Tech Life Anyone can exclaim, not everyone can All Cap.
ALL CAPS Killed the Exclamation Point

That Fez article. Oy. It took four times longer than expected to write, but I'm happy with the result even though I feel once I pass the fourth page of writing that I'm violating some weblog brevity rule.

I just stick around, writing the night away. 

As I endlessly rewrote the article, I realized that I've fully embraced the ALL CAPS STANDARD as a means of conveying what is traditionally done with an exclamation point. A little search of my 200+ weblog entries shows that I vastly prefer ALL CAPS to the exclamation point.

Before I explain this grammatical fetish, let me first explain that All Caps gets a bad rap as a tool of boobs. I blame AOL users for this because it is generally known that they are the source of all Internet evil. In the early days of the AOL Internet invasion, AOL users were bumbling around Usenet, annoying the locals, and generally making a nuisance of themselves. One of their traits was the USE OF ALL CAPS IN MESSAGES DUE TO THE FACT THEY WERE TOO STUPID TO HIT THE CAPS LOCK.

In reality, AOL users aren't stupid. They weren't really using their keyboard much because AOL designers decided, as much as possible, their users should use the mouse because there were only two buttons on a mouse and, well, lots more buttons on the keyboard. Less buttons... less decisions... less errors... more satisfaction. When Usenet access showed up in AOL, I think of lots of users were regularly typing in complete sentences for the first time and so, of course, they forget about that darned CAPS LOCK key because they weren't looking at what they were typing... they were staring at their keyboards.

Let's not let the sins of the past taint the grammatical beauty that is All Caps.

Yes, All Caps is yelling, but it infinitely more. 

First, All Caps is much more efficient than the exclamation point. Similar to foreign languages such as Spanish, All Caps alerts you to the mood change from the very first letter. You decide:

*	I like bread!
*	I LIKE BREAD
*	ÁTengo gusto del pan!


In the first statement, you've got to wait until the very last character to understand this guy has a bread thing going. All Caps tells you right away that BREAD RULES.

All Caps is much more flexible than your common exclamation point. You can sprinkle it anywhere and see stay grammatical coherent. An example from the Fez article:


... When is the last time they generated a great idea that blew your mind? Are they talking in meetings or listening? Are they EVER talking? Are they ALWAYS talking?



See what I'm doing in this last two statements? All Caps allows me to ask a question AND throw emphasis on key words. You simply can not do that with boring old punctuation and grammar. WAIT WHAT ABOUT BOLD AND UNDERLINES? Please, I'm writing, not doing word processing.

Lastly, most importantly, and most personally... All Caps sounds different in my head than an exclamation point. This probably comes from years of Jerkcity, but an exclamation point makes a statement that come from this guy:

"That's swell!" 

Whereas an All Caps statement reads modern to me... it reads as means of conveying frustration mixed in with sarcasm, a bit of anger, and dash attitude. Anyone can exclaim, not everyone can All Cap.



