Subject: Berlin Wall Feedback
Date: 9 November 1999
From: Dr. Thomas P. Daniel

Do you mean that something else occurred on earth in the Fall of 1989 other than Alabama's first-time-ever trip to Auburn? Sheesh, I thought the universe shut down back then for a couple of months.

However, I guess it really is an appropriate metaphor for freedom when you really think about it. An oppressive giant is forced to crumble and grant the gift of freedom and self-destiny to a lot of God-loving little people.

Plus, the Berlin Wall fell and Communism died.....

Hey, Tommy, thanks for the great note. I did think about doing an Auburn 1989 retrospective column, but then it occurred to me that I'd already done that in The Uncivil War... and I don't think I can top that effort. With that said, I certainly agree with your sentiments. There was more than one Evil Empire biting the dust back in '89.--WBC

Subject: Oysters and Love
Date: 13 May 1999
From: Stephanie in NO, LA

Oysters are best eaten raw when they are au natural. For my birthday, a group of friends took me to a seafood joint by Lake Pontchartrain. We anxiously awaited our 2 dozen raw oysters only to be disappointed at the offeringÉhydroponically grown, pasteurized "oysters." Yuck, ptoowy, we sent them back. New Orleanians will never abide by any goofy law that keeps them from enjoying one of their favorite foods.

CSPI is probably disappointed they cannot sue God for creating oysters and the bacteria that float about the oceans.

The goofy laws that are already regularly ignored by the Nawlins crowd in the name of epicurean delights would fill a considerable volume--which is another reason why I love the place. Just imagine the horror those lima-bean-eating lawyers would have at the sight of a steaming plate of Frankie and Johnnie's crawfish... --WBC

Subject: J.C. Watts
Date: 3 December 1998
From: Justin Eidson (EUSJUEI@am1.ericsson.se)

Will,

Costar emailed several of us and included your URL to view. GREAT SITE. It's not only well developed, but I see that you are an avid Republican (not that I assumed you weren't). I completely agree with your comments on the Dems vs. J.C. Watts. He is one of the most intelligent and well-spoken leaders in the entire House of Representatives. Rep. Watts will become one of the most influential leaders in America without a doubt (well, I guess he already is considering his election as the Chairman of the Republican Conference). I just wish he would move to Sheila Jackson-Lee's (D-CA) or Cynthia McKinney's (D-GA) and run them out of office. Can you believe she said "Is that little buggy going to drive by the place where they planted the flag" during the Mars Pathfinder expedition!!! This person is in Congress, was obviously alive during our country's landing on the moon, and confuses it with MARS!!!! Of course, the media won't publicize this like they did Dan Quayle's misspelling of potato.

I agree with your comments that the Democrats are as nervous as a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. They should be. J.C. Watts is a milestone in Republican history. As you said, if he could lead black American's in the right direction and pull just 25% of their vote, long live the GOP (and Rep. Watts). I would love to see him on the ticket with George W. in 2000 (although he may be a little inexperienced). Did you see the CNN/USA Today poll Nov. 2? It stated that if George W. and Gore faced off right now for the Presidency, George W. would win by a landslide vote.

Look out Drudge, here comes Collier!! Keep the site up and War Eagle!!

P.S. You might want to look into getting a web hosting service. A great host is www.ntwebhosting.com. They give you a virtual domain name as well as 10 virtual POP3 email accounts. I paid only $15 per month plus a $70 domain registration fee. I'm sure you've probably looked into it, but I thought I'd run it by you.

Justin, thanks very much for the kind words. A few reactions to your comments:

1. "Avid Republican". Hmm. You know, the older I get, and the more times I watch certain members of the GOP cowering in fear when the should be standing up for their supposed principles, the more I consider myself just an avid conservative.

2. It still astonishes me that an individual as dumb as Sheila Jackson Lee isn't a constant source of new jokes for the Jay Lenos and David Lettermen of the world. The fact that anybody at all takes her seriously (or pretends to) is a sad statement about the level of partisanship in the press. On the other hand, as much as I hate to admit it, Cynthia McKinney is not dumb. She's radical, vicious, opportunistic, ruthless, and willing to stop at nothing to win more power... but unlike Lee, she didn't fall out of the stupid tree.

3. I obviously think that J.C. Watts paired with "Dubya" would be a winning team... but don't assume that anything is in the bag this far out. After the Gulf War in 1991, not too many people would have bet that Clinton was going to win the '92 race (and you could have said the same thing immediately after the '94 elections).

4. I'm a big fan of Matt Drudge, and thankfully, I'm not in competition with him (good thing, too--he got 115 million hits last year, and I had about 1,000). I'd be very, very happy to be a tenth as well-read as Drudge one of these days. And on that note...

5. I've been easing towards getting a "willsworld.com" domain name for a while now. I do occasional interviews on sports talk shows, and trying to read off my current URL on the radio is an exercise in the ridiculous. Before too much longer, I'll take the plunge. Thanks for the hosting tip. --WBC

Subject: Spurrier Comment

Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 09:23:30 EDT

From: John S. (Accent5220@aol.com)

Mr. Collier, I read your analyses last year and was glad to find your site this year. I find your comments to be interesting. Surely, you have studied each of the SEC teams rather well. Most SEC fans I talk to will only have a surface knowledge of other teams. Obviously, you love our league as I do. There is no question at all in my mind that we have the finest and most colorfull league in the country.

I do take issue with you on one of your comments about Steve Spurrier. In your Florida commentary you said of Spurrier "If Spurrier is as smart as he tells everybody he is."

As long as I have followed Florida I have never heard him make such claims. In fact, he has been very carefull to deflect credit from himself to the people around him.

I am not flaming you here but I have heard more lies told about this man than anybody I know. One Bama fan tried to tell people that Spurrier had a clause in his contract that pays him for running up the score on other teams. A South Carolina fan told me once that the only reason Spurrier wins is because he intimidates all of his players and that they hate him for that. Now these comments are simply not true.

As a Florida fan, I can say myself that I wish he would not toss his visor the way he has. Did you notice last year with Doug Johnson, a player who truly tested Spurrier's patience, that Spurrier was remarkably more calm than he has been in past?

