Politics and Life of a High Schooler
Sunday, February 29, 2004
The Song on Repeat
They painted up your secrets
With the lies they told to you
And the least they ever gave you
Was the most you ever knew
And I wonder where these dreams go
When the world gets in your way
What's the point in all this screaming
No one's listening anyway
Your voice is small and fading
And you hide in here unknown
And your mother loves your father
'Cause she's got nowhere to go
And she wonders where these dreams go
'Cause the world got in her way
What's the point in ever trying
Nothing changing anyway
They press their lips against you
And you love the lies they say
And I tried so hard to reach you
But your falling anyway
And you know I see right through you
'Cause the world gets in your way
What's the point in all the screaming
You're not listening anyway
Why does this song speak to me like it does? I do not think I feel like the girl in the song. Does it even specify it is a girl? I don't remember, but I have always imagined him singing this about a girl. But such a sad song, about someone so not like me, envokes such thoughts and feelings, I have never understood the reason. I am having a hard time putting my thoughts into words at this time, which is also somewhat strange. This song however, I have never associated it with being happy. Whatever though, I don't have to worry until I feel the urge to listen to "if you're gone" by Matchbox20. It is a shame that the songs which I'm afraid of are all so good. Why couldn't that "move your body" song by the guys who wrote "blue" make me sad. That was a terrible song. But I have no such luck. It is ok though, as long as I remain lucky in certain other areas. Well, this has really been a free-ascociation entry, sorry if you couldn't follow the thought process.
Oh yea, the song above is "Acoustic Number Three" (also written Acoustic #3) by the Goo Goo Dolls. A very short song, but I highly reccomend it.
Why is my life such a Double Entendre?
Friday, February 27, 2004
Lets Try This...
Hello all. Health wise, I am doing much better. "Funk" wise, I was doing much better during school, but not so much now. Maybe I'm just bipolar? Whatever I am, I'm in a pretty crappy mood, so I will vent in the form of a defense of gay marriage statement. Hopefully that will make me feel better, or at least make me feel something at all.
A republican politician was being interviewed today on CNN as part of a debate one the gay marriage issue. This man was opposed to gay marriages, and I do not believe he specified to his opinion on civil unions. However, he made many comments extremely homophobic in nature, and it would be a safe bet, in my opinion, to assume he was against civil unions also. The statements made by this politician, whose name I don't recall (probably luckily for him), can be classified as in general uniformed, inflammatory, bigoted, and at certain times plain old factually incorrect. That someone like this is even allowed on public television is a disgrace to CNN, and speaks very poorly of the type of people whose opinions this man represented.
At one point during the interview, the politician discussed above was discussing what some would call "the sanctity of marriage." He was saying that marriage has existed for thousands of years (true) and that it had always been between a man and a woman (false). He said that for millennia marriage has been a fundamental aspect of civilization (true), and that "all of these civilizations considered homosexuality wrong" (false). When you think of civilizations of thousands of years ago, how many do you think of before you think of the great Roman Empire? For me the answer is zero, but, from my quick polling, most people listed Rome within their first three, only one person listing Rome as late as 6th. Well, this politician clearly forgot the 1000 during which Rome prospered and ruled most of Europe. I say this because, not only did Roman culture NOT think of homosexuality as "wrong" or immoral, but they embraced homosexuals. Countless Consuls (equivalent position to our current day president, except that their were two of them at all times) were open homosexuals, as were a number of Emperors (Rome eventually dismantled the Republic and became a type of Monarchy, Emperors were basically Kings). As for how many Roman Senators were openly gay, there were far too many to have an accurate estimate. The point being, this well known culture, in addition the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Persians, and many other great ancient civilizations, far from shunned homosexuality,thus proving one of the politicians statements to be completely false.
To the other statement of his which I said was false... This man, along with many other anti-gay marriage activists, has chosen to ignore the gigantic portion of human history during which marriage was NOT between ONE man and ONE woman. Since the beginning of human history, marriage has been between one man, and any number of women. In other rare occurrences, marriage has even been between one woman, and multiple males! Polygamy is even in the Bible, the book which many point to as saying that homosexuality is immoral! Do we not remember, or choose to forget, the many stories which told of David and his many wives? Polygamy has existed since the beginning of human existence, and monogamy has only become the norm within the last (I'll make an estimate which would help the conservatives argument as much as possible without being inaccurate) two to three thousand years. In Africa, however, monogamy has only been the norm for approximately two hundred years, because due to the slave trade, polygamy was necessary for survival, and the slave trade did not end until, in most cases, the 1800's. So when anti-gay bigots claim that they are trying to preserve the age-old institution of marriage, which has existed for "thousands and thousands of years as one man and one woman," they really meant to say only the first "thousand." Thus, another statement made by this politician, which has been repeated by countless other anti-gay activists, is proven false.