Dear Diary
Y do I even bother anymore?? Jase left a day early... w/o saying good bye... 2day he was stressed about Dana and Fel, so I told him 2 talk 2 them... and get thru this... and what do I get/ He leaves a day earky w/o so much as a god damned goodbye... I'm so f*ing tired of trying 2 be a good prsn when it comes 2 him and other girls... He left... He just left... He didn't call... he didn't come 2 my dorm 2 let me kno he was done talking 2 Fel... he just left... There's no excuse... no god damned excuse... I was patient... He had proposed 2 Dana within the last 24 hrs then was asleep w/ me in my bed 2day and I didn't yell at him... He got taken out of my room then went 2 his car, packed up and ready 2 go and didn't tell me a damn thing until I called HIM, and I didn't yell... I went 2 him... Ivy says he was on rebound after Fel dumped him... she says he sed he was falling 4 her... She sed he sed he liked her b/c she isn't like me... b/c she understands evrything, not just sumthings... 4give me, no1's prfect... But I try... I really try... I TRIED 2 be understanding when he proposed 2 Dana... and when he went w/ Fel, but that just pushed it... He kissed her in front of me rite after I asked him 2 talk and he sed no... he sed he was busy then kissed her... He let her call him Jase... He wanted 2 hurt me... And congrats 2 him, he did... When I got out of the car 2 let him talk 2 Fel I kissed him on the cheek and told him I'd be in my dorm when he finished... He didn't say anything... He just went on talking 2 her... Ivy says he sed he was falling 4 her, and that she sed she loved him... She sed that he sed he doesn't kno who he loves... I can't believe he left w/o saying anything 2 me... no goodbye, no call, no note... He just went... I've tried so hard 2 be what he wants... Y do I even bother anymore? What's left here? What do I have left 2 fite 4? He's gone 4 the next month... I won't be able 2 make things rite... When I asked him how 2 make things rite he sed 2 be us w/o the title... Just last nite we toasted 2 us... And now? I don't kno... I feel sick... I want 2 die... I've cried so much that I can't anymore... I have no voice left at all... God, when Thomas left he at least talked 2 me... He was on the phone w/ me... He told me he loved me... He cared... God, I've defended Jase so many times and he just... left... God, I tried 2 be understanding... and I tried telling myself he's NOT a player and he DOES really care, but Ivy sed he sed that w/ Fel he gets the feeling in his stomache wrse than he EVER has w/ me... What more could I have done? I don't c what he says I didn't understand... I DID tell him 2 be happy w/ Fel... I DID let him be w/ Dana... I DID NOT tell him 2 be w/ me, b/c I knew I;d hurt him, but when he sed 2 make things rite we'd be us w/o the title i expected that he meant it... But how much faith can 1 girl really have after that? He just left... I'm going 2 go, I need 2 sleep, I have a migrane... Ciao... 
07-08-02
Dear Diary
Man... down road again... Thomas is bak... he got in an accident b/c of what I did... he got sided by a truck... it totalled his car... and his ankle... he's out of football 4 the season... and he blames me... he says I crushed his dreams... the 1st being 2 marry me... the 2nd being 2 be in the NFL... He sed if Duke loses it's all b/c of me... And he brought sumthing of interest 2 my attention... Me being w/ Jase makes ppl choose sides... if I'm w/ Jason ppl fite and argue and get mad... And then I thought about it... and if I'm away from Thomas b/c I mite hurt him, then y am I not worried that I mite hurt Jase?? Maybe that's saying sumthing... When I brought all of this 2 Jase's attention, he was chill 2 me... he pulled away from me and just started shrugging my questions off... He hung up on me earlier... No warning, I asked him 2 think about what I told him and he sed "yah huh" and hung up... Oh, Thomas asked me a lot of stuff, but the 1 that got 2 me was when he put his standards of love out... U have friend love and family love then... love. U can love as many ppl as u want w/ friend/ family love, but only 1 prsn w/ love love... And I chose... and I'm not saying who... but I don't like this... Charli asked me if I could change anything about our relationship (Thomas and mine) what it would be. I didn't answer... I knew she already asked Thomas and I knew his answer... He wouldn't change a thing. I don't kno what I'd change... Maybe myself... probably... Man... well, I got bak from visiting my mom... that was kinda... bad... 
I met my mom on Friday... she told me y she left... she told me what happened... She told me what Daddy never understood or cared 2 try 2 explain... He always thought she just got bored and left... She told me Daddy wasn't the 1... she told me she was suffocating... she told me she loved him, but not enuf 2 be with him forever... She needed 2 be single again... She was like me... She didn't like being stuck w/ 1 guy and needed her space... She couldn't stand 2 drag him along any longer... She didn't mean 4 it 2 happen... it just did... she never fell out of love... she just couldn't take it anymore... Am I going 2 end up being her?? I hope not... She reminded me so much of me... her whole way of approaching ppl... It was admirable and disgusting at the same time... She seemed 2 think she was on so much of a higher level than me... and she was very classy, but a snob... she was beautiful, but showy about it... She had a huge house, but u could tell when u entered that she lived either by herself or w/ the latest bf... She had so many cars, but each1 w/ it's own driver... Wow... I dunno what 2 say... but no1's even asked about it yet... oh well.. I'm going 2 go... ciao. 
06-26-02
Dear Diary
How many time have I hurt Thomas? Well add 1 on2 that... Jase was acting weird... He kinda blew me off... It turns out he likes Bri. I lost it... He came after me and we talked. He had me on his lap and told me what was he was thinking about that he thought was stupid: he was thinking about proposing... He sed it was stupid b/c I'd turn him down... I told him that I WOULD turn him down, bur only b/c I'm not ready. He told me 2 break 2 promises: The 1 2 Thomas (not 2 kiss ne1 else) and the 1 2 him (not 2 break the promise 2 Thomas on purpose). Well I did... I think it's a good thing tho... I can't be happy w/ Thomas anymore... I kno I've severed his heart and he needs 2 heal, even if it means hating me... I dunno y, but I tell evry1 else 2 put themselves b4 ne1 else... y can't I take my own advice? Well... Bri likes Jase so I wanna try 2 get them together... I'll be fine. Man, I'm such a head case... I flipped about him liking her and now I'm trying 2 get them 2gether... well I guess it's that I have THAT MUCH confidence and am so full of myself that I believe that he can go w/ sum1 else and still have strong enuff feelings 4 me 2 come bak 2 me... Well, call me vain, lol. I've g2g. TTYL, Ciao
I'm bak again... and in a wrse mood than b4... Jase left and is in Texas... Dana was crying b/c Jase was going 2 propose 2 me and he dumped her a week or so ago. She doesn't want 2 understand that we've been... "involved" for a REALLY long time, about the same amount of time as Thomas and I... And now evry1's calling him a jerk... They sooo need 2 bak off!! I mean, I understand the position he's in, it's pretty much the same as when I liked him, Thomas, and Max... Then Brad got added on... then I narrowed it down... but the difference was that I didn't take off... He could have sed sumthing 2 me about it... I mean, after having me kiss him and ruin evrything w/ Thomas u'd think he had the consideration to do that... He made me- no, I made me- believe that we were going 2 be together, but recent talk has shown that he still loves Dana and now, he's gone... the way he always is when things get rough... Just like Thomas... When I think about it that way, I mite not be any better off w/ Jase than I am w/ Thomas... Well, I can barely c let alone write b/c my vision's getting blurred and it's hard 2 breathe (FYI, I'm about 2 cry... I dunno y, b/c I'm more angry than sad... I guess u'd call it upset...) so TTYL, Ciao. 
06-25-02
Dear Diary
I'm w/ Thomas again (big surprise...) but I'm so damn miserable about it... We talked 4 a long time... at first he was a bit mad... then we wrked thru the anger... he told me not getting bak w/ him would be a mistake... I think that getting bak w/ him was a mistake... and I told him so. I mean, i keep hurting him and he keeps coming bak... I told him I didn't want 2 hurt him ne more... he sed that leaving him would hurt him more than anything... He sed that I'm y he gets up in the morning; that I'm what keeps him going... He says he is way bad at things when we fite... Basically he backed me in2 a corner (not on purpose of course). What he sed in short was that if I left him I'd be hurting him and making him fail... I don't want 2 do either... In the end I agreed 2 get bak 2gether as long as he left me 4 good next time I hurt him... He made me promise not 2 kiss ne1 but him. He added on Chris and Daddy, but only on the cheek. Now u probably wanna kno y I'm miserable... Well, it's no secret that I want Jase.. it's eating at me... I was so busy trying not 2 hurt Thomas that I hurt Jase... over and over and over... Way more than I've hurt Thomas... This is a lose-lose situation: If I stay w/ Thomas, I continue 2 hurt Jase, and if what I heard was rite, he's moving 4 good... If I go w/ Jase, then I hurt Thomas again... he doesn't do well in football or college and he's miserable... Oh, here's sumthing that hurt: Thomas was planning 2 propose 2 me... I told him i couldn't... Y not? Well I told him b/c I can't have him stuck w/ me. Real reasons: 1)I'll hurt him, 2)I couldn't do that 2 Jase... 3)I'm way young... 4)I'm totally not ready... A little help plz? Man, life currently sux... I can't plz evry1, and when sum1's not happy then I'm not happy... I have 2 try 2 keep evry1 happy... Wel, I'm going 2 go 4 now... ttyl, Ciao 
06-20-02
Dear Diary