I do not expect that fans of other teams to like him for this but comments like these are not fair and honest.

Mr. Collier can you show me a quote of his that will show, not confidence mind you, but the willingness to tell everybody how smart he is?

John, sorry I took so long to respond to your note.

On the one hand, I have some sympathy for your viewpoint; I've seen plenty of successful coaches pilloried for the sin of being successful, and heard plenty of dumb made-up stories like the ones you mention (I get a real kick out of the bit about running up the score being in Spurrier's contract). Any old coach can get criticized for losing--but a really good coach will bring out the true venom in opposing fans by winning. Spurrier wins a lot.

On the other hand, I'm not going to waste time defending the self-evident statement that Spurrier also has a great big ego, and a great big mouth, and loves to use the latter to brag about himself when he wins--or to whine incessantly when he loses. To make a non-partisan contrast, I never felt any compunction to make fun of, say, Vince Dooley, who was a dominant coach in his day--and a gentlemen as well. Where Visor Boy is concerned, as I've said before, as long as he acts like a five-year-old, I'll keep treating him like a five-year-old.--WBC

Subject: Auburn

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 22:09:47 EDT

From: ZStudstill <ZStudstill@aol.com>

Will: As you know I am a University of Alabama grad (twice) and am certainly prejudiced for my alma mater. However, I appreciate objective insight and you have performed admirably in your assessment of the 1998 Auburn football team.

It is a shame your talent for sports writing as evidenced by your latest column is not a regular part of the Montgomery Advertiser. It would be a breath of fresh air to read a piece written by someone like yourself with evident talent. Keep up the good work!

ROLL TIDE!!

*Sigh*... all these Alabama fans polluting my page with that loathsome phrase... y'know, Zac, if I didn't basically owe you my existance, I'd have cut that last line. ;-)

(For those who don't know what in the World I'm talking about, Zac Studstill was one of the two conspirators who set my mom and dad up on their first date--so now you all know who to blame.)

Seriously, thanks much for the kudos. There was a time when I would have jumped at the chance to write for the Montgomery Advertiser. Phillip Marshall, the sports editor of that paper for most of my youth, is probably my biggest single influence as a sports writer. Sadly, I don't think I'd accept an assignment with the Advertiser today even if it were offered. That paper fell off a cliff about a year ago in terms of both quality and editorial content, particularly in the sports section. That's a shame--I miss the days when a new Advertiser was something to look forward to in the morning. Today, the only thing in it I want to read is Bob Ingram's column. --WBC

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998

From: shsherli@nadal.loyno.edu

I just read your latest on Poland. Where do you get this stuff? What is your source for all the different topics you tackle?

Regarding the Veterans Burial Act, have you ever noticed a similarity between the way people in education and government spend money? It's not the most responsible. The people with whom I work have no concept on spending and fiscal responsibility. It seems no matter how much the executive administration laments the lack of extra budget cash, the employees here are deaf, dumb and blind to prudence in spending. I'm really not at all surprised that this Murray chick would be so unashamedly promoting an Act without knowing anything about the financial repercussions. She I'm sure would prefer that the military stop training and learn how to bugle. That'll really help if Saddam and his boys decide to visit the states.

I would love to wave a magic wand and make everything right in government. People like the ones of which you speak are the first to go.

(signed) An outraged right-thinking women in the big sleazy.

Thanks for the notes, Stephanie (the above was condensed from two separate emails), and also for correcting some of my more glaring recent typos. I'm always on the lookout for source material for Will's World. I subscribe to a few national papers and magazines, and I keep as sharp an eye as I can manage on the better TV news shows (I currently recommend "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News and "Hardball With Chris Matthews" on CNBC). I'm also fortunate to be have access to the continually updated smorgasbord of information on the Internet. You have to be very careful about what to believe on the web (after all, there are all kinds of nuts out there with no editors, just posting to their own private sites... hmm...), but most of the "major media" providers offer web sites with an endless supply of more-or-less reliable news. I generally check the Washington Times, Washington Post, and the AP Breaking News sites for background information--but that isn't a complete list by any stretch. The Poland column came directly from a story on AP Breaking News, buttressed with some research on Yahoo.

I mailed Stephanie back after reading her thoughts on government and education types and their predilections for free spending with the question, "Would it surprise you at all to learn that Patty Murray was a junior-college teacher before she ran for office?" She replied with a priceless line that I've already sworn to steal: "It does not surprise me AT ALL... If it walks like an irresponsible duck, it must have started its career in education." --WBC

Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 00:50:32 -0600

From: David Haas <davidh@panacom.com>

Hey Will,

Going through the archives, I just came across "Shall we play a game?" 2/12.

I couldn't agree more about the terrible state of current computer/coin games. They just aren't that fun to play anymore!

Check out Jumpman for the C-64, If any of you still have one, it is in my humble opinion still the greatest home computer game of all time.

Thanks for the note, David. Sorry to say, I was an Atari computer type in the 80's, and never had a Commodore 64. On the other hand, many of those old 8-bit computers have also been emulated for Macs and PCs in the last few years; check out your search engine of choice to locate the software. The older home video games are also out there (i.e. Atari, Colecovision, Intellivision, etc.) with vast archives of cartridges on-line if you REALLY want to go retro.--WBC

Subject: Doctors & Lawyers

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 18:35:15 -0600

From: "Matt German" <german@nuc.net>

I couldn't agree with you more about the never-ending battle between doctors and lawyers. It reminds me of something I heard recently. A guy was talking about growing up, and how his parents had all these high hopes that he'd choose a "respectable" profession. He said he realized at a young age, however, that, because he couldn't stand the sight of blood, he could never become a lawyer. And, because he couldn't stand the sight of lawyers, he could never become a doctor.

One could argue that society couldn't do without both, although I think most people realize that doctors provide a more immediate and valuable service. Everybody likes to knock the law profession; the point too few people seem to realize is that lawyers can't shoulder all of the blame for our litigation-crazy society. Politicians must share part of the blame for passing mounds of inane legislation that caters to special-interest groups; then come their vast armies of bureaucrats, the ones who actually write the regulations and ordinances by which those laws are enforced (and which often far-exceed the intent of those laws); finally, it comes down to Joe Anybody, the man on the street that figures, hey, everybody else is suing - I might as well get my share of the goodies.