So, this leaves me with the question, "if conservatives are trying to preserve the tradition and sanctity of marriage, are they uninformed on the actual tradition of marriage, or are they just liars?" Well, judging by the most powerful bigot to support the anti-gay marriage movement, President Bush, and his historical problems with truth-telling, I am going to assume that the answer to my posed question is the later. These conservatives are not in favor of preserving and continuing the tradition and sanctity of marriage, they just think that argument sounds good. The real thought process going on here, is a man is walking through the park, and he sees two men kissing and holding hands, and he thinks to himself "that is icky, I think I should outlaw it." Well conservatives, I regret to inform you, that the "it's icky" argument does not hold much weight in the American legal system, not to mention that it is discriminatory, and goes against many laws in addition to the 14th amendment to the constitution. However, I have a strange feeling that with a lying president who has appointed an equally criminal Attorney General (it is the job of the AG to file and pursue any crimes at the federal level, such as felonies) I doubt that any charges will be brought for this lawless discrimination. To make an amendment to the constitution which would make discrimination the law, however, would be abominable, especially since the only actual argument against gay marriage is the aforementioned "it's icky" argument.
There is so much more which I could, and in due time will, say about gay marriage, but I feel that for today, I am nearing the end. However, I will close with a proposal. An argument often made by anti-gay bigots is that homosexuality, and homosexuals themselves, are degrading American society, and threatening the value of marriage. I believe, as many others do, that what is truly diminishing the value and importance of marriage in America today are the people who recklessly go around marrying and divorcing, going through spouses quicker than they go through cars. If people really want to make marriage more meaningful in America today, and if they want to do that with an amendment, why not an amendment limiting each American to one spouse per person per lifetime?
JMAL
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Responses to My Blog
I have found out with in the last 10 minutes or so that it is possible for other people to respond to my blog postings. However, it is a mildly complicated process I must go through in order to set you up as a person with the ability to comment on my blog. Also, all comments would be viewed on the same page as my regular blog updates, all shown in chronological order from time of posting regardless of who it was who posted it. I am not yet sure if I want to set this up with anyone. However, if you have opinions one way or the other (should I allow responses or not), or would like to be set up as a person with the ability to post their responses to my blog, contact me online at the screen-name rigley12. And we can chat. Until then, enjoy all my regular postings, including the one made earlier today (viewable by simply scrolling down a little), and see you all later
JMAL
Why the Funk?
My question of the week would have to be "why the funk?" I dont mean funk in the 1970's-10-inch-afro-and-a-disco-suit sense, or funk in the I-forgot-my-deodorant-this-morning sense either. I am talking about my mood of late, an unhappy-unmotivated-unenthusiastic-slow-mornful mood, which I believe I have heard someone describe once as a "funk." The word is fitting, though, for my mood, which has been my mood all week. "Funk," it is a quick, short, and ugly sort of word. While, unfortunately, my mood has not been quick or short, I have certainly felt ugly during it, and I dont mean in the strictly physical sense of the word either. I don't know where this "funk" came from, what it means, or why it is bothering me. All I know is that it has replaced my usual up-beat, optimistic (often blind and misguided optimism, but optimism nonetheless) and happy (also usually misguided, but still happiness) personality, and replaced it with pessimism, almost to the point of paranoia, moroseness, and a general feeling of "yuck". I've smiled only rarely this week, and most of those smiles have felt fake and forced. I have walked around, it seems, with an expressionless face, and a feeling of "ok, thats one done, only five more before you get to go home." Yes, school does suck, but usually that is not my attitude.
Now, for the "why?" section. I truly do not know. I have been getting sick, which is probably not helping me, but I think that I have already passed the worst of it and am now getting better (knock on wood). I have other theories also, but they are all quite upsetting, and I would sincerely hope that they are all false. My trip to Arizona, while fun, was quite unfulfilling, and I left with a few small regrets. I wonder if these regrets may have something to do with my current "funk"? It is a possibility, but one which could not be mended for another year, if it ever could be mended, so I will choose (and hope) that this is not the case. But what are the other possibilities? I have so far thought of nothing sensable. The only other theory I have even thought of which would make any sense at all, the unlikely notion (at least, I hope it is unlikely) that things with Sarah may be going in the wrong direction, is much more likely a result of the aforementioned paranoia than a likely cause of this "funk". So with the only theories proven false, I am left with no plausable solution to the question I have asked. How can I fix a problem when I do not even know what the problem is that needs to be fixed? It is an aggravating situation indeed.