Guess who broke up: Dana and Jase, but on a down note: me and Thomas... Jase and Dana broke up b/c Jase thinx it's weird 2 be w/ his sister in-law. Me and Thomas broke up b/c I kissed Jase... Well, he kissed me, then I asked 2 talk, but I had 2 go, so I kissed him and left... I'm not sure whether it's a good or bad thing that Thomas and I r over... Don't get me wrong, I love him 2 death, but he never has time 4 me... He doesn't trust that I won't cheat on him... but I can't really blame him 4 that. He sed he wasn't mad b/c Jase kissed me, but b/c I kissed him. He sed it would have been diff if Jase and Dana hadn't broken up... I doubt it... Well, I'll talk 2 Thomas more and find out whether he wants 2 put up w/ me again... I dunno if he wants 2 take the chance 2 get hurt like that again... Well, at least he doesn't have 2 wrry about me and Max anymore... Speaking of Max, he invited me 2 go w/ him 2 the Summer Bash, hehe, I wonder how KATIE feels about that... oh yah, I 4got: she probably h8s the idea. Jase sed Max was going 2 go w/ Natalie and Katie w/ Thomas and so we could go 2gether... well, I'll figure it out. I've gotta go. Ciao. Going to be drinking the night away. 
06-18-02
Dear Diary, 
Well, the wedding was today... Max is married... Well, I guess it's kinda okay... Chris sed it's all going 2 be fine... Well, I trust him more than I trust myself, so I'll go w/ it. Well, on father's day, I was w/ Daddy... he got morticia and his pet away. But they were bak that nite... So I stayed the nite w/ Chris. He spent the nite in his bed w/ me 2 convince me it was going 2 be okay... He didn't let me sleep until I agreed. I felt so much better when I woke up. The mood swung 2day... I dunno y, but I went in2 bitch mode... I couldn't stop thinking about whether I really thought Max was happy... I thought about when he asked me out and Katie guilted him bak 2 her... Or when I kissed him and he didn't seem 2 regret it until Katie came in2 view... or how he asked Stormi out then Katie asked him... I dunno, I just don't like it... I think I'll be at Chris's house again 2nite. Well, ciao. 
06-11-02
Dear Diary
OMG!!! I am sooooo not okay w/ Max and Katie being married!! I mean, I can smile 4 them and say that I'm happy and go be the maid of honor, but that's only b/c I'm trained to act!! OMG!!! He's like NEVER going 2 be around! I mean, it's bad now: he's w/ her if she even pouts, but now that they're married he has 2 be w/ her ALL THE TIME!! I mean, it's like, if she appears he's got 2 go. At least now he stays around 4 a few minutes until the drama starts w/ her the way it inevitably does... And Jase is marrying Dana... God, I'm losing a best friend on Sunday and then I'm losing Jase... What should I do? ... I guess I'm at a stand still... There's no1 I can talk 2 about it b/c if I tell Max then he'll be mad at me for not being happy 4 him. If I tell Jase Dana will be mad b/c she'll think I'm trying 2 stop her from marrying Jase. I refuse 2 tell Katie or Dana. I don't want 2 tell ne1 who's not close. I won't tell Thomas b/c he'll think I want 2 get married, and I don't (yet anyway), and he'll tell me what I already kno: I'll always have him. Don't get me wrong, I kno I have him, and I love him to death, but that doesn't stop me from hurting when I lose ppl close 2 me... Angie Ls isn't around 2 talk 2, Gabs isn't in2 this stuff, I don't want 2 tell Stormi b/c she already mourned losing Max, she'll see it as no biggie now... I could tell Daddy, but he's off cruising w/ his pet and Morticia... Mom left me a long time ago so that's out of the question. I don't want 2 tell a counciler b/c they'll put me in therapy... Well, I'll just go on w/ what I've been doing: bottling it up and throwing it away. No1 wants 2 hear about my probs anyway. I'm Allie... they seem 2 think I have it made, so when I have a prob it's no biggie, or better yet well deserved... Ok, well, I'l try 2 smile thru this and maybe it'll just go away.... I can get used 2 it. I'm going 2 go... ttyl, ciao. 
06-06-02
Dear Diary,
Hey, I'm pretty much over the whole "married" thing. I mean, so what? He can marry her, it's his life... Well, Thomas's bak 4 a week, THANK GOD. I miss him so much when he's gone. U kno, when I think about it, he's SOO the best. I mean, it's like, all the other couples do is cry 2 eachother and make out. Thomas and I have a lot of fun. Yesterday Katie was over and she put her feet on the couch... instinctlively I freaked... I guess it's b/c that's the way Daddy is... He's always been in2 dating and bringing chix home and partying... When he got home the couch was his crash spot. I think it's the same w/ me... I like 2 be able 2 walk in the house, kick off my shoes (and other uncomfy stuff) and just crash rite on the couch. Thomas didn't mind when I told him I went out 2 the clubs 2 nites ago, but he was out getting drinx that same nite... Y do I feel like that is sooo bad? Well, he wasn't drunk when he got 2 the dorm so I guess it's ok... Well, I'm going 2 go. TTYL, Ciao 
06-05-02
Dear Diary,
Ok, this sooooo sux!!! Jase is MARRYING Dana!!! I mean, OMG!!! I'm losing both Max AND Jase, both 2 ppl I don't get along w/... I hate that... Oh, yesterday was Adam's 17... I learned that I hardly kno him... that kinda stings, u kno, 2 not kno ur bf's little brother even after being w/ Thomas 4 so long... But I stilll think it's weird that they're getting married (both couples).... Man... Well, I have a little confession to make... I havn't been sleeping at nite... I've been... out... U kno, hitting the clubs. I mean, I'm not tired at nite so y sleep? And there's no1 at the dorm 2 keep me company anymore anyway, so y not? I think I'm becoming an insomniac tho... I've been trying 2 eat more, but it's not really wrking out... if I'm not hungry I CAN'T eat or I'll thro it up and they'll think I'm buhlemic... Well, I'm gonna go. TTYL, Ciao
05-29-02
Dear Diary,
We're still toghether!!! Yay!!! But I can't believe Danni!!! When I was there I went to tel Thomas sumthing and she was on his bed soooo trying 2 get him 2 kiss her!!! Then when Thomas and I were talking and trying 2 get the answer 2 whether 2 stay 2gether she calls Thomas (she screamed that they need 2 talk) and pulls a "Do you believe in love at first site" at a time like that!!!!! I mean, how totally rude can u be?! Thomas took off fter that but I found him. He went 2 the clearing that he took me 2 1 nite. He made the rules a lot more clear so he doesn't freak out next time. We decided that I can't kiss ne1 except him, and that wrx 4 me. I just needed him 2 tell me str8 out not 2 do it. Well, ttyl, Ciao. 
05-28-02
Dear Diary
Well.... I did it again.... I messed things up... I kissed Max and now Thomas is mad... I think he's mad b/c he found out and I didn't tell him... I can't blame him...Y did I do it? I don't kno... b/c I get lonely? I mean, when Thomas isn't there (like most of the time!!) it feels like I'm not single but I never have ne1 who's with me. I hate it... I mean, it's kinda hard 4 me 2 not go 4 sum other guy... it really sux... Thomas almost had the habit broken... I guess I wasn't trained enuf... omg, I sound like I'm talking about a dog... well, I guess bitch would be the better term... but if u were in the same situation (by urself, bad day (try MONTH!!), with sum1 u like and totally trust) u'd do the same thing... of course, ur probably thinking "of course not, that would be wrong"... geeze... who am I mad at? I mean, there's obviously anger, I just don't kno who it's towards... maybe it's not anger... maybe it's guilt? but it didn't seem wrong at the time... Man.... I'm going 2 go try 2 figure things out. TTYL, Ciao 
05-24-02
Dear Diary,
Jase has been making life a lot easier on me, but he met Cassandra and Jade... He wasn't 2 fond of them... He tried being nice (and I guess I could have helped instead of spiting them, but I couldn't help it; it's habit). He told them about how I've been acting and that I don't eat unless him or Thomas r there... Now Daddy knows and will probably want 2 send me sumwhere... I don't wanna go... Jase asked me 2 move my jean size from 0 (which it's been since I was 13 so I don't c the prob) to a 2... I mean, I COULD wear a 2, but I'd have 2 wear them on my hips 2 keep them up... maybe he'll be ok when I tell him that? Well, I have 2 go. TTYL, ciao. 
05-22-02
Dear Diary,
I h8 this... Max and Katie r ALWAYS together so I never get time w/ him anymore... he's always w/ her... I mean, it would be cool if I could hang w/ them but all they ever do is makeout... I'd hang w/ Jase but his lips r alwas glued 2 Dana... There's like no1 left 4 me 2 hang w/... Thomas doesn't go 2 Highland anymore b/c he gradu8d and Angie Ls is Vacationing. Gabs is always busy and Sian and I still don't get along. Ashley seems 2 be around a lot but I don't think I'll ever be able 2 hang w/ her. When Erik's around he's w/ Emily... God, there's no1 I can hang out w/ anymore... Whenever I'm w/ Max Katie appears out of nowhere and throws a subtly tantrum 2 get Max away from me... Well I guess I can't blame her... I was sitting w/ Max today and trying 2 find if he was ticklish. When I got 2 his neck he stiffened so I ran my finger across from shoulder 2 shoulder. He kissed me, hehe. I can't say I didn't like it b/c I honestly did. I just don't kno how 2 tell Thomas... Well, I g2g. TTYL, ciao. 
05-07-02
Dear Diary,
Life's doing it again... it's getting complicated... Max and Katie are getting married next year, and that's great, but I'm wondering y I can't keep a stable relationship the way Katie does... Things between me and Jase r definitely better, and that's really perfect, except that now we live in dorms instead of my house so not getting along wouldn't be AS horrible, but it would still suck. Ashley is really getting on my nerves w/ Jase... She seems 2 think she owns him and when I wanna talk 2 him and she's around she makes sure I kno that I'm not welcome...There's a new guy, Evan. I don't really kno him but he's in our dorm now. Oh, in the dorm so far we have me, Angie Ls, Thomas, Brad, Mandy, Evan and I think that's it, lol. It's kinda bad that I don't kno but oh well. Hehe. Jade isn't living w/ me any more so I only have 2 c her @ skool. Daddy's pet doesn't ever speak 2 me and I'm fine w/ that. Ok, I g2g. TTYL, ciao 
05-02-02
Dear Diary
Thomas is going 2 be in the dorm w/ me when he's here (like 4 days of the week), but things w/ Jase r getting a lot better. I'm trying really hard 2 make things between us right. Jade is a real bitch... she's always on my case about sumthing... She's still a loner and quite honestly I c y. She's so cold and sarcastic... I h8 her... Well, I g2g, I have a lot to do. TTYL, ciao. 
04-26-02
Dear Diary
Srry I havn't written L8ly, life's been hectic. Thomas's leaving Sunday and I've been in search of the prfect gift. He asked me 2 come w/ him 2 settle in at Duke, Of course I sed yes. Living w/ Jase has been kinda hard... I'm really bad w/ will-power... But Jase isn't chill 2 me anymore and I love that. Daddy wants Cassandra and her daughter Jade to move in... And now Jade's going 2 Highland... I can't stand either of them... Well, I g2g but I'll try 2 write L8r. Ciao
04-20-02 

