe that "the best defense is a good offense." He questions where this fits into the entire "Common defense" clause of the Constitution and is uncomfortable with the idea of attacking a sovereign nation. He believes there are too many "might"s about this and that such an attack is only permissable when the threat is imminent. This would also set a bad precedent, he suggests, both for the rest of the world and for our own future actions (going after the rest of the Axis of Evil). On the last point, since three of the