So, with all my wondering and time spent pondering this subject, I leave you all with no solution yet found, only further proof of the "funk"'s growing strength. Usually writing in Mr. Blog here is enjoyabl and makes me happier. Today, I am still in the exact same mood as when I began. I can only hope that this "funk" ends quickly, so that I can go back to being happy and blindly content.
JMAL
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Random Musings
Well, what a day, and it is only 3:00PM. It actually hasnt been too eventful though, just very long. On a day when my first class began at 8:21, I was in school for a meeting at 7:00AM. That was very fun. It wasn't bad, at least I think. I barely even remember it, it seems so long ago. Spanish was fun, all the little people amuse me (it is a predominantly frosh class). They all get the subject better than me, which is sad but makes a great deal of sense (the younger a person is, the easier it is for them to learn a language, due to the biology of the brain), but them, plus Ms. William's ADD makes for a wonderfully entertaining block four times a week. That class was followed by History, and the mock trial is extremely fun, and doesnt require much work outside of school. Following that was lunch with Nursey and Leah, again, nothing eventful. I then did my english outline and showed it to D-Roems, and went home cuz I was feeling like shit. Talked to Sarah for a while, and then I tried (and failed) to take a nap. I still don't feel wonderful, but I have to talk to old people tonight, so I have to stay awake and alert, assuming thats at all possible. So that has been my day, it feels like it has been forever.
I'm a little to out of it to discuss politics right now, but just to update you all on today's news: last night Kerry won Idaho, Hawaii, and Utah, but none of those three were at all contested by Edwards (he visited none of them, and spent no money on any of them). The only other news is that Bush has officially admitted that he is a Bigot against 10% of the population (the gay population). What is disgusting about it though is that, were Bush to declare bigotry against the black population, only 3% larger than the gays (13%, for those of you who cannot add), there would be calls for him to resign. Basically, what this means is that homophobia is so prevalent in society today that nobody cares about denying over 300 civil rights to one tenth of the American population. I, for one, find that absolutely disgusting.
But I'll argue more about the disgusting hypocracy of the American president and the large portion of American society when I feel more up to it and awake. With so few people supporting the gay population, I want to be as clear, articulate, and gramatically correct as possible when I do so.
Well, I have to finnish my work now, because I badly need to get to sleep early tonight, try to feel better. Thats all I have to say for now, talk to everyone later
JMAL
Monday, February 23, 2004
My Own Philosophies
Oh, what a thing it is to be stupid. Intelligence is easy, but sense, is less so. Why do we do stupid things, ask stupid questions, think stupid thoughts. Why do we, as a race, tend to be so against contentness. The happier we beome, the more we question unnecessarily. When we have what we want, we think the whole world is out to take it away. Why can not we see things as they are, say "thank you" and then be content, and have the story end there? I have no answer for these questions.
I don't know how much other people think to themselves in prose, but it is something I do quite often. I say something in my head, and support it, and explain it, until I am convinced that what it is I am thinking is true. Whether or not I orriginally believed some things which I believe now, I do not know. It is possible I just said them to myslef so many times that I have convinced myself of their truth. I do not know this either.
What I do know, is that I try to live by my two motto's. The first, is both figurative and literal: "There is always more room in the refrigerator". This comes about due to the daily life in my house. My family all basically lives on a liquid diet, and since Wayland tap water sucks (at least North Wayland tap water, I can't speak for the Southies), we have a lot of bottled water in our refrigerator at all times. Usually two 1-gallon containers. This, plus all the left over Asian food (Chinese and Thai) and all the fizzy-water and all of the food which we keep and never once in our lives ate, makes for a perenially full refrigerator. My mom often gives up on an apperantly full refrigerator, leaving things she can not fit in on the counter right next to the refrigerator. Always, I move the contents around until they are in an arrangement which can fit the previously excluded items, in addition to all of the orriginal contents. Thus, "there is always more room in the refrigerator." The figurative meaning is that there is always a positive side to something, or always a way to make it better.