Dear Diary
I've been out of town 4 a while... a lot's happened... Daddy wants 2 marry Cassandra... I don't like her... she h8s me... She can't w8 2 get me out of the house. Well I'm not leaving. Jason moved in. U'd think that was good, but he's being chill 2 me... He's very... diff from how he usually is. He pushes me away a lot now. I don't like it. I made the play, I got lead. I'm Juliet and Jase's Romeo.
Well on a lighter, much happier note, Thomas gave me season tickets 2 Duke's games. He gave me a note and boots and a cowboy hat. What he has planned I have no clu. I'll fill u in asap. ttyl, ciao 4 now. 
04-13-02
Dear Diary, 
The inevitable has happened... I've been played... Jason told me he'd b bak w/ me... he sed he wanted me bak... now he's in Dallas w/ Dana... he's staying w/ her... he just... he... he played me... Katie says that Jason's decided he loves Dana more... Well, I threw it all away 4 u Jase. Congrats. I've fallen... Evry1 h8s me, especially Thomas and Quinton. Jase doesn't want me. Max thinx I'm a total bitch. Dana will never 4give me (but I can't blame her). Katie doesn't like me. God, I have nothing now. I lost it all b/c Jase sed he wanted 2 be w/ me and I believed him. Well... I dunno what 2 do... where do I go from here? I mean, I have nothing. I have no1. I'm a loner... I never knew what it would be like 2 be alone and now I do. It hurts and no1 cares. Wrse than that, they r happy about it. They're smiling about it. They wanted this, they knew it would happen and they've been w8ing. Well I have nothing but I won't act like it; I won't give them the satisfaction. I'll walk around as proud as ever. I won't cry. I won't go crawling bak. I will, 4 the 1st time, try 2 stand alone... and be strong... But I really need 2 get it all out so I'm gonna go. I'll get bak 2 u...
Well, Thomas is an angel... a total angel. Even after what I did he 4gave me. After all I've done he's 4given me. I dunno what else 2 say except now I kno who I love most. In fact, I love him, I'm not sure about Max and definitely not Jase... not after what he did. Well I'm done. I don't want or need ne1 else. Max's cool but I love Thomas and I'm not doing that 2 him again... not after he 4gave me. He deserves the best so that's what I have 2 be. Wish me luck. I hope to be loving the night away. 
04-12-02
Dear Diary
Well... Jase is breaking up w/ Dana... so I'm breaking up w/ Thomas... I dunno how 2 justify this other than my promises 2 Jase... All my damn broken promises... I dunno how 2 handle this... I hope it'll ride itself out like things always have 4 me... I mean, time wil always pass no matter how much pain ur in... eventually it'll go away, or at least fade... What I hope will happen is that Thomas and Dana get 2gether. I don't kno how Max's going 2 deal w/ that tho... I don't think he'll be cool w/ it... And if Max isn't happy then neither is Katie... well, wish me luck...
New subject, I havn't seen Daddy since 2 days ago.. I mean, he checked in but he never stopped by... Well, I g2g, I need the sleep...

