I've got a handful of pieces that I'd like to write. Lord only knows if I'll ever get 'round to writing them, but here're the core ideas that I'd like to flesh out:

A three part series about treatment of human embryos, including research and abortion of them.

The first article would be an argument against abortion and for strict restrictions on embryo science. It would be based around the idea that a human baby is precious not because of what it is -- a drooling poop factory -- but is instead precious because of what it will become. Since a baby's preciousness is really a recognition of it's future value, it's reasonable to start assigning it value before it's even born. At what point to you start to give significant value to that human life? Fertilization is a very, very important landmark and denotes the point beyond which it can be considered "just some cells."

The second article would require some research on my part. It would be an attempt to summarize some key aspects of embryonic development, with an eye towards establishing a scientifically based landmark in development where "significant value" should begin to accumulate - presumably some time after fertilization. Or several such landmarks. Would tend to shy away from the "a woman's choice" argument for abortion in favor of defining landmarks, because at some point the developing baby will gain significant value that will handily trump a woman's "right" to kill it. Ethically, at least.

The third article would be more personal -- something in the form of an essay talking about my views and about how researching and writing the articles had impacted them.

A seperate piece I'd like to write is pointing out a fundamental flaw in the US Government -- that the Senate and House are self-governing bodies who write their own procedural rules. The Senate in particular has many, many odd rules of procedure that no sensible person would call reasonable. It has these because the Senate rules were crafted, over time, to provide advantages to the primary authors and supporters of each specifict rule. As the U.S. Legislature has aged as an institution, these rules have grown increasingly weedy. They're clubhouse rules for a very old club. Other nations potentially have it even worse, because they've had longer to accumulate weeds. This one would require quite a bit of learning on my part, but I think it'd be an interesting piece and I suspect it's get to the core of why stuff as nutty as a Filibuster even exists.

I realized today that at some point within the last few years I'd crossed an imaginary threshhold. Now that I've passed through it, it's possible for me to look back and discover something about myself that I hadn't known before, but which has no doubt always been true.

The threshhold involved leaving the economic state where my wants constantly exceeded available money and entering the state where available money frequently exceeds my wants. Or to put it simply, I'm not always broke anymore.

Now that I can afford to buy pretty much whatever I want, I find myself still wanting things but not getting them. I'm not trying to point out that some things in life can't be bought, or that there's more to life than money, or any of the other common truisms. I simply mean that there's stuff out there that I want, can easily afford to buy, and yet don't.

So... why not?

Some other reasons besides money could be coming into play. I live in a small apartment, which is already filled with stuff. Maybe it's just that I don't really want the stuff I think I want. It'd take up too much room, and leave me too crowded. I want the item, but I don't want more crowding, so in the end I don't really want it after all.

That might be true for some big stuff, but -- that doesn't apply to really small stuff, especially really small stuff that fits inside of stuff I already have. Computer parts, for example.

There, an entirely different reason is at work. It turns out that I don't, and this is pretty obvious really, that I don't just see something I want, make sure I have enough money, and then buy it. Instead, I see something I want, make sure I have enough money, make sure I think it's worth the money, and then buy it. That extra step is important.

I'm sure you're all rolling your eyes at this point, if you've even read this far that is, but I swear this is interesting stuff! This means that I could already be well on my way towards being like everyone's ancient grandparent who bitches about how much stuff costs and never prys open his moth-ridden wallet to actually buy anything. I've already built a mental database of how much stuff is "worth" and as inflation pushes the prices of everything up, I'm going to be left with less and less stuff that I think is cheap enough to be "worth" buying. I'm only 25, and I've already got the spending habits of a geriatric old man.

This calls for a mid-life crisis! Where's my credit card?