My second motto, has a very clear meaning: "Always be happy, even when you are not." There isn't any way I can think of to misinterpret that, only a way to not understand it. The reasoning behind this is again relatively basic. If you are unhappy, but act happy, you can often make someone else happy with just your own happiness. And, to take that a step further, when you make someone else happy, you can usually become happier yourself. Either that or you can simply trick yourself into thinking that you are in fact happy. Therfore, by always being happy, even when you are not, you can become happy and stay happy. Or at least, so the theory goes.
However, not always do you remember your own motto's, and other times, they fail on you. More often is the former I find, but the latter occurance happens also. Either way, it is sad, and it feels as though I have let my guard down. Well, whatever I guess, and it is off to work I go now. Im not too sure as to the significance of any of this entry, excepting the first paragraph, but at least now you all can say you know, to some extent, what goes on in my head. Thats all for now
-JMAL
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Aggravations of "Crossfire"
Why does Paul Begala allow Tucker Carleson to absolutely trounce him in every debate the two of them have (which is several a day, being that they co-host the show together)? I mean, how are the Democrats, as was done by Begala today on the show, allowing the Republicans to call the question of Bush being AWOL "dirty politics" or "gutter politics"? The Republicans were the party which called a man who lost three limbs in Vietnam a "coward" in a campaign ad while showing a picture of Osama Bin Laden as the visual image. And now it is the Democrats who are playing "dirty politics"? How do they get away with this? And why is no Democratic commentator bringing up the issue of the triple-palegic I just mentioned? Do they not remember losing that precious senate seat a mere year and a half ago? After dismissing the AWOL question as "gutter politics", Tucker went on to ask why the Democrats were bringing up the question of what the candidates were doing thirty years ago, and asked "if you (the Dems) really wanted to bring up this question?" My answer is yes. Thirty years ago, Kerry was serving honorable in Vietnam, and became a decorated war hero. At that same time, Bush was skipping his duty in the national guard in order to further pursue his cocaine addiction and his habbit of being an alcohalic. Why is this relevant, one might ask? Well, many reasons, the least of which being that often in foreign pleasantries alcohal is drunken as a show of politeness, and if Bush were to participate in such, then our president would be, instead of a recovering alcohalic, a full blown alcohalic. But that is the least of my worries. More important is the question of can our president make proper moral judgements and decisions, if he nearly destroyed his entire life by becoming a narcotics addict, then how can he make the judgement and decisions required of a president? Also, Kerry's votes from 20 years ago are going to be scrutinized, and if he has changed his opinion on any topic over those 20 years, then he will be labeled a "flip-flopper" who is "weak on the issues". If that is ok, then determining whether or not Bush committed yet another felony in his life is certainly relevant. Kerry has, at least to my knowledge, and I have never heard him accussed of this, committed a felony. It appears as though Bush has comitted several. But wait, is dicussing a politicians criminal record now "dirty politics" also? If so, then I appologize, because according to Ed Gillespie, I have been committing "slander" throughout this little blurb. For those of you who do not know, "slander" is illegal, but a civil offense, not criminal. If someone says something incorrect and bad about a person, wrongly ruining their credibility, reputation, or personal life, then the victim can sue, and usually punnishments are monetary (bear in mind, this is the "Alex description", not the true legal definition). Ed Gillespie, chairman of the RNC, has stated on national television more than once that DNC chairman Terry McAweful (yes, I purposefully misspelled his last name to make it more fitting to my opinion of the job he is doing) has committed slander against president Bush by bringing into question whether Bush ever actually reported for his duty in the National Guard. Gillespie went on to say, however, that "of course no one is going to sue McAweful for slander though." My response to that question is: Why not? If McAweful broke the law, then he, and everyone else who has repeated his comments, should be punnished accordingly. If the Republicans want credibility on this issue, it would be gained by filing suit against we Democrats. Let the justice system they put so much faith in decide whether Bush is being wrongly accused or not, that is what the courts are there for, isn't it? If they do not file suit against someone who broke the law to hurt them, then only two logical conclusions can be drawn from that: A) They do not have as much faith in the system as they claim to, in which case I would ask why people can be put to death using this system, or, more likely, B) They think they will lose. My father, a litigator, has handled multiple Slander cases in his career, and he has told me this about them (and this was long before the question of Bush being AWOL was in the national press): If you want to gain your credibility back when you have been rightly accussed, you claim slander, and leave it at that. If you want to gain your credibility back when you have been wrongly accussed, then you sue for slander. The man who has not had slander committed against them but sues anyways usually ends up paying dearly, in both legal fees and his reputation. The man who has been truely slandered will sue and win, thus regaining his credibility, diminishing his opponents, and making some money in the process. So Gillespie, I would love you to sue McAweful for slander, and have the courts decide once and for all that Bush never did in fact report to duty in the national guard. I can imagine no better news story than the day I see the headline reading "Gillespie and Bush sue McAweful for Slander"! That would truely be a good day in my eyes.