If the aforementioned groups didn't do their part, the litigation field wouldn't be nearly so ripe, and fewer people would pursue this particular line of work. The worst part is that, with all of the frivolous lawsuits flooding our court systems, those (relatively) few with valid litigation claims are left holding the bag (and it's empty).

Even though I'm utterly opposed to any kind of wage or price controls, I'd still love to see a debate about a legislated limit on attourneys' fees. It would be worth it all just to hear all the self-righteous caterwauling from hypocrites like Gloria Allred and Johnnie Cochran. --WBC

From: abrams_jeff@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil

Date: Thu, 02 Oct 97 10:25:13 -0600

I totally agree with your points on the Cassini mission, and most space missions for that matter. I'm a huge fan of space, and anything having to do with space. So I support just about anything reasonable.

It seems to me that any protestors that use the phrase "for the children", don't have a scientific leg to stand on in their arguing. They are appealing to emotions, and nothing more. As you said, all their fears were just that, fears, based on a lack of knowledge. It's been shown throughout history that a lack of knowledge produces more fear than anything else.

I've got to argue with one minor detail you stated, which just may have been a typo. That is, the size of the solar cells needs at the distance of Saturn: 5300 sq. ft. (a little over 70 feet each side of a square). That actually sounds very small to me. That's a reasonable size in earth orbit. I would believe 5300 sq. mi. Remember the inverse-r-square law, as it applies to light power received.

I'm still enjoying the World. Keep up the good work.

Thanks, Jeff. I got the 5,300 square foot figure from the Cassini page on NASA's web site...and just re-checked it. While a 70 ft by 70 ft array might be feasible in Low Earth Orbit, consider this: Cassini will be en route to Saturn for over seven years, and the spacecraft will require electric power for that entire period, plus the four-year survey once it arrives. This means that if you're going solar, you'd have to deploy that massive array immediately after launch, and build it structurally strong enough to take multiple accelerations during the outbound orbits, plus a series of massive decelerations at Saturn. This doesn't even bring up the micrometeorite damage the spacecraft will inevitably accumulate during that long voyage--which includes an extended pass through the asteroid belt. That's too much weight to begin with, and a too-unreliable power source for such an expensive and important mission--especially when the RTG power sources are as safe and reliable as they are. --WBC

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:50:11 -0700

From: JamieSPC@aol.com

Name: Jamie Cole

Wow, Will! We agree on something!

Just kidding, guy, we actually agree on a lot of things, but especially your opinion on a great SK adaptation. As you can probably tell from my Web site, I'm a huge fan, and The Dead Zone is, for my money, one of the five best adaptations of an SK novel (I still think "Misery" and "Dolores Claiborne" work well, too). The best, I think, is "The Shawshank Redemption." Director Frank Darabont understood what a lot of so-called directors and writers never were able to comprehend: That King's writing is so cinematic, it can be adapted almost word-for-word. Luckily, Mr. Darabont picked a piece of King's work that could be handled that way and made a beautiful film. In doing so, he showed up previous "masters" like Stanley Kubrick, who thought their ideas were better and ended up making a mess of the material. I consider the lone exception to be Tony Gilroy's most excellent changes to "Delores Claiborne," which even King has acknowledged made the story work better.

Just some random comments. As usual, I'm thoroughly enjoying your page, no matter what the frequency of the updates...

Thanks again for the kind words. Were you aware that Darabont has signed on to direct "The Green Mile"? My (truly inspired) casting suggestion: Bo Jackson as John Coffey.

I just devoured the latest "Dark Tower" novel... too bad it's far too long and complex a story to be made into a movie. Just imagine Sam Elliot as Roland... --WBC

Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 20:41:54 -0700

From: HERRING@workcomm.net

Name: Eddie Herring

I watched the Auburn/LSU game on television this weekend. WOW! What a game. I was impressed as Auburn hung in there till the very end and never gave up. I hope they can continue to play football like that in the future. However, I would like to comment on Auburn letting a few games fall through the cracks last year. The big difference between this year's LSU game is that Auburn never had that "comfortable" lead at the end. Auburn lost a couple of games last year by SITTING on that lead and changing their game plan.

One of the games thay should have lost was to Army in the bowl game last year. I know it is good practice to have ball control and run out the clock when you can, but that killed them last year! Auburn did not, and still does not have the ability to do this. Why fix something that isn't broke??? If a game plan is working don't change it! I hate conservative football. A nation championship team does not sit on a lead, they keep pounding away. I'm not saying give them a bloody beating, but get a REAL comfortable lead before going conservative. Don't get me wrong, I'm not Bowden beating. I just don't understand the thinking. I just thought I would throw this at you to get your perspective.

I wish I could have been at that game last weekend, but I was too busy worrying over my envorinmentally water saving (Yeah RIGHT!) toilet, but that's another story! Keep up the good work on your web page. I enjoy reading your articles,and WAR EAGLE!!!!!

Sorry it took me so long to get your message up here, Eddie. I have to agree with you regarding Auburn's recent inability to grind out yardage and time in the fourth quarter. When AU went into that ultra-conservative offense and "prevent" defense late against Virginia, I nearly kicked in the TV set. (You do know the old line about how the "prevent" always works, don't you? It "prevents" you from winning.) After watching LSU's Cecil Collins play, I think Bowden's top recruiting priority is clearly to sign as many big, strong, fast, running backs as possible. As good as this year's air attack is, it would only be helped by the addition of a power ground game. Ben Leard, the heir-apparent to the magnificent Dameyune Craig, is not exactly a scrambler--Auburn is going to need a running game to keep the pressure off of him next year.

As far as getting conservative with a lead... I can see both sides. Look what happened to LSU against Auburn in 1994 when they didn't go conservative. On the other hand, there is some wisdom in the philosophy of "running all your horses" for 60 minutes against a good team--we know all too well that you can't let a Georgia or Alabama get a breath late in a ball game. --WBC

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 09:37:41 -0700

From: DrWarrrr@aol.com

I don't know where to begin with this one about Princess Diana. I am reminded of the story you put on AOL about the confusion between you and your father Sunday morning as you first learned about Di's death, and it became confused with Dye instead of Di.

