i n

F

BIGGER

SMALLER

COURIER

GEORGIA

TIMES

VERDANA

COMIC

l

RECENT

POPULAR

e

u

 ^{(it's beta!)}

O, keyboard shortcuts. I ode to you. If ode were a verb, You'd use it, too. O, keyboard shortcuts, My heart doth ache For my mouse, from disuse, May someday break. Alas, keyboard shortcuts, My addiction is ceasing For I keep accidentally Ctrl-Alt-Deleting.

(I wrote this for my old political weblog -- it was one of my first real editorials ever. Lots of people asked me if I wrote for a paper. :) It was cool.)

...

In surprising defiance of the Bush administration, 38 Republicans and 199 Democrats voted yesterday to disregard provision 215 of the Patriot Act. Better known as the "library provision," this section of the Act allowed investigators to track potential terrorists' reading habits through their purchases and library choices.

The amendment, also known as the "Freedom to Read" proposal, was sponsored primarily by Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt). "Every member of Congress and every American understands we have to do everything we can to protect the American people from terrorism. That is not the debate," said Rep. Sanders. "The debate is whether we can and must do that and protect the constitutional rights that make us a free people. That is what Congress voted for today." (1)

Unfortunately, the White House has threatened to veto the amendment. "The Patriot Act is an important piece of legislation," President Bush stated. "It gives those folks who are on the front line of fighting terror the same tools -- many of the same tools that are used to track down drug kingpins or tax cheats." Worse yet, the Justice Department appears to agree; William E. Moschella, assistant attorney general, wrote in a letter to Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va), that "... bookstores and libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators." (2)

Despite disagreement between various branches of the government, it is a breakthrough moment when a House vote (particularly regarding something so controversial as the Patriot Act) doesn't fall strictly along party lines. Public speculation holds that the Republicans voted against the library provision because "it wasn't functional to begin with." True, it is easy enough for someone to buy a book with cash and thus remain untraced; also, the provision did nothing to reduce the possibility of using a fake name on a library card. For these reasons and more, word on the street is that "Realistically, provision 215 can ONLY be used to double-check the reading habits of law-abiding American citizens." (3)

Regardless of the threat of a veto, the future looks bright for citizens who feel that the Patriot Act infringes unnecessarily on essential rights. The ACLU released this statement; "It bodes well that the first vote Congress has taken on the Patriot Act this year has been in favor of liberty and freedom." (4) Rep. Sanders himself seems particularly happy with the results; "We didn't win this by three votes," he said. "I think that today's vote that will tell the Senate and the House that, wait a second, the American people want some thoughtful reexamination of the USA Patriot Act." (2)

1. House Weakens Patriot Act's Library Provision - LA Times

2. House Blocks Provision for Patriot Act Inquiries - New York Times

3. Forum of comments on fark.com

4. House approves "freedom to read" by striking down part of Patriot Act - PressESC

(This is a humor editorial, obviously -- also written for my political weblog.)

...

Many people feel the Supreme Court are contradicting themselves with their recent ruling regarding medical marijuana. In 2003, the Court ruled that states would control prosecution of doctors who recommend use of the herb to their patients, and as is well known, ten states feel that this prosecution is entirely unnecessary. However, with last week's decision, the Court has (re)asserted federal control. This brings up an important question; is this ruling, in fact, really about marijuana? Or is it really about federal control versus state control? This has caused an ironic shift in the positions of liberals versus conservatives.

I interviewed a young man (he gave the pseudonym Chris Mays), who was the most conveniently available expert on the subject. His qualifications include having received a 98% on an AP U.S. History final last week. "Ordinarily, liberals appreciate strong federal control, but they specify that the federal government should exist to assist and protect the less fortunate of the population," Mays said. "Conversely, conservatives tend to prefer when laws are enforced on a smaller scale. When liberals and conservatives disagree on what can cause harm, and what needs protection -- such as the whole 'family values' issue -- they wind up seeming to switch sides. The liberals don't want the government to restrict marijuana, because they feel it's truly harmless."

Thus the question arises; is marijuana really dangerous enough that it needs to be so controlled? As many activists have pointed out, substances like speed, cocaine, oxycodone, and morphine are all legal (if controlled) medications. Is the government threatened by the fact that marijuana is already a well-established underground industry, that they are therefore unable to regulate and tax to their benefit? Unfortunately, this last possibility seems to be believed primarily by adolescents who admit to recreational use of marijuana, and who often seem to doubt their own reliability. Perhaps more expert interviews are necessary.

We return to Chris Mays; "This decision is a powerful blow to medical marijuana activists as well, because naturally, the stoners have an agenda that is being thrown off-track. Once weed is legalized for medicinal use, absolutely everyone will be toking up at every opportunity. Weed will grow in manicured suburban front lawns, and police vehicles will turn into VW buses. Kellogg's will offer a marijuana-flavored cereal, and adopt the slogan 'Load a bowl to start your day'. This hasn't yet happened because it's very difficult to obtain marijuana, since it's completely illegal. I had to call around for a whole half-hour yesterday to get this eighth of chron, which looks like a lot more fun than this conversation."