To summarize todays musings, "dirty politics" was a game invented by the republicans, dating back as far as Nixon's "Southern Strategy" to win the south by playing off whites racial fears. A triple-amputee who lost his limbs fighting for our freedom is a coward the same day I become a Republican. And let us not forget Bush's campaign visit to the openly racist Bob Jones University in 2000 to beat McCain. Bush's and Kerry's past record is more than relevant to understanding these candidates, and when it was Clinton the "Draft Dodger" instead of Kerry the "War Hero", the Republicans were very happy to discuss a candidate's history. But now you have the "War Hero" versus the "Coke addict who was AWOL", and so it is obvious why the republicans would like histories to no be a part of the campaigning. Lastly, Ed Gillespie, I beg of you, please sue McAweful for slander, and sue me too while you are at it! Nothing would make me happier than to prove you wrong in a court of law.
Thats about all the politics I can squeeze into todays "Blog"
JMAL
What Physics Can Do to a Man
Ever wonder what effect two hours of physics class has on a person? Well, if you answered yes, then you are in luck, because I happened to write down my thoughts today during a short portion of physics, and the results were both frightening and sarcastic. Here it is:
I have decided that I love the movie/play "Grease" for its inspiring moral lessons. Taken literally, the message of this movie/play (actually more like play/movie because the play came out first) is thus: Girls, if you like a guy, you should be prepared to change every aspect of yourself in order to attract him. You should be prepared to sacrifice your own morals, individuality, and beliefs in order to attract "Mr. Right". This moral is a crushing blow to and a strong statement against the left win "Woman's Rights" activists. Those who believe women should leave the kitchen, and stand up for themselves, are clearly proven to be in the wrong by this movie/play. I believe that "Grease" should be taught in schools in order to further promote this strong American moral.
Well there it is. My boredom, through prose. How did I start thinking about the movie/play "Grease" you ask? Well, I'll take the Mr. Daniels approach in answering this question: That is an excellent question. (now picture me, walking away, without saying another word).
Well, day two as a "Blogger" is proving to be not much smoother than day one. I am told that in reading these entries, you, the reader, are not able to view my double returns separating a change in though, such as the one which immediately followed the most recent parentheticals. I also had troubles logging on in order to add todays posting. Mike helped me out a bit there, but I had forgotten my password, and I had to handle that adventure all on my own. Well, I figured it out via the guess and check method. You may remember that because it was the last useful thing we learned in math class. Wait, no, nevermind, we learned that when we were two years old. Scratch that, we never learned anything useful in math class.
New topic. "Nursey," as Jess endearingly refers to her, found out about Sarah today. I kind of enjoyed her comment upon discovery, "wow, great. I had thought you seemed kinda chilled out lately." Not much, I know, but its kind of nice that, if her observation is accurate, it is nice to know that Sarah has had a slightly noticable positive affect on me. I dont want it to become one of those things where you meet someone, and things go great with that person, but all your friendships and other relationships start to fall apart. I have a very specific example in my head of this, but for protection of that individual, his/her name will not be released, but if you know him/her, you probably know who I'm thinking of. Anywho, thats a tangent, the important thing is, there may be a noticable improvement in my overall demeanor and personality due partially to Sarah, and thats a good thing. I know most of you will not believe this much, but I actually do not enjoy being refered to and thought of as "arrogant." In actuality, I far from think I'm better than all of you, and if I understood how my actions/words were arrogant, I would stop them. So the idea that I may be getting in some way better is definately, in my mind at least, a positive. Anywho, I feel like I am at the same time rambling and running in circles, so moving on...