Therefore, I have to assume that when the time really comes for Pat Dye to shuffle off this mortal coil, we might as well keep it simple by retooling all those tired, worn out, Birmingham media "conveniences" and refer to Coach Dye as a wife-beating, cheating, racist old drunk who didn't really do anything for anybody except make himself filthy rich at the expense of others. I, for one, don't buy that crap for a minute as I know that Pat Dye is a lot more than he seems. I'm also willing to accept that Diana was more than a rich, jet-setting, upper-class twit, even though it's easy and convenient to lump her in that way.

I'm not a hundred percent sure I know where you're coming from, Tommy, but if I read you right, you're saying that Diana wasn't as decadent and "rich white trash" as her prior media image would suggest. If so, I agree... but neither was she the "saint" we're seeing in the current media requiem en masse. --WBC

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 18:41:40 -0700

From: CoolZaz@aol.com

Name: Alex P

Hi,this is Alex P from mobile.I am trying to get frames for my web page if you could help please respond.Where did you get your counter? How did you get this feedback page?

Hi, Alex. I use a program called "Claris Home Page" to set up the World. The counter and stats buttons on my page are courtesy of TheCounter.com and NedStat USA. --WBC

Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:39:27 -0700

From: reelloser@aol.com

Name: Bryan Oulton

Great site, first visit for me. I was paging through your feedbacks. I noticed one (of the many) by the great Doc of Mississippi. After bashing The Lost World celuloid as compared to the book (which I whole heartedly agree with) he mentioned that the only great book to great movie adaptation was To Kill a Mockingbird. I have to add one more, Peter Benchley's Jaws. Both were classics. Nothing after that for the shark, however was worth the plastic it was put on. Anyway, great site and GO GATORS!

Thanks for the kudos, Bryan, and sorry it took me so long to get your note up. For what it's worth, I thought David Cronenberg's low-key adaption of Stephen King's "The Dead Zone" was as faithful and well-done a movie version as you're likely to see... --WBC

Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 16:08:41 -0700

From: drwarrrr@aol.com

Name: same-old-Tommy

In regards to Maxine Waters and all of the talk about the "War on Drugs," I have two potential, yet foolproof solutions (one solution for the Liberals, one for the Conservatives).

Solution #1 - Introduce new legislation so that a bank will ABSOLUTELY lose its charter if it is caught laundering drug money, period. No appeals and no excuses allowed; it's the bank's responsibility to be careful. Also, drug trafficking would be a Federal offense punishable by death, period. If these two laws were passed simultaneously, the drug trade would nearly dry up in this country by 5PM tomorrow night.

Solution #2 - Allow the Federal government to buy enormous stockpiles of heroin and cocaine and store it in large warehouses, allowing ANYONE access that wanted to walk in and use all they wanted to until they dropped dead. That way, there would be no need for trafficking if it's free, nobody would have to knock anybody over the head for money to buy drugs, and the users would more than likely overdose much sooner than usual.

Welcome back, Doc. I expect you to get busy converting the MSU faculty to your original and creative approach to this problem... --WBC

Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 16:50:50 -0700

From: DFSam@aol.com

Name: Sam

I hope that what I'm about to say won't be taken out of context. I agree with your take on lawyers but, have to say that we, the American public, have let this situation get out of hand. I think that it is high time that the entire American public come together, for a change, follow the lead of the gays, lesbians, blacks, and all other minorities and take our country back. I mean, any time that there is a situation that needs attention the minorities of each situation take matters into their own hands, draw a line in the sand and always seem to get their way. Well, it's time for all of us to stand up and be counted. To follow the lead of the minorites and put an end to this. It goes beyond lawyers and must also include politians. We must band together and send a message that this is 'OUR' country and we won't tollerate this kind of behavior. I can't blame the lawyers for what they are doing. I'm sure that if I were in their postion that I would be doing the same thing. We let it get this way by standing back and watching. And like your columns and our feedback, we only complain and then sit back and watch it again. It's a sad time when most politicians have to be lawyers just to understand the legal mumbo jumbo that they write into law. All for the good of us dumb citizens that apparently don't care what they are doing. For if we did, we would surely put an end to it.

I was told by a boss of mine that you shouldn't present a problem if you don't have a potential solution. Well, I don't. At least one that would not be radical and potentially send this country into financial turmoil or depression. So, for now, I'm just sitting back and watching the blood sucking attorneys and politicians run my country into the ground. Until we really reach the end of the rope I suspect that we will continue to slide down. But, once we reach the end and have to tie a knot, watch out, because I just know that we can take our country back and enjoy the freedoms that we were founded on. It will certainly be nice to write and say good things about our country. I guess that it would be appropriate to say that "I HAVE A DREAM!!!!!"

By the way, I smoke and feel that it is my right to do so. If the tobacco companies make money, good for them. Don't tell me what I can and can't do if I'm not bothering anyone else. This is, at least I think, a free country. And since the tobacco companies have lost their lawsuit, I suspect that I will have to pay for it in increased cigarette costs (cough, cough). Why should the government care if I want to damage my health (cough)?

I can see it now... a march on Washington, led by our own Sam, puffing away and pointing the old middle finger right at the headquarters of the American Bar Association. I'll bring the cooler. --WBC

Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 08:31:02 -0700

From: tdaniel@iastate.edu

Name: Tom

Sometime in the next two weeks, I'll be losing my Iowa State IP for the transition to MSU. The bottom line is that your readers will have at least two weeks of vacation from my relentless feedback. Now, on to Ted Turner ...

<<(Now, I'd always thought that "reporting the news" was the primary job of, you know, reporters... but I guess that's why I'm an engineer and not a "journalist".)>>

I sense a stab at Rivait and others here concerning the journalist/writer debate. Good stab, too.

<<He started to bad-mouth Ronald Reagan, and spent a fortune starting on one of the least-watched sporting events of all time, the "Goodwill Games".>>

Ahh, my favorite sport, Moto-Ball!!! Remember polo on Harleys? And one of my all-time favorite quips from an obviously bored and disgusted Skip Caray being forced to "call" a Moto-Ball match: "What do they do if they run out of gas?"

