It also comes with some other cool software pre-installed, including KStars (a kind of virtual planetarium), an 85,000 word dictionary, and Skype for internet telephony. Overall I am very pleased with this unit and I would recommend it to anyone looking for a ultra-portable machine for blogging or emailing.

So far, I have to say that I'm impressed with the Wii. We got the Sports version of the console that includes trial versions of tennis, baseball, bowling, boxing, and golf. It is really something to see how the console tracks the movement of the controllers in your hands and translates it into very realistic movements of your character in the game. I can also see why, after just a short time playing it, that so many people comment on the aerobic benefits of playing the Wii. It really gets your blood pumping.

It remains to be seen if we will outgrow this game platform, but right now I can see us using it as a family for a long time to come. Thanks Nintendo for making an otherwise unpleasant hospital stay a little more enjoyable!

It is precisely this paradigm shift that will lead to the Second American Revolution. As more and more Americans realize that there is nothing special about our system of government, or, indeed, the individuals that run it, they will become less and less satisfied with its operation and begin to explore the possibilities (all over again) of governing themselves.

Why shouldn't we? Do we honestly believe that there is "some gifted person" or some "exalted apparatus" that is in control of us all? Many of us do believe this. Many more simply wish that it is true, and try not to think too much about it for fear that we will completely lose faith in our government. But have you ever been to the DMV office? Or your city government? Have you stood in long lines and cursed the inefficiency of those bureacrats behind the counter? Have you personally witnessed their blatant stupidity and/or rudeness? Where is this gifted person that is supposedly running the show? Is he in the back office, sequestered from the people so that our mediocrity does not dilute his genius? Where is this exalted apparatus? Does it reside in some central office far away from the rabble? Clearly the answer is no. We have precisely the government we deserve. It is horrendous. It is exquisitely inefficient. And it is breathtaking in its scope. But there is a growing number of people out there for whom it is no longer tolerable, and they are capable and talented enough to replace it with other things that work better, or simply just work.

A candidate or a politician may ask questions like, why can't our government offer the people a particular service? The answer in most cases is that it certainly can – our government is extremely powerful, after all. But they never bother asking the question of whether or not it should. They don't ask the question because they don't want to hear that the answer is usually no. Telling a politician no means taking away some of the good will of their constituents who would have been helped if this particular service were enacted. It means taking away some of their power, and that is not something that most politicians enjoy.

As the abolitionist Wendell Phillips is quoted as saying, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty--power is ever stealing from the many to the few." Our Constitution was designed to sharply limit the powers of our government to protect our liberties. But without an eternally vigilant populace to constantly ask the government if it should be providing a particular service, ambitious politicians are free to continue slowly increasing the government's power (and by extension their own), while at the same time slowly eroding our liberties.

So while we are evaluating the candidates this election season, participating in the democratic process that has made our country so unique, it is important for us all to remain vigilant and to view the candidates with skepticism and suspicion. That is not to say that we should all be paranoid. But we also should not be afraid to pointedly ask our candidates, what is the purpose of government? Likewise, they should not be afraid to answer such a question. They may try to avoid it because they simply don't know the answer. Or they may be afraid that their answer will be different from what we are expecting to hear. In any case, a candidate that avoids answering this question does not deserve our trust.

So what answer should we expect? We need look no further than our very own Declaration of Independence to define the purpose of our government: to secure our unalienable rights. No more, no less. A candidate or politician that is ignorant of this fact, or not in agreement with it, does not deserve our support. Quite the contrary, they deserve our scorn and derision for attempting to take away our liberties in order to make themselves more powerful.

But even more importantly, a candidate must have an understanding of the rights that government is intended to protect. We should be equally wary of a candidate or politician whose aim it is to create new rights for us where previously none existed. Government cannot create rights, and a politician who promises to do so should be the primary target of our eternal vigilance. The purpose of government, and the purpose of the people we elect to represent us, is to protect the things we have, not to give us things we don't.

Their tech support was never great, but a couple of years ago they started outsourcing it to India (or some other country where English is clearly not a first language). I never dealt with them via phone, which is probably good -- their grammar was atrocious enough without having to deal with their lack of pronunciation skills. And they had the nerve to sign their emails with very caucasian sounding names, like Anthony Jones, or Ashley Smith. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against a company outsourcing their work force -- our government frequently makes these kinds of business decisions unavoidable -- I just wish they would treat their customers with a little respect and not try to BS us into believing that we're getting something we're not.