This follow-up interview was cut short by external circumstances that shall remain unspecified.

In conclusion, a lot of different theories about the motive behind this decision are circulating, and perhaps society will never truly know. In the meantime, recreational marijuana users can sleep tight knowing that their habit is pretty much exactly as illegal as it was before.

It's acrostic, because I didn't have any better ideas. The meter is kind of rough, with the last line in pentameter, but I think it resolves okay.

Rank and rough, the stench prevails,

Ungodly cause of pain.

Godliness' reach on floors,

Disgusting rotten rain.

Olfactorily, torture;

Caustic on my feet.

Torment of maternal cause?

Or sad, attempted treat?

Rank and rough; no other words compare.

... God, I hate carpet cleaners.

This is a short story concept I had several years ago (when I first went nuts for Kurt Vonnegut's Welcome to the Monkey House and Ray Bradbury's The Illustrated Man -- the influence is obvious), which I finally scribbled onto notebook paper about three years ago. It needs a LOT of work, like crazy editing and reorganization, so I want all the feedback I can get. I'm not even sure if it makes the premise clear, and half the time I'm worried that the premise is hammered over the reader's head.

“If you’re not enjoying the concert, we can leave.”

“No, dear it’s fine.” She sighed. “The music is lovely, at least. It just seems like there’s no purpose ...”

They had been arguing in a subdued whisper all night; Sarah could find no justification for John's love affair with this sort of thing. New technology was released so frequently that she'd become immune to its excitement. Still, she supposed, Classical Music Revived was the latest and greatest entertainment, and John did so love sophistication.

"Look at how the violins move in perfect synchronization. They really made effort to make this precise."

"I thought we were dropping this."

"Perhaps, but it was a point I wanted to make. I want you to see the positive side."

"I appreciate that."

Their hushed conversation drifted into silence as Sarah tried to enjoy the music. It was certainly beautiful, although rather predictable. The volume changed precisely with the Conductor's dictations -- not that the Musicians ever looked up -- but the tempo never fluctuated in the slightest. She felt as though the pulse of the entire audience had begun to match that of the music itself, if its pulse had been living. Society had quite high expectations for Creators, though -- they had to live up to the art's history, after all -- but she wasn't sure she wanted to contribute to the pressure. The Musicians were a new enough development that some error would be excusable. Or would it?

She looked at her Partner, wondering why he made such an effort to keep the two of them "on the cutting edge of society". The media doused them with talk of Advancement, Efficiency, and Perfection; she supposed he simply preferred to conform. He'd even chosen to take them to a Partners Communication Seminar, although it wasn't mandatory (as many of the Government's seminars were). They certainly had learned some communication techniques, but she felt things would work better between them had they made the effort themselves. Besides, things had grown so cyclical and tedious that she wasn't sure if she was insane, or if she really had a reason to feel programmed.

She quickly disregarded the thought. Insanity was inefficient, primitive, and imperfect, and therefore not permitted in society.

"One would think the Musicians could simulate emotion."

"You know it's not healthy for us to feel strong emotion, so why should they?"

"You're parroting what they said at the Seminar."

"It's worth remembering. We're meant to process normal amounts of emotion in a healthy way."

"Why must art and music function by the same rules?"

"Because they're meant to reflect society, not to rebel against it. Now please hush, I'm enjoying this. Watch the Conductor press the page-turning button in perfect time. It's very efficient."

As if they even need the Conductor, she thought spitefully to herself. She was instantly regretful, knowing that anger was unproductive and that she was being awfully negative. Sometimes she wondered if she secretly wanted John to react, even to show anger, instead of replying flatly to everything. It couldn't possibly be healthy.

This time, their silence faded and the music rose to greet them. The Conductor's arm arced in to push the button again, and the page of coding on its screen vanished, replaced by the next.

Sarah wished the concert were over, or at the very least, that the stage lights would be dimmed. They were too bright for a stage full of metal, and it was nearly blinding after a while. She wished the Creators had made the Musicians look real, as well as act real.

"Are you all right, dear?"

"Yes." She frowned to herself at the term of endearment. It was the only one anyone ever used.

"We should come back next week. I've heard that the Creators have coded genuine classical music from before the Reconfiguration, back when humans wrote it themselves. You might like it."

"I suppose."

Finally, the music was over. The Conductor's platform rotated so that it was facing the audience, and it bowed.

The audience didn't waste time with clapping -- it would have gone unheard.

A Brother Scorn contribution.

He has complete control of himself and others, such that none can resist him. He doesn't deflect analytical thought, but rather absorbs and destroys it. He's the love child of a black hole and a paper shredder. Apathy doesn't allow him to act as he does; rather, it fuels his very existence, digested by his sick sense of humor.

The darkness has consumed the light, and the light does not comprehend it.