<<Things got worse last year when Turner sold out to/took over (it depends on whom you ask) Time/Warner, Inc.>>

Be careful there. The Time CEO is an Auburn man.

<<Now, "America The Beautiful" is a fine, stirring song, but it occurs to me that Ted is in a little bit of a hurry to forget that the freedoms he has parlayed into such unmitigated success were won with centuries of military vigilance, blood, and treasure.>>

I've always been curious as to how the "Deity Challenged" would try to alter the America The Beautiful line that says, "God sheds his grace on thee."

<<These days, Turner is still naming everything in sight after himself (the latest example being the ostentatious home of the Braves, Turner Field), and working to protect his existing empire.>>

I haven't been there yet, but I keep hearing horror stories about being searched for food and drink as the officials at Turner Field try to "protect" the vendors and allow them to maintain their outlandishly high prices. Apparently, they've even taken baby bottles away from mothers and emergency snack food away from diabetics.

<<Cable companies owned by or beholden to Time/Warner have so far refused to carry Murdoch's news channel, reportedly at the behest of Turner.>>

If that Murdoch deal had gone through, the Cable TV industry would have been dealt a huge blow by the satellite TV industry (which is all right by me). Most small dish satellite subscribers still have to maintain basic cable service in order to receive local channels and major network affiliates (ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox). However, Murdoch was on the verge of striking a deal with the DISH Network that would have offered subscribers the opportunity to receive local channels over their small dish satellite systems. Obviously, other small dish companies (DirecTV and PrimeStar) would have followed suit in order to stay competitive, but when that deal fell through, so did the pressure.

Regarding to the Time/Warner CEO... I don't claim Rheta Johnson or Cynthia Tucker, and I'm happy to add that guy to my list of AU graduates who obviously learned nothing during their time on the Plains. On your last topic, I'm still steamed that Murdoch's local-channels satellite deal fell through. It will be a very happy day when I can go to my local (useless, gouging, pathetic) cable company and tell them to take their lousy service and inflated rates and stick both in a very inaccessible outlet. --WBC

Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:28:58 -0700

From: tdaniel@iastate.edu

Name: Tom

Okay, I'm as patriotic as the next guy, and I agree with you that Clinton's policies in Haiti are a disaster. However, I'm also smart enough to know that as a nation we've certainly made our share of mistakes in the past 221 years, and whatever crap Haiti deals us is our own damn fault. For some reason, America has historically and royally flubbed the dub with that tiny island. A couple of chronological examples:

1) In the 1790's (less than 10 years after the ratification of our Constitution), the slaves in Haiti, openly inspired by our own revolution, revolted against France, and our first official chance to help a struggling people overthrow an oppressive Colonial government was fumbled. George Washington (who owned slaves) arranged loans of hundreds of thousands of dollars to help the French plantation owners suppress their slaves. John Adams (who did not own slaves) reversed Washington's policy and supported the Haitians. Thomas Jefferson (who owned slaves) reversed Adams' policy and incredibly gave Napoleon the official okay to reconquer Haiti (which failed miserably and left U.S. foreign policy with an embarrasing black eye). Much of America's early obssession with the remainder of Latin America was guided by a slave-owning majority in Congress who were worried about the flames of slave revolt spreading from Haiti to our shores (which it did). Throughout the remainder of the 19th Century, the U.S. was deeply concerned about the dangerous seeds of revolution that were constantly blowing out of Haiti.

2) Woodrow Wilson. Despite what my high school history book taught me, I've since learned that this clown was in the top 3 of our worst presidents of all time. Under Wilson, we sent troops to Latin America more often than any other time in our history, including invading Mexico in 1914, Haiti in 1915, the Dominican Republic in 1916, Mexico again in 1916 (and a total of NINE MORE TIMES before he left office), Cuba in 1917, Panama in 1918, and an active occupation force in Nicaragua throughout his administration (which was used to "encourage" election of a Nicaraguan president favorable to the U.S. and force passage of a favorable trade agreement with the U.S.). Wilson effectively made colonies out of these previously autonomous nations. With hindsight, we know that these interventions led directly to set the stage for Batista, Trujillo, the Somozas, and the Duvaliers. During the 1910's, these invasions were terribly unpopular here at home and they brought down a wrath of criticism from abroad. By the mid-1920's, Wilson's successors had completely reversed all of his policies in Latin America, but the damage had already been done. Apparently, his great League of Nations ideal of self-determination didn't apply to small, brown people (to steal a quote from George Carlin).

After the Marines took over Haiti in 1915, they forced the newly-formed Haitian legislature to select our preferred candidate as their president. When that same hand-picked legislature refused to declare war on Germany a few years later, we dissolved them and hand-picked a new one. We also supervised as they threw out their old constitution and replaced it with a new one far less democratic than the one it replaced by a laughable referendum vote of 98,225 to 768. Most ridiculously, Wilson destroyed Haiti's proud tradition of individual ownership of land (which dated all the way back to the Slave Revolt against France in the 1790's), replacing it with the old large plantation system. In 1919, the Haitians rose up in resistance in a five-year guerrilla war that caused great loss of life to the Haitians (who were absolutely no match for the U.S. Marines). One of the commanding Marine generals complained openly that this indiscriminate slaughter of Haitian peasants was "...the most startling thing of its kind that has ever taken place in the Marine Corps," and indeed many Marine commanders were visibly disturbed by the occupation's ferocity. In 1931, retiring Marine Corps General Smedley Butler sarcastically wrote, "I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints."

Historically, our foreign policy towards Haiti seems to be a chain of poor judgement that the Haitians have never forgotten. And then we throw up our hands in disbelief when the Haitians act screwy. For some reason, people who are wrongly oppressed never seem to forget it even after several generations. If you don't believe it, then ask yourself why you don't see many little boys named "Sherman" running around in Georgia.