04-08-02
Dear Diary,
Lost and confused yet again... I made up w/ Thomas but Jase isn't 2 happy about that... I want Jase really bad, but he's w/ Dana and I just made up w/ Thomas... but I love Thomas and told him I wouldn't hurt him... but b4 that I promised Jase when me and Thomas made up we'd only be friends... Help me sum1... Then 2 make things wrse there's still Max, who earlier felt like I didn't like him b/c I didn't pull him in2 this... I didn't think he wanted me 2... If I break up w/ Thomas it'll be hurting him AGAIN 4 sumthing that isn't 4 sure... If I stay then I have 2 deal w/ Jase being mad at me... I have 2 break my wrd 2 sum1 but I'm not quite sure who... I love them both but I have 2 hurt sum1... As always, I can't make evry1 happy.. I have 2 give sum1 up... I think I'll stay w/ Thomas b/c 2 get w/ Max or Jase they'd have 2 hurt sum1 else 4 me, namely Katie or Dana, who already have a thing against me... 
New topic, Ashley makes me sick... She knows that I can't stand it when she calls Jason Jase and yet she does it in front of me... She hugs him in front of me and expects me 2 be ok.. well I'm not... I thought I knew what I wanted... I guess not... 
04-07-02
Dear Diary, 
Here I am again, confused... I'm home from skool b/c I couldn;t take it... Since I kissed Max last nite Katie got all pissed... It makes me mad that evrytime she gets mad Max jumps at the chance 2 help her, even when it means hurting sum1 else... Like when he chose me and she got pissed so he sed he loves her more and left me... Well she has him on a plane going 2 her home town... probably taking him there to keep him out of my reach... I can't stand her sumtimes... Well, I havn't talked 2 Thomas yet but I'm sure he'll be hurt... Man, I'm so screwed... 

