***Entry 140***
Thursday, October 31, 2002
07:51 a.m.
Coming soon: West Wing Review and archiving this page...but I have to go to class + that all takes too much time...so...here's some interesting google searches that lead peeps to this page.

From someone in a French speaking European Country: Usual Suspect Zoe. Hmmm...

Rupert Murdoch and Deliberative Democracy. Wow. Someone searching for something intellectual! Go here to see what they wanted to read about. Wow!

***Entry 139***
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
11:43 a.m.
ChuckO's criticism of my criticism of consensus process in his most recent post is not going to be subjected to any criticism here. I have to thank him for linking to The Collective Book on Collective Process which I only wish I had access to earlier in the process of writing "A Critique of Consensus Process."

Here's the deal: I knew that when I began "A Critique of Consensus Process" I wouldn't have many allies. There are many people who believe that it is the most democratic and most participatory system developed. I'm not one of them; but I understand why people chose to throw support behind consensus. Given a binary of representative democracy or consensus process; consensus process seems to be better. But, I'm not supporting representative democracy either; I'm revoking that binary.

I'm either doing two things in this week's blog: showing that I understand finally both the implications of my large-scale project on consensus process or showing that my study of democratic political thought has been seriously advantageous. Maybe both, if I want to avoid producing a binary, myself. What I haven't done is posted my entire "A Critique of Consensus Process" which makes it far easier to subject my criticism of consensus process to criticism. I haven't backed up all my claims on the blog with substatiated research. I haven't mentioned in depth my "Democratic Conclusions." And because I haven't done those things; I've opened myself up to criticism. Fair enough.

Promises: [and I nearly *always* live up to my promises, see below] Before the end of 2002, I will post my "A Critique of Consensus Process" online. I will put up one of those little comment sections and I will encourage everyone to participate in a discourse on the critique itself and the applicability of my proposal. I can't do it now, because as I mentioned in one of the first entries of this "week" I'm still rewriting it. And in many ways, just by blogging out my ideas--and receiving criticism--is helping this project along.

So, thanks. Sort of.

***Entry 138***
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
11:25 a.m.
Today my blog undergoes a new transformation: the inclusion of some one outside of the DC metro region in *My Arbitrary Associates blogroll. Welcome Rabble whose blog includes far more profound analysis of the indymedia concept than mine--largely because he understands the actual techie stuff. We have some theoretical disagreements, for sure, but an entry on "Accidental Homonormativity" nullifies any criticism I would have at the current time.

***Entry 138***
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
11:02 a.m.
Stupidity breeds stupidity. This is "proven" in this recent post found @ the DC IMC. Someone posting as "Freeper" presumably a moronic fan of those fools who bring out a few dozen "counter protesters" to every major action.

It's clear that the Freepers and their like are targeting the DC IMC just to get "leftists" to get "all riled up 'bout" nonsense. "Occupant's" comment is the only one with even a *nominal* value:

Someone died, and you call her a cunt. Your fucked up. I hope your mother is proud. The rest of you all, I don't think we want to sit around all day and call lefties stupid, cause you know what. All sorts of people do all sorts of stupid things. Its true.

***Entry 137***
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
06:15 p.m.
Returning to ***Entry 135*** as promised. Dan Spalding writes an accurate account of patriarchy in the anti-corporate globalization movement. However, like many people with misguided perceptions of what "participatory democracy" should look like, he makes some glaringly inaccurate suggestions for improvements.

First, he states exactly who he is criticising: Just to be clear, those men are almost always white and from middle-class or wealthier backgrounds. In my experience, as someone who identifies as a man of color, men of color dominate meetings in basically the exact same way.
I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. In fact, since there are so few "men of color" in the anti-corporate globalization movement in DC, the white middle-class boys are often the largest problem.

Spalding states: These meetings tend to wander a lot. Responsibility is not clearly delegated, decisions aren't made overtly, and the organization isn't more focused afterwards than before. At the same time, there’s heated arguments over seemingly trivial things, or hurtful criticism of individuals. But those arguments and criticisms don’t amount to too much in the end.
This is not really an attack on patriarchy, but an attack on the lack of community building present in most meetings.

With good self-facilitation and a good facilitator (or two, or three...), everyone contributes to the meeting, without anyone taking control over it.
The only good facilitator, as I argue in Chapter 3 of "A Critique of Consensus Process," is an outsider who is not a member of the group...and therefore, not effected by the decisions made.