Thanks for the history lesson, Doc. For the record, I think you're on the money about Wilson, in particular. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the logical extention of your thesis, that Haiti has been royally screwed up by U.S. involvement, yet another good reason not to continue messing around with current politics down there, either with troops or "targeted" money? (BTW, I heard a news story today about how American labor union pressure on manufacturers who take advantage of Haiti's abysmally low wages is resulting in said companies just leaving the country; they don't want the political heat of doing business there. So instead of low pay, the Haitians are getting NO pay.) --WBC

Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 22:33:56 -0700

From: tdaniel@iastate.edu

Name: Bully Swish

Okay, I know this is slightly late and off-topic, but I've been busy.

I just wanted to report that I'm more than a little fed up with this new Hollywood trend of movie characters outrunning explosions!!! Since when did physics get re-invented? Are these Einstein explosions (instead of Newton explosions)?

At first, I began to notice a few characters here and there managing to drive away from explosions in cars or even on motorcycles. However, lately there's been a sudden flood of movies featuring characters that simply outrun the explosions on foot. And Will, since you are the resident rocket scientist, I thought you might have some comments about this. I 'm certainly no demolitions expert, but I know enough to understand that explosions and fireballs don't just amble on down the hallway. In fact, some characters seem to rely on the explosions to "save them" from some dire predicament. Yeah right.

I hate to see movies that go to unbelievable lengths for realism, and then throw in goofy stuff like that. My current list of explosion races include The Long Kiss Goodnight, Chain Reaction, The Rock, Mission Impossible, Die Hard With a Vengeance, Speed 2, Con-Air, Face-Off, The Devil's Own, Executive Decision, The Saint, and a whole bunch more I haven't seen yet but I've heard about.

What I want to know is, am I the only person in the world who realizes that "The Fifth Element" (maybe the worst movie I've ever seen) is nothing but a really bad remake of "Heavy Metal"? (BTW, "Bully Swish"? You've been in Iowa waaaaaay too long...) --WBC

Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 18:34:51 -0700

From: Accent5220@AOL.com

Name: John Secunda

I concur with your comments about [Terry] Bowden losing face by blaming players and not himself. I have an addition to what you were saying. Following last years Florida/Auburn game where the Tigers were blown out Terry Bowden said that the problem with the team was that they "needed to go out and get some better players". Never mind that he was in his fourth year of coaching at Auburn and had time to develop them. He let the players take the complete blame for Auburns losses. Nothing, nothing was said about his lack of coaching. By his fourth year nearly all of his team was make up of players recruited and coached by him. If those players lose what does that say about the coach??? That was a truly despicable attempt not to shoulder any blame for losing. I no longer hold him in such high regard.

In Bowden's defense (I have no intention of joining the ranks of the Terry-Bashers, by the way), he was right in saying that Auburn just didn't have the talent to play with Florida last year. I don't see how coaching could have changed that score by much. I don't think anybody at Auburn held Bowden personally responsible for that particular defeat (the other three losses are another story). On the other hand, pointing out the deficiencies of your players immediately following a loss is not a terribly smart thing to do, no matter what the realities of the situation might be. I recall Steve Spurrier doing the same thing after Bowden beat him in '93 and '94, and I was, to say the least, not impressed. --WBC

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:54:46 -0700

From: GridWizard@AOL.com

Name: Mike Williamson

I can't agree with your "Bad" article. There is no such thing as a 'perfect' law. Any law crafted by humans is subject to abuse. In my opinion, we have to rely on the good judgment of the people we elect and those that are hired to uphold the law.

Clearly, our lawmakers have made mistakes many times. One function of the Supreme Court is to give remedy to those errors that violate the constitution. This was not one of them.

Thanks for the note, Mike. For myself, I think the fact that flawed humans are incapable of writing a "perfect law" is a very good reason to make those laws as limited in scope as possible. If the Court had ruled simply that serial child molesters could be locked up indefinitely, I wouldn't make a peep. When they instill into law very broad and vague language like "mental abnormality", it opens up far too many opportunities for future abuse. --WBC

Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:08:53 -0700

From: anonymous@unknown.site.com

From: AUTigerFan@aol.com

Name: Laura

Your new logo, at first glance, caused me to pause. The "world" graphic in the center of the logo took me back to some Saturday morning news clips of long ago. Perhaps you should have your "world" spinning as well. I'm sure it's okay to "borrow" in the name of elucidation.

Wow... I'd forgotten all about those old "In The News" segments until your note. Funny how those idle Saturday mornings when you were six can come back to haunt you.

My design philosophy for the page is a clean, clear view with fast loading. Java animations are cool to look at, but I personally hate waiting for them to load, and the way they hog my CPU while they're running drives me nuts. It's a neat idea to have Jamie's globe spinning, and maybe in a less feedback-challenged future, I'll give it a shot. --WBC

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 14:06:26 -0700

From: VUDores@aol.com

Name: Bill Themann

Couldn't agree more with your commentary on the proposed "apology" bill. I also would never shy away from taking responsibility for my actions. However, I am not responsible for slavery, the Civil War, anti-black sentiment, etc. So why should I apologize for them. Racial prejudice wears many colors. Racism is not just anti-black. I believe in judging people for who they are, not for what color they are. I would appreciate the same treatment in return. Just because I am a white male does not make me racist.

Thanks for the note, and thanks for reading, Bill. Assuming that all white Southern males are automatically hate-mongers is just as stupid and bigoted as assuming that any black male is a criminal. Why the Left and the media can't figure that out is beyond me. --WBC

Submit:

From: jcole@pathfinder.com

Name: Jamie Cole

I just got around to reading your critique of "Scream," and I agree to a certain extent. However, "Silence of the Lambs" is easily the most suspenseful film of this decade. I've even forgiven it for its pandering to the mainstream-nuzzling Academy, which gave it its five top awards in 1992.

"Seven," while being a good film, never would have happened without "Silence." It can be argued that "Silence" made legitimate a genre that had not had a significant critical and commercial success since the 70s ("The Exorcist," "Halloween"). The 80s were a bleak time for horror fans, with the only choices being mostly bad sequels and the seemingly never-ending string of bad Stephen King adaptations. (Craven's "Nightmare on Elm Street," which I see as a flawed masterpiece, is the one exception.)