Well, wrse than I thought.. I just got off the phone w/ Max... b4 that I saw Thomas... he didn't wanna talk 2 me. He told me that there were 2 types of ppl: PPl who follo the rules, like him, and ppl who think they can bend the rules 2 get what they want. He told me 2 call him w/ which 1 and left. I followed him 2 the airport and he yelled at me then sed goodbye and left. I called and apologized and told him I understood and wished him luck. I told him 2 call me if he ever 4gave me and left. I came home then called Max... he's obviously not having it so hot either. Katie's mad and Mandy's been yelling at him. I'm like public enemy #1 now...
Well, life's good again thanx 2 Thomas. He mailed me and sed he 4gives me. I love him so much. He came bak. Him and Max r cool w/ eachother. Max and Katie r cool again. Me and Thomas r 2gether again. Hopefully we won't break up again, I don't want 2 hurt him anymore... I love him 2 much... I'm not going 2 do it again... 
04-06-02 
Dear Diary,
Hey, I've decided 2 keep a diary 2 keep track of evrything... Well, today was just another day... another day where I kiss a friend's bf... I'm kinda confused tho... I'm sprung on Thomas but I REALLY like Max and Jason... and Jason's moving in w/ me... and Katie's going 2 h8 me... but I don't even kno what Thomas's going 2 do... I mean, I told him that I always hurt him and it never fails... I did it again... if I can't keep 2 myself when @ amovie what happens when it's just me and Jase @ nite? I mean, I kno he has control, but I don't have much...
Well, off that subject life @ home sux... Daddy's always out w/ his gf and never has time 4 me anymore... I guess that kinda explains y I want so much male attention...