If you're serious about using consensus, you have to care about meetings. That's the only place a group can democratically decide what to do and how to do it.
The vomit factor is high on this one. First, if you are serious about using consensus, you are not serious about participatory democracy. And, since you have to go to *so* many meetings, you are probably not serious about *anything* else.

Consensus decision making is a model of the society we want to live in, and a tool we use to get there. Men often dominate consensus at the expense of everyone else.
Vomit alert! I don't want to live in a society that uses consensus--unanimity--as the basis for decision-making. For, the best reasons why I object, wait until I publish "A Critique of Consensus Process" here later this year. For now, read Jane Mansbridge's Beyond Adversary Democracy At any rate, he is right: men dominate consensus process, but that is only one problem.

After listing some problem behaviors--that shed some light on the problems of consensus process, itself, Spalding writes notes his solution to men who dominate. It's simple, yet poignant.Shut the fuck up. It’s a radical process, but I think you’ll like it. Good idea, boys...why don't you take him up on his suggestion.

Spalding doesn't stop there, although he probably could and the essay would be just as effective. He then goes on to explain more problems--especially language, using the choice phrase, "within the confines of this narrative," as an example. Fun!

He admits that his essay is based on Jo Freeman's ever-useful essay "The Tyranny of Structurelessness", which has been cited twice in this week's blog.

It's not surprising that this posting has gotten many responses from DC IMC readers. It's also not surprising that many of them are negative. It's a simple explanation to why consensus process doesn't work: even with completely open participation--anyone can "speak" in the comments section--some voices are still silenced by those that refuse to hear them. Another reason why Iris Marion Young is my academic hero.

***Entry 136***
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
06:07 p.m.
Following Joanne's lead (again). I've completed the googlism for myself. Here's the results:

Googlism for: zoe mitchell
zoe mitchell is majoring in political science and minoring in women
zoe mitchell is an active member of the dc independent media center
zoe mitchell is expected to once again provide koll's stiffest challenge
zoe mitchell is = coordinating this paper and has put together a production plan that you = can receive by contacting her directly
zoe mitchell is a reporter with the dc independent media center
Wow. Almost all of this comes from the Zoe's Diary site which hasn't been updated in forever. I have no idea who "koll" is and I have no idea how I am anyone's "stiffest challenge."

Oh...Jo...I'm an ENFP.

***Entry 135***
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
02:54 p.m.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to comment to this piece on patriarchy in the anti-corporate globalization movement. I have to go to work. However, I *promise* that I will get back to it soon. Wow. Wow. Wow.

***Entry 133***
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
02:29 p.m.
Okay. My last entry was still cynical. Here's something *super* humorous from the google search scene. I just was hit with "Charles+Moose+Merch". Hmm...I wonder if I could make money off some Montgomery County Police Chief Worship T-shirts considering this site is number 1? Positive thinking? Maybe.

***Entry 132***
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
02:20 p.m.
Nominal compare and contrast time...now...that I'm feeling less terrible...Joanne discusses the Moscow seige by linking to a whole slew of negative articles. On the other hand, Reuters Jonathan Thatcher claims this: Russian President Vladimir Putin's tough line on ending the Moscow theatre siege has boosted his already high standing, at least for the moment.. It's funny how that whole "war on terrorism" thing can do wonders for a politicians ratings. Aha! I laugh. Life is good! Hmm...

***Entry 131***
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
01:20 p.m.
A random list of vomit-inducing, non-political things, I have seen today.
1. Here's a stupid Post-story about the "death of the cassette." Please. The only thing important about this article is this statement: So-called Generation X, the people born between 1964 and 1981, who don't get credited for much in history, can at least take solace in the fact that they saw the entire lifespan of the cassette. Returning to my earlier entry about "my generation" being utterly depressing and sad, this cassette analogy somehow says it all. Vomit once for the sorrow of being in a worthless generation.

2. Whine away lousy commuters. I laugh at you daily when I commute from DC to Southern Maryland. My commute is 1:30. Yours is significantly longer. I don't feel your pain. I find humor in it--but only because it is one of the few ways that I can feel *nominally* superior these days. Vomit twice for the stupid commuters and their stupid stories.

3. Now I certainly feel the pain of unemployment although I'm considered "employed." Questions from the unemployed: "Who am I? How will I spend the rest of my life? How long can I support myself without a paycheck?" Temping answers: You are nothing. Your life will be meaningless. You won't be able to support yourself. Delving into nihilism makes me sick. Vomit three times in disgust with me.

4. And if you can even get an interview with a job, expect to deal with this crap. "One interviewer made me wait two hours," says Karen. "By then I was angry, hungry and tired and didn't care whether they liked me or not. The interviewer never even apologized." Should I cry? No. Instead, I'll vomit four times in disgust with the whole process.