The 90s have been kinder to horror fans; even the SK adaptations have gotten better ("Misery" was ... um ... smashingly good, as was "Delores Claiborne"). "Scream" takes its place among these fine films, but I do feel it's no higher third or fourth on the genre hit parade for the 90s.

Sorry it took me so long to get this on the board, Jamie. I don't really have any personal movie rankings (as long as you admit that "Star Wars" is the finest piece of cinema ever made). I agree wholeheartedly that "Silence Of The Lambs" is a magnificent film, but while it certainly has some very suspenseful scenes, I personally find it more cerebral than a slam-bang movie like "Scream", and more of a "quiet horror" than "Seven". It's also a better film than either of those two. --WBC

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 07:28:18 -0700

From: tdaniel@iastate.edu

Name: Tommy-the-new-Bulldog

I hate to keep agreeing with you, Beach Boy, but you're right on target slamming The Lost World.

I loved the book so much that I kept reading it over and over. Being an educator, I was completely captivated at the lessons on behavior (specifically, self-organizing behavior) that the Crichton book covered. I felt that the book showed a handful of people suddenly thrust into a dino-system in which they couldn't "techno" their way out to safety. The only way to escape alive was to study the dinosaurs' behavior (something that had never been done by humans) and figure out ways to OUTSMART them on the spot.

After the movie, my wife (who hadn't read the book) asked about the San Diego sequence at the end, and I had to reply, "In the book, there was no San Diego." Why was it added? If only the T. Rex had managed to grab Fay Wray or Jessica Lange as it was wandering around peeking in windows, I would have understood better. Why was the paleontologist Levine (the purpose of the trip in the first place) replaced with a nature photographer? Why were two kids with brains and courage replaced by one kid that could only stare and whimper? Why was a competing team of three bad guys expanded into an entire army of bad guys? Where was the study of dinosaur behavior? What happened to all the great field equipment built by Doc Thorne and Eddie Carr (which I thought Spielberg would treat with great sophistication)? Why was John Hammond still alive? Why was InGen still solvent?

And most importantly, where was the carnotaur (the chameleon dinosaur)?

My personal list of "Great Books That Became Great Movies" still has only one entry: To Kill a Mockingbird.

Yeah, and what's up with a "predator expert" who doesn't figure out that a Rex is tracking her by the scent of its infants' blood on her jacket until the damn thing is literally in her sleeping bag? Geez, what a stupid script... --WBC

Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 16:25:57 -0700

From: abrams_jeff@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil

Name: Jeff

Your columns are doing fine. No complaints. Good reading. I'm sure I get pissed off at various things, and when I think of them, I'll tell you. Maybe they irk you too, and you can write something about them.

But one place I always find an interesting commentary is on HBO. That is, Dennis Miller Live at 10:30pm CDT. It is live (they show them again on the various HBO's at other times too). It is usually very funny. And he rants somewhat like you do. But he does use too many obscure references that go right over my head, and I'm no dummy. Still, it's worth watching. Maybe it will give you more ideas to write about, whether you are lacking one at any given moment or not.

Also, I've seen Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect. to me, not as funny as Dennis. But typically good subject matter and commentaries.

Miller's show is occasionally entertaining. I've never really forgiven him for some gratuitous South-slams from a few years back, though. Maher's show frankly irritates me. The usual lineup is: one conservative, one liberal reporter, and two half-wit celebrity liberals. There's far more heat than light, and the number of really interesting comments can be counted on the fingers of one hand. I remember seeing Neil Peart on 'Politically Incorrect' a while back and thinking, "Neil is just way too intelligent to be on this stupid show." --WBC

Submit:

Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 18:00:56 -0700

From: DFSam@aol.com

Name: Sam Brown

I agree on your take about the education system, but I would like to see an editorial about government as a whole. It seems to me that free-enterprise seems to be thriving (less all of the government controls and taxes) and the government seems to be failing. Why do we all insist on continuing to keep this rickety old boat that we call government afloat? Don't get me wrong, there is a place for government, but, it seems to me that our government is actually suppressing the success that free-enterprise could produce.

Thanks for your forum and I wish you continued success at "Will's World".

You may not publish this for what I'm about to say, but.......ROLL TIDE!!!

Sam, I was all ready to credit you for your good sense until that last line. I can see that you've been hanging around with your little brother waaaay too much.

Seriously, thanks for the kind words. I couldn't agree more on your points regarding the government. The private sector can't fight wars, can't treat with foreign nations, and shouldn't run the judiciary or police the streets. Other than that, there just aren't that many things free enterprise can't do a whole lot better. --WBC

Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 09:18:26 -0700

From: tdaniel@iastate.edu

Name: Tommy

Every time I think about the "Conspiracy Theories," it reminds me of The Beatles and the "Paul Is Dead" fun we used to have.

The "clues" to Paul's untimely death found in The Beatles' album covers, photographs, song lyrics, and song titles are unbelievably convincing, and they are just so dang much fun to fool around with. But the lesson that always sticks with me is that the "Paul Is Dead" hoax is a situation where we KNOW the correct outcome, yet the "evidence" is still overwhelming and convincing. I can imagine how easy it is to trap people in all these hoaxes and conspiracies where we still don't know the correct outcome.

It just always reminds me that overwhelming evidence and believability have very little to do with the truth, sometimes. As ridiculous as it seems, we can all learn a valuable lesson from the "Paul Is Dead" hoax.

[Insert your own pithy and insightful comment here. I couldn't think of one myself.] --WBC

Date: Tue, 6 May 1997

From: DrWarrrr@aol.com

Name: Tommy

I enjoyed and agreed (who couldn't?) with the great Atlanta Traffic commentary. I would like to add an unusual bit of personal research for you, too.

Between 1986 and 1994, I worked in Montgomery while living in Auburn, which was a 50 minute commute door-to-door (which was still far shorter than the average Atlanta commute). During that time, it was overwhelmingly obvious that an unusual number of cars on I-85 in the morning had Georgia tags. My parents were still running the clothing store in Tuskegee during this time, and made their commute in the same direction as mine, and they noticed the same thing. We also noticed that the Georgia cars were traveling significantly FASTER than any other cars on the interstate, prompting my father to say that the next car he bought would be from Georgia since their cars ran faster than anybody else's.