Repudiating the National Debt 
by Murray N. Rothbard 

[Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004] 
In the spring of 1981, conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives cried. They cried because, in the first flush of the Reagan Revolution that was supposed to bring drastic cuts in taxes and government spending, as well as a balanced budget, they were being asked by the White House and their own leadership to vote for an increase in the statutory limit on the federal public debt, which was then scraping the legal ceiling of one trillion dollars. They cried because all of their lives they had voted against an increase in public debt, and now they were being asked, by their own party and their own movement, to violate their lifelong principles. The White House and its leadership assured them that this breach in principle would be their last: that it was necessary for one last increase in the debt limit to give President Reagan a chance to bring about a balanced budget and to begin to reduce the debt. Many of these Republicans tearfully announced that they were taking this fateful step because they deeply trusted their President, who would not let them down.
Famous last words. In a sense, the Reagan handlers were right: there were no more tears, no more complaints, because the principles themselves were quickly forgotten, swept into the dustbin of history. Deficits and the public debt have piled up mountainously since then, and few people care, least of all conservative Republicans. Every few years, the legal limit is raised automatically. By the end of the Reagan reign the federal debt was $2.6 trillion; now it is $3.5 trillion and rising rapidly [ed. Note: $6.9 trillion, Jan. 13, 2004]. And this is the rosy side of the picture, because if you add in "off-budget" loan guarantees and contingencies, the grand total federal debt is $20 trillion.
Before the Reagan era, conservatives were clear about how they felt about deficits and the public debt: a balanced budget was good, and deficits and the public debt were bad, piled up by free-spending Keynesians and socialists, who absurdly proclaimed that there was nothing wrong or onerous about the public debt. In the famous words of the left-Keynesian apostle of "functional finance," Professor Abba Lernr, there is nothing wrong with the public debt because "we owe it to ourselves." In those days, at least, conservatives were astute enough to realize that it made an enormous amount of difference whether-slicing through the obfuscatory collective nouns-one is a member of the "we" (the burdened taxpayer) or of the "ourselves" (those living off the proceeds of taxation).
Since Reagan, however, intellectual-political life has gone topsy-turvy. Conservatives and allegedly "free-market" economists have turned handsprings trying to find new reasons why "deficits don't matter," why we should all relax and enjoy the process. Perhaps the most absurd argument of Reaganomists was that we should not worry about growing public debt because it is being matched on the federal balance sheet by an expansion of public "assets." Here was a new twist on free-market macroeconomics: things are going well because the value of government assets is rising! In that case, why not have the government nationalize all assets outright? Reaganomists, indeed, came up with every conceivable argument for the public debt except the phrase of Abba Lerner, and I am convinced that they did not recycle that phrase because it would be difficult to sustain with a straight face at a time when foreign ownership of the national debt is skyrocketing. Even apart from foreign ownership, it is far more difficult to sustain the Lerner thesis than before; in the late 1930's, when Lerner enunciated his thesis, total federal interest payments on the public debt were one billion dollars; now they have zoomed to $200 billion, the third largest item in the federal budget, after the military and Social Security: the "we" are looking ever shabbier compared to the "ourselves."
To think sensibly about the public debt, we first have to go back to first principles and consider debt in general. Put simply, a credit transaction occurs when C, the creditor, transfers a sum of money (say $1,000) to D, the debtor, in exchange for a promise that D will repay C in a year's time the principal plus interest. If the agreed interest rate on the transaction is 10 percent, then the debtor obligates himself to pay in a year's time $1,100 to the creditor. This repayment completes the transaction, which in contrast to a regular sale, takes place over time.
So far, it is clear that there is nothing "wrong" with private debt. As with any private trade or exchange on the market, both parties to the exchange benefit, and no one loses. But suppose that the debtor is foolish, gets himself in over his head, and then finds that he can't repay the sum he had agreed on? This, of course is a risk incurred by debt, and the debtor had better keep his debts down to what he can surely repay. But this is not a problem of debt alone. Any consumer may spend foolishly; a man may blow his entire paycheck on an expensive trinket and then find that he can't feed his family. So consumer foolishness is hardly a problem confined to debt alone. But there is one crucial difference: if a man gets in over his head and he can't pay, the creditor suffers too, because the debtor has failed to return the creditor's property. In a profound sense, the debtor who fails to repay the $1,100 owed to the creditor has stolen property that belongs to the creditor; we have here not simply a civil debt, but a tort, an aggression against another's property.
In earlier centuries, the insolvent debtor's offense was considered grave, and unless the creditor was willing to "forgive" the debt out of charity, the debtor continued to owe the money plus accumulating interest, plus penalty for continuing nonpayment. Often, debtors were clapped into jail until they could pay-a bit Draconian perhaps, but at least in the proper spirit of enforcing property rights and defending the sanctity of contracts. The major practical problem was the difficulty for debtors in prison to earn the money to repay the loan; perhaps it would have been better to allow the debtor to be free, provided that his continuing income went to paying the creditor his just due.
As early as the 17th century, however, governments began sobbing about the plight of the unfortunate debtors, ignoring the fact that the insolvent debtors had gotten themselves into their own fix, and they began to subvert their own proclaimed function of enforcing contracts. Bankruptcy laws were passed which, increasingly, let the debtors off the hook and prevented the creditors from obtaining their own property. Theft was increasingly condoned, improvidence was subsidized, and thrift was hobbled. In fact, with the modern device of Chapter 11, instituted by the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, inefficient and improvident managers and stockholders are not only let off the hook, but they often remain in positions of power, debt-free and still running their firms, and plaguing consumers and creditors with their inefficiencies. Modern utilitarian neoclassical economists see nothing wrong with any of this; the market, after all, "adjusts" to these changes in the law. It is true that the market can adjust to almost anything, but so what? Hobbling creditors means that interest rates rise permanently, to the sober and honest as well as the improvident; but why should the former be taxed to subsidize the latter? But there are deeper problems with this utilitarian attitude. It is the same amoral claim, from the same economists, that there is nothing wrong with rising crime against residents or storekeepers of the inner cities. The market, they assert, will adjust and discount for such high crime rates, and therefore rents and housing values will be lower in the inner-city areas. So everything will be taken care of. But what sort of consolation is that? And what sort of justification for aggression and crime?
In a just society, then, only voluntary forgiveness by creditors would let debtors off the hook; otherwise, bankruptcy laws are an unjust invasion of the property rights of creditors.
One myth about "debtors'" relief is that debtors are habitually poor and creditors rich, so that intervening to save debtors is merely a requirement of egalitarian "fairness." But this assumption was never true: in business, the wealthier the businessman the more likely he is to be a large debtor. It is the Donald Trumps and Robert Maxwells of this world whose debts spectacularly exceed their assets. Intervention on behalf of debtors has generally been lobbied for by large businesses with large debts. In modern corporations, the effect of ever-tightening bankruptcy laws has been to hobble the creditor-bondholders for the benefit of the stockholders and the existing managers, who are usually installed by, and allied with, a few dominant large stockholders. The very fact that a corporation is insolvent demonstrates that its managers have been inefficient, and they should be removed promptly from the scene. Bankruptcy laws that keep prolonging the rule of existing managers, then, not only invade the property rights of the creditors; they also injure the consumers and the entire economic system by preventing the market from purging the inefficient and improvident managers and stockholders and from shifting the ownership of industrial assets to the more efficient creditors. Not only that; in a recent law review article, Bradley and Rosenzweig have shown that the stockholders, too, as well as the creditors, have lost a significant amount of assets due to the installation of Chapter 11 in 1978. As they write, "if bondholders and stockholders are both losers under Chapter 11, then who are the winners?" The winners, remarkably but unsurprisingly, turn out to be the existing, inefficient corporate managers, as well as the assorted lawyers, accountants, and financial advisers who earn huge fees from bankruptcy reorganizations.
In a free-market economy that respects property rights, the volume of private debt is self-policed by the necessity to repay the creditor, since no Papa Government is letting you off the hook. In addition, the interest rate a debtor must pay depends not only on the general rate of time preference but on the degree of risk he as a debtor poses to the creditor. A good credit risk will be a "prime borrower," who will pay relatively low interest; on the other hand, an improvident person or a transient who has been bankrupt before, will have to pay a much higher interest rate, commensurate with the degree of risk on the loan.
Most people, unfortunately, apply the same analysis to public debt as they do to private. If sanctity of contracts should rule in the world of private debt, shouldn't they be equally as sacrosanct in public debt? Shouldn't public debt be governed by the same principles as private? The answer is no, even though such an answer may shock the sensibilities of most people. The reason is that the two forms of debt-transaction are totally different. If I borrow money from a mortgage bank, I have made a contract to transfer my money to a creditor at a future date; in a deep sense, he is the true owner of the money at that point, and if I don't pay I am robbing him of his just property. But when government borrows money, it does not pledge its own money; its own resources are not liable. Government commits not its own life, fortune, and sacred honor to repay the debt, but ours. This is a horse, and a transaction, of a very different color.
For unlike the rest of us, government sells no productive good or service and therefore earns nothing. It can only get money by looting our resources through taxes, or through the hidden tax of legalized counterfeiting known as "inflation." There are some exceptions, of course, such as when the government sells stamps to collectors or carries our mail with gross inefficiency, but the overwhelming bulk of government revenues is acquired through taxation or its monetary equivalent. Actually, in the days of monarchy, and especially in the medieval period before the rise of the modern state, kings got the bulk of their income from their private estates-such as forests and agricultural lands. Their debt, in other words, was more private than public, and as a result, their debt amounted to next to nothing compared to the public debt that began with a flourish in the late 17th century.