I'm going to stop vomiting now...All of these links came from the "reputable" Style section of the Washington Post. I don't know what is worse with these stories: that they exist or that their content is so shallow, yet so depressing. Does anyone have anything positive to say these days? My disillusionment continues.

***Entry 130***
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
07:41 a.m.
I've gotten to the point where I don't think anyone "has it good." I've been thinking a lot about my generation, job prospects and the denial of "The American Dream" to pretty much everyone between 20-30. Let's face it, we're screwed. I read other weblogs, like ChuckO's and I see that even talented people can't make it in this world. I look for jobs and I don't find any that I want to waste my time at. And I can't get my act together to have some spare time to work on grad school applications. [It's blogging, man. I'm addicted. If I didn't blog, I'd be able to write out an abstract of "A Critique of Consensus Process" for Berkeley. Ha...I wish this excuse worked.] I'd like to write more about this...and eventually...I will, but I have to go to class and talk about Burke. How worthless when I don't know how I'm going to eat this weekend.

Perhaps, the only thing less worthwhile in my life right now is the wretched Post-endorsement of "Tony the Rat" for mayor. By Thursday, expect my own list of endorsements for candidates in DC. For now, at least try to have a happy day.

***Entry 129***
Monday, October 28, 2002
06:39 p.m.
Someday soon, I'll get back to political commentary...But for now...The 942 "group house" project @ Art O Matic is mostly finished. Joanne posted all the essentials about the Halloween festivities on her site...so there's no point in me attempting to wax poetic right now.

Instead, I can just jump right into bitchy, sad Zoe mode. I'm broke. I'm overwhelmed by everything I have to do. I don't know what I'm doing with my life. I don't know if I'll ever know. I'm sick of the lack of stability in my world and I don't even have it as bad as my housemate Marisa.

I know things suck because even The Go Girl Guide is insufficient. Arr...

***Entry 128***
Monday, October 28, 2002
11:53 a.m.
Sam Smith's glorious website Progressive Review has reprinted (most of) my essay on Wellstone from the DC IMC. It's in the top portion of the "Undernews" section, if you want to check it out. Thanks Sam.

***Entry 127***
Monday, October 28, 2002
11:37 a.m.
Show your support for Statehood!

Since Adam Eidinger launched his campaign last April, the DC Statehood Now! flag has made appearances all over the city--in parades, over bridges and on embankments. We want it to make one more appearance before Election Day and we need your help!

Please join the Adam 4 Shadow campaign and the DC Statehood Green Party for an "election eve" parade throughout neighborhoods and commercial areas in the city. We need you to march with us, carrying the DC Statehood Now! flag with pride while chanting/singing/dancing for statehood. We need you to show the local voters that they can choose stagnant politicians from the Democratic or Republican parties or candidates from the DC Statehood Green Party, people who really care about democracy in the District.

Where: March begins at Park Road and Mt. Pleasant Street NW
When: 7:00pm on November 4

We then will march through the neighborhoods leafleting along the way and ending down at the DC Statehood Green Party office on 18th Street. From that spot people can pick up their polling supplies for the next day and last minute volunteers can get plugged in. (If you have yet to sign up to work a polling station, call 202-296-1301 and ask for Alex.)

If you have any questions about the parade, please call me at 202-253-2990.

We can win with your help!

***Entry 126***
Saturday, October 26, 2002
10:39 p.m.
To be honest, I'm far more touched by this story about the final sniper victim, a local bus driver than I am by the "little socialist rally" that took place at the White House today.

***Entry 125***
Saturday, October 26, 2002
03:55 p.m.
It looks as if the "big" anti-war rally (read: "little socialist rally") is having some problems with attendance. Or perhaps, it's just that no one can accurately report numbers.

Or perhaps, it's that everything in the anti-corporate globalization movement, from the false sense of solidarity between completely disparate ideological perspectives to the misinterpretation of participatory democracy, is collapsing. I don't know what is worse.

***Entry 124***
Saturday, October 26, 2002
02:58 p.m.
Well...my plea that the left not engage in worthless conspiracy theories related to the saddening death of Senator Paul Wellstone was ignored. This story, reposted from a Portland IMC feature is so thick with the conspiracies, that calling it "commentary" seems to be giving it too much legitimacy. The Portland IMC feature writers at least suggest that conspiracy theories are untrustworthy (calling it speculation); however, they end with a typical half-hearted "critique" of the corporate media