So, as part of one of my advanced stats courses at Auburn, I proposed a study of the traffic on I-85 in the morning. Every morning for ten weeks, I set my cruise on 66 mph and counted every car that passed me, grouping it into either an Alabama car, a Georgia car, or "other." The final results showed that I was ELEVEN TIMES more likely to be passed by a Georgia car than any other car.

This meaningless study drew quite a large discussion when presented in the stats class since other students and professors had noticed the same thing about Georgia cars. We spent a LONG time going over possible explanations (everything from vehicle-inspections to "traffic breakout syndrome"), but the nagging question we couldn't answer was WHY WERE THEY HERE????

My commute from Auburn to Montgomery was 50 miles. Anybody with a Georgia tag had to be coming from the vicinity of the state line behind me, which put them at an extra 40 miles. Since there is practically nothing between Auburn and Montgomery in the morning (Victoryland could have been an excuse if it wasn't so early), then we could safely assume they were traveling at least as far as Montgomery. Therefore, their average commute was no shorter 90 miles one-way.

Therefore, is it a better commute from Columbus to Montgomery than from Columbus to Atlanta? The survey says ... YES!!! We all agreed that a Columbus-to-Montgomery commute was about 100 miles and 90 minutes (probably quicker), but a Columbus-to-Atlanta commute was 100 miles and at least 120 minutes (probably much slower). And the overwhelming reason behind the downside to the Atlanta commute: TRAFFIC.

In other words, I rest YOUR case.

Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the Doc of Rock. Thanks, Tommy, great story. I think anybody who's been on Georgia 400 (known to state troopers as the Atlanta Autobahn) can appreciate the Need For Speed in the Peach State... --WBC

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:30:59 -0700

From: abrams_jeff@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil

Name: Jeff

Touche' on that "your" point. You're right! There. But, I'm not being published. Damn -- yes I am when you put my comments up on the web. I'll be more careful, too. I have homeowners insurance. Torch away. Just give me some warning.

O.K., so I'm not going to disagree with you're Social Security issues. In fact, I'm agreeing with every one of them. Notice how the initials of this bureaucracy are "SS". I don't think it's a coincidence. Here are some more points:

SS seemed like a good idea at the time (1930's?). But they didn't do the math too well. It looked good when they thought that as the population grew, SS income would increase, and they would have no problem paying the newly retired folk's entitlements. What they didn't account for was that the relative income of the future's population would decrease and inflation would have too dramatic an impact that they would have to raise the entitlement's at least somewhat significantly. Now, with the large retirement population demanding their entitlements, lower FICA revenues due to fewer good, higher-paying jobs, and more near-minimum wage jobs (typically service oriented), the SS system is doomed. Plus, the government doesn't earn anything on the money they've collected. Yet, they pay interest on money they've borrowed. It's a lose-lose situation.

I've thought about sending a Congressman a proposal before, but I'm sure it would never be passed. Now, it's to be published on your page. I propose to the government to give me back everything I put into FICA, with no interest, and be required to roll it over into an IRA. And I promise never to demand anything out of SS in the future, while I never pay into FICA again. This is similar to privatizing the SS system, but it gives me more control. This would be optional to every SS contributor. There would be no new SS participants. The way they would pay for the future's retirees SS entitlements would be with regular taxes, until there are no more SS recipients. This would phase it out somewhat gracefully, and give people who prefer it , a different option.

This plan would work for someone like me. Most single people aren't thinking of retirement and want to blow as much as possible in the present, like you said. But I've got a 401(K)-like plan (the Federal employee's TSP program), and I started an IRA in 1996. And I'm paying into FICA, fully thinking that I will get little to nothing out of it.

Frankly, Jeff, I'd be just as happy if Uncle Sam would just keep all the FICA I've paid in so far (might as well; he's already spent it all), and relieve me of future SocSec taxes. --WBC

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 18:20:55

From: crime@ns.awanet.com

Name: Jay Cobb

Let me begin by BEGGING you to edit me. I need as much help as I can get in trying to seem as intelligent as possible. I have thoroughly enjoyed looking into your "world" thus far. The reprint of your response to Mary Paramore's letter was both enlightening and sad. As you may or may not know, I have recently enrolled in college (third time's a charm) again and my major is none other than education. I sincerely hope that I become a contributor and not a detractor in my field. Wish me luck. Heaven knows I'll need it, because like you, I am a product of the Enterprise, Alabama public school system.

Jay, you'll do fine. Anybody who could teach me how to run a cash register has got what it takes to succeed in education (for the rest of you, Jay gave me my first job a loooong time ago, in a record store far, far away). --WBC

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:43:23

From: autgr91@aol.com

Name: Scott (WAR EAGLE!)

Feedback:

I'm encouraged, and impressed might I add, at your page and views to date on the Social Security issue. It's great to see another one of my classmates taking real initiative...speaks well for AU! Keep up the good work!

Thanks, Scott... glad to hear you're listening. --WBC

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997

From: abrams_jeff@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil

Name: Jeff (you know me)

Feedback:

Just a little grammar correction, not a criticism. In the line of your first commentary "I'm Will Collier. William Baxter Collier, III, to be precise, but Will is only name I'll ever be comfortable answering to (my dad is Bill, in case you're wondering).", you should say "...but Will is the only name...".

Since you don't have an editor other than yourself, you sometimes will miss these minor errors. Yes, they are minor. Of course, the content is much more important than the technical details. But you know the impact and/or impression writing and speech can make. It reflects who you are and your image. And correct grammar just makes you look that much more professional and competent. Again, I'm sure you know all of this and this one error was just an oversight after midnight when you were too tired anyway.

Enough blabbering. Good luck with this. I look forward to reading it and telling you when your opinions are wrong, except when it comes to Auburn football -- your much more informed about that than me.

Thanks for the correction, Jeff (even though I am going to have to burn down your house now; don't take it personally). I will be trying to get everything right here, but the nature of the short deadline times will inevitably lead to some errors. I'm sure I can count on the readers here to let me know about them... each and every stinking one... --WBC

P.S. You do know that the word "your" in your last sentence is supposed to be "you're", don't you? ;-)

Click here to send your comments to FEEDBACK