Time for your daily political alert: Kerry won both Virginia and Tennessee last night, causing General Clark to drop out, and making it look like this is going to be a steep uphill fight for Edwards. I am still ambivalent as to Kerry v Edwards, but I know that I would love it if they ended up on a ticket together. As long as it isnt the anti-semite running our country (Dean), I'm ok with whomever ends up representing our party. Although the highlight of yesterday was easy, for a while while totalling votes in Virginia, Sharpton was beating Dean. Sadly, Dean ending up beating Sharpton by a small margin, but they both lost, so it is ok. Well, time to go watch "Crossfire" so that I can remain informed, hope you enjoyed entry #3.
JMAL
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Day One: The Life of a "Blogger"
Well, I have come to realize, that I am, to be frank, technologically inept, if you could not devise that from my "Intro" (assuming that part ever works and becomes visible). Basically, what happened here was, I wrote a first entry, and went to look at it, and it wasn't there. Which makes me wonder, why am I bothering with this now, I'll surely fail again? Well, it must be the inner optimist, even if it is blind optimism. My newest theory is that I just need to leave this page I am typing on, and then this will work. How will we test this theory? If you are reading this, then it worked, and if you are not, then I am talking to myself. But hey, talking to yourself is totally cool. Its the new pink (guys, don't pretend you don't get that reference, you all saw that movie and there is no need to deny it). It worked for Willy Loman, and he is now world famous, or at least American-famous, for it. Ever wonder if Canadians see the same movies and read the same books and listen to the same music as us? I mean, of course the French don't, and in Switzerland I'm told that in order to legally listen to American music for ten minutes, you must immediately follow it with ten minutes of Arabic music. But how about the Belgiums? Do they like Evanescence? Did they hate the Cable Guy? These are the things I want our media to be reporting on. Enough about Michael, I'm sorry, Janet Jackson's right boob, I want to know if the English also thought that The Police were all gay (sorry Sting, but I'll admit I did like Desert Rose, if that makes up for it at all)!
Oh man, this has been a wicked ADD dominated entry. Just you try to follow my train of thought up there.
Well, my life... I spent the whole day extremely jealous of Sarah, while I was sitting there taking an psuedo-elective math test, she was rounding up her whimsicle Disney World trip the week before her vacation. She was sleeping on the plane while I was watching RNC chairman Ed Gillespie prove once again that he was a crook. And she was still sleeping on that same plane while I was pretending to do homework (now). Much of my lunch was spent discussing how the crew board is screwing over me and all the other varsity guys who have devoted in some cases 8 seasons to the team by messing up the girls varsity crew. 15 points is not enough to win states, and those 15 points are far from guarenteed to us. We need medals from Novice and Girls to win states, but the board doesnt get that, and who suffers? Varsity guys, the people who made the team what it is. Also, the Varsity girls who are leaving the sport they love because then can no longer take the crap the board has been giving them. Whatever, enough of that rant.
A little politics, and then I think I will end entry number 2. Virginia and Tennessee today decide who will win their total of 151 delegates in the Democratic primary. This is important, because until today, the only two states Kerry has lost have been "Southern States" (the quotes are because I'm not sure where the longitudinal line is drawn which dictates that Arizona and New Mexico are not "Southern States", but Missouri Kentucky, North of both of those, is a "Southern State"). Even just one win out of two today would allow Kerry to claim that he can in fact appeal to the Southern voters (a conclusion I do not myself agree with, even if he wins both states). I love Kerry, but I worry abot his national appeal. In national politics, MA Liberals are out, and Southern hicks are in. While I used to support Clark, his week performance in just about every interview he has held this year has caused me to withdraw my support. There is evidence that Dean is anti-semetic, in addition to the fact that Bush would absolutely trounce him, so there is no hope of me supporting him. Kucinich is an angry old man, who has no buisness running. Sharpton is, in my opinion, the most impressive candidate in the field, but he is not highly likely to win either. This leaves Kerry and Edwards. I feel Edwards has the best chance of beating Bush, so I am hoping he has a strong showing tonight. But if Edwards is to be successful tonight, It would be a giant blow to the Kerry campaign. I am therefore torn, and will wait for the results to be posted.
Intro
Wow. Once upon a time, there was a fourth grader. This fourth grader knew all there was to know about Mac computers, and a fair bit about Microsoft also. Time passed, and this fourth grader became a fifth grader, then a seventh grader, and eventually, a high school Junior. It seems as though, in that time, this former fourth grader learned nothing new about computers. Now this former fourth grader has spent about 35 minutes trying to set up a relatively simple "Blog". I can now say, in speaking for this un-named former fourth grader, that I understand how hard it must be for all those old people out there who just dont get computers.