The public debt transaction, then, is very different from private debt. Instead of a low-time preference creditor exchanging money for an IOU from a high-time preference debtor, the government now receives money from creditors, both parties realizing that the money will be paid back not out of the pockets or the hides of the politicians and bureaucrats, but out of the looted wallets and purses of the hapless taxpayers, the subjects of the state. The government gets the money by tax-coercion; and the public creditors, far from being innocents, know full well that their proceeds will come out of that selfsame coercion. In short, public creditors are willing to hand over money to the government now in order to receive a share of tax loot in the future. This is the opposite of a free market, or a genuinely voluntary transaction. Both parties are immorally contracting to participate in the violation of the property rights of citizens in the future. Both parties, therefore, are making agreements about other people's property, and both deserve the back of our hand. The public credit transaction is not a genuine contract that need be considered sacrosanct, any more than robbers parceling out their shares of loot in advance should be treated as some sort of sanctified contract.
Any melding of public debt into a private transaction must rest on the common but absurd notion that taxation is really "voluntary," and that whenever the government does anything, "we" are willingly doing it. This convenient myth was wittily and trenchantly disposed of by the great economist Joseph Schumpeter: "The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchases of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind." Morality and economic utility generally go hand in hand. Contrary to Alexander Hamilton, who spoke for a small but powerful clique of New York and Philadelphia public creditors, the national debt is not a "national blessing." The annual government deficit, plus the annual interest payment that keeps rising as the total debt accumulates, increasingly channels scarce and precious private savings into wasteful government boondoggles, which "crowd out" productive investments. Establishment economists, including Reaganomists, cleverly fudge the issue by arbitrarily labeling virtually all government spending as "investments," making it sound as if everything is fine and dandy because savings are being productively "invested." In reality, however, government spending only qualifies as "investment" in an Orwellian sense; government actually spends on behalf of the "consumer goods" and desires of bureaucrats, politicians, and their dependent client groups. Government spending, therefore, rather than being "investment," is consumer spending of a peculiarly wasteful and unproductive sort, since it is indulged not by producers but by a parasitic class that is living off, and increasingly weakening, the productive private sector. Thus, we see that statistics are not in the least "scientific" or "valuefree"; how data are classified-whether, for example, government spending is "consumption" or "investment"-depends upon the political philosophy and insights of the classifier.
Deficits and a mounting debt, therefore, are a growing and intolerable burden on the society and economy, both because they raise the tax burden and increasingly drain resources from the productive to the parasitic, counterproductive, "public" sector. Moreover, whenever deficits are financed by expanding bank credit-in other words, by creating new money-matters become still worse, since credit inflation creates permanent and rising price inflation as well as waves of boombust "business cycles."
It is for all these reasons that the Jeffersonians and Jacksonians (who, contrary to the myths of historians, were extraordinarily knowledgeable in economic and monetary theory) hated and reviled the public debt. Indeed, the national debt was paid off twice in American history, the first time by Thomas Jefferson and the second, and undoubtedly the last time, by Andrew Jackson.
Unfortunately, paying off a national debt that will soon reach $4 trillion would quickly bankrupt the entire country. Think about the consequences of imposing new taxes of $4 trillion in the United States next year! Another way, and almost as devastating, a way to pay off the public debt would be to print $4 trillion of new money-either in paper dollars or by creating new bank credit. This method would be extraordinarily inflationary, and prices would quickly skyrocket, ruining all groups whose earnings did not increase to the same extent, and destroying the value of the dollar. But in essence this is what happens in countries that hyper-inflate, as Germany did in 1923, and in countless countries since, particularly the Third World. If a country inflates the currency to pay off its debt, prices will rise so that the dollars or marks or pesos the creditor receives are worth a lot less than the dollars or pesos they originally lent out. When an American purchased a 10,000 mark German bond in 1914, it was worth several thousand dollars; those 10,000 marks by late 1923 would not have been worth more than a stick of bubble gum. Inflation, then, is an underhanded and terribly destructive way of indirectly repudiating the "public debt"; destructive because it ruins the currency unit, which individuals and businesses depend upon for calculating all their economic decisions.
I propose, then, a seemingly drastic but actually far less destructive way of paying off the public debt at a single blow: out-right debt repudiation. Consider this question: why should the poor, battered citizens of Russia or Poland or the other ex-Communist countries be bound by the debts contracted by their former Communist masters? In the Communist situation, the injustice is clear: that citizens struggling for freedom and for a free-market economy should be taxed to pay for debts contracted by the monstrous former ruling class. But this injustice only differs by degree from "normal" public debt. For, conversely, why should the Communist government of the Soviet Union have been bound by debts contracted by the Czarist government they hated and overthrew? And why should we, struggling American citizens of today, be bound by debts created by a past ruling elite who contracted these debts at our expense? One of the cogent arguments against paying blacks "reparations" for past slavery is that we, the living, were not slaveholders. Similarly, we the living did not contract for either the past or the present debts incurred by the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington.
Although largely forgotten by historians and by the public, repudiation of public debt is a solid part of the American tradition. The first wave of repudiation of state debt came during the 1840's, after the panics of 1837 and 1839. Those panics were the consequence of a massive inflationary boom fueled by the Whig-run Second Bank of the United States. Riding the wave of inflationary credit, numerous state governments, largely those run by the Whigs, floated an enormous amount of debt, most of which went into wasteful public works (euphemistically called "internal improvements"), and into the creation of inflationary banks. Outstanding public debt by state governments rose from $26 million to $170 million during the decade of the 1830's. Most of these securities were financed by British and Dutch investors.
During the deflationary 1840's succeeding the panics, state governments faced repayment of their debt in dollars that were now more valuable than the ones they had borrowed. Many states, now largely in Democratic hands, met the crisis by repudiating these debts, either totally or partially by scaling down the amount in "readjustments." Specifically, of the 28 American states in the 1840's, nine were in the glorious position of having no public debt, and one (Missouri's) was negligible; of the 18 remaining, nine paid the interest on their public debt without interruption, while another nine (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida) repudiated part or all of their liabilities. Of these states, four defaulted for several years in their interest payments, whereas the other five (Michigan, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida) totally and permanently repudiated their entire outstanding public debt. As in every debt repudiation, the result was to lift a great burden from the backs of the taxpayers in the defaulting and repudiating states.
Apart from the moral, or sanctity-of-contract argument against repudiation that we have already discussed, the standard economic argument is that such repudiation is disastrous, because who, in his right mind, would lend again to a repudiating government? But the effective counterargument has rarely been considered: why should more private capital be poured down government rat holes? It is precisely the drying up of future public credit that constitutes one of the main arguments for repudiation, for it means beneficially drying up a major channel for the wasteful destruction of the savings of the public. What we want is abundant savings and investment in private enterprises, and a lean, austere, low-budget, minimal government. The people and the economy can only wax fat and prosperous when their government is starved and puny.
The next great wave of state debt repudiation came in the South after the blight of Northern occupation and Reconstruction had been lifted from them. Eight Southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia) proceeded, during the late 1870's and early 1880's under Democratic regimes, to repudiate the debt foisted upon their taxpayers by the corrupt and wasteful carpetbag Radical Republican governments under Reconstruction.
So what can be done now? The current federal debt is $3.5 trillion. Approximately $1.4 trillion, or 40 percent, is owned by one or another agency of the federal government. It is ridiculous for a citizen to be taxed by one arm of the federal government (the IRS), to pay interest and principal on debt owned by another agency of the federal government. It would save the taxpayer a great deal of money, and spare savings from further waste, to simply cancel that debt outright. The alleged debt is simply an accounting fiction that provides a mask over reality and furnishes a convenient means for mulcting the taxpayer. Thus, most people think that the Social Security Administration takes their premiums and accumulates it, perhaps by sound investment, and then "pays back" the "insured" citizen when he turns 65. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no insurance and there is no "fund," as there indeed must be in any system of private insurance. The federal government simply takes the Social Security "premiums" (taxes) of the young person, spends them in the general expenditures of the Treasury, and then, when the person turns 65, taxes someone else to pay the "insurance benefit." Social Security, perhaps the most revered institution in the American polity, is also the greatest single racket. It's simply a giant Ponzi scheme controlled by the federal government. But this reality is masked by the Social Security Administration's purchase of government bonds, the Treasury then spending these funds on whatever it wishes. But the fact that the SSA has government bonds in its portfolio, and collects interest and payment from the American taxpayer, allows it to masquerade as a legitimate insurance business.
Canceling federal agency-held bonds, then, reduces the federal debt by 40 percent. I would advocate going on to repudiate the entire debt outright, and let the chips fall where they may. The glorious result would be an immediate drop of $200 billion in federal expenditures, with at least the fighting chance of an equivalent cut in taxes.
But if this scheme is considered too Draconian, why not treat the federal government as any private bankrupt is treated (forgetting about Chapter 11)? The government is an organization, so why not liquidate the assets of that organization and pay the creditors (the government bondholders) a pro-rata share of those assets? This solution would cost the taxpayer nothing, and, once again, relieve him of $200 billion in annual interest payments. The United States government should be forced to disgorge its assets, sell them at auction, and then pay off the creditors accordingly. What government assets? There are a great deal of assets, from TVA to the national lands to various structures such as the Post Office. The massive CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia, should raise a pretty penny for enough condominium housing for the entire work force inside the Beltway. Perhaps we could eject the United Nations from the United States, reclaim the land and buildings, and sell them for luxury housing for the East Side gliterati. Another serendipity out of this process would be a massive privatization of the socialized land of the Western United States and of the rest of America as well. A strategy that repudiates and privatizes will go a long way to reducing the tax burden, establishing fiscal soundness, and desocializing the United States.
In order to go this route, however, we first have to rid ourselves of the fallacious mindset that conflates public and private, and that treats government debt as if it were a productive contract between two legitimate property owners.