True or False?

One of those things that springs from my fevered subconscious every once in a while: Sadness has its roots in remembered joy.

What do you think? True or false?

"There's nothing wrong with arguing with yourself," he said.

"But if you lose, then you're in trouble."

As usual, there are a zillion things I feel I need to do. Not as usual, I'm not doing many of them. So far I've taken the week off from working (which sounds silly considering I don't have anything resembling a job, yet it's true nonetheless). Still without supplements, I'm tired and need to take a rest. So I'm not making any important phone calls (though the person I've tried getting hold of for the last three weeks regarding Social Security finally called back yesterday), not going to any government offices (until Friday, at least), just staying at home and reading.

This little holiday makes perfect sense to my rational mind. When your body is screaming at you to rest, then resting is what you should do if at all possible. My body's been screaming. Yet there's a less than rational part of my mind that keeps telling me that isn't enough--I need to do something, not just sit here reading library books & LJs or listening to music.

So my rational mind and that less-rational part are arguing with each other. "Okay Me," says I to myself, "which is more important--making one more phone call or visiting one more office (full of people who want to leave early for the holiday), or taking care of my health so I'll be able to do something useful in the near future?" I think I've finally gotten the nagging "DO something!" voice to shut up for a bit, but I'm not sure I've won.

Why is it so hard to get myself to rest when I know it's the right thing to do? Why is there still a nagging voice telling me I should do something else when I know full well that I shouldn't?

Ah well, I'll do something useful on Friday. Today, I'm going to rest. Tomorrow, I'm going to enjoy the holiday with cool people.

Happy Thanksgiving to all who celebrate!

Heh.

So, most of you know a little something about the Information Awareness Office and their plans for Total Information Awareness by now. You know that the office (headed by Admiral John Poindexter, who did so well with Iran-Contra) wants to develop a humongous database tracking everything there is to know about you and every move you make on the Internet.

Well, skimming through sos_usa, I learned of an interesting opinion piece from 1997 written by a United States Senator who objected to policies proposed by the Clinton administration regarding the Internet and use of encryption technology.

The senator wrote:

There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?

The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights.

And there's more where that came from. Things like, "Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications." Which is, of course, precisely what TIA is supposed to do. Wondering which senator wrote this and where they are now? Go see who the author was.