So I have moved on to a company that had pretty good online reviews called AN Hosting. So far, they have been adequate. Their sales staff worked quickly to set up my account, the transfer of my domain took longer than it should have (just over a week), and migrating from a Windows platform to Linux carries with it a whole set of issues, but it has been going fairly smoothly so far, and I haven't had to call on them for help yet. I hope this is the beginning of a beautiful relationship. If not, you can be certain that you will hear about it here.

According to the story, FEMA "ignored, hid and manipulated government research on the potential impact of long-term exposure to formaldehyde" on Katrina and Rita victims now living in FEMA trailers. So if the waste and mismanagement hasn't been enough of a financial burden on the American people, we will now get to pay legal settlements to all of the formaldehyde victims who will undoubtedly sue the government for damages.

Looks like FEMA should have listened to me in the first place and stayed out of the trailer business.

I think 2008 is finally the year to pull the trigger on a grid-tied photovoltaic system. Since Missouri's net metering law went into effect January 1, and the IRS's tax credit for solar energy systems expires December 31. Stay tuned for updates...

Overall, I would have to say that I cannot shake my feelings of disappointment over this movie. My expectations were not high going into it. I'm a fan of Lost -- one of Abrams's TV productions -- so I know he's capable of intriguing stories and great special effects. But I also knew that it was all filmed in "documentary style" with handheld camcorders, so I was anticipating needing a sick bag by the end of it, a la Blair Witch.

I'm happy to report that the jerky camera work was tolerable, however, the pacing of the movie is a bit awkward. The obligatory character development at the beginning is tedious, and once the action begins it stops and starts instead of steadily building to a final payoff.

There are many worthwhile scenes captured in this movie. Scary glimpses of the monster, eery views of a deserted metropolis, but they do not flow easily into one another, and the film lacks a certain cohesiveness as a result, almost as if it was designed with commercial breaks in mind.

Although the approach for recording the events is somewhat unique, the idea behind the story is not new, and the end is not terribly gratifying, so I would have to say that J.J.'s first film is simply average. Hopefully he can do better in the future, or he's going to have to stick to television.

This story illustrates the chaos and pain that was caused for Kayla Irwin when cops raided her apartment, which turned out to be the wrong address. Over a month later, she still has not been compensated for the damage to her property. Almost everything she owned was ruined by their canisters of CS tear gas that were lobbed through her windows. Covering her apartment with shattered glass and a film of noxious dust.

Can a free society that claims to respect not only the rule of law but the individual's right to be secure from illegimate searches and seizures really continue to tolerate these kinds of tactics?

My meager story archive no doubt represents only a very small percentage of incidents like these that go on every day in this country. I would wager that most never get reported in the news. And of the ones that do, few make it onto my radar. But I will continue to collect the ones that cross my path, to serve as evidence that the cost of maintaining police goes way beyond the tax dollars that are wasted. The cost to individual liberties is much higher, and much more devastating.

I have been familiar with Dr. Paul for several years now, and I even had the chance to meet him at the 2003 Freedom Summit. He is an inspiring speaker. Not because he is particularly eloquent (although he can hold his own with any of the candidates currently running), but because his ideas are so clear and appealing, untainted by the rhetoric of political campaigns. His campaign's tagline is "Hope for America" and he truly does represent that, but not by himself as a person, or as a cog in the political machine, but solely through the ideas in which he traffics.

Many of his critics contend that he is unrealistic, that his ideas are, at best, impractical, and at worst, impossible. As far as I am concerned, ideas have to be big to be worthwhile. And if they are difficult to implement, that probably means they are even more valuable. Robert Kennedy was once lauded for his speech in which he paraphrased George Bernard Shaw and said:

Why should Dr. Paul be disparaged for dreaming and asking why not? Who is Ron Paul? Ron Paul is just a man, but he is a man with enough courage to have big ideas and to ask why not? His ideas truly do represent hope for America today. We should all give the man a chance to be heard.

I can see why this musical has become so popular -- the characters are already familiar to most, but they appear in new and parallel scenes to the original story, with imaginative sets and catchy but witty songs. And where the original told a morally ambiguous tale fit for consumption by children, Wicked tells the familiar tale of a misfit's (the Wicked Witch of the West) quest to fit in with her childhood peers and the consequences as an adult when she does not.

Wicked is currently playing here in St. Louis at the Fabulous Fox through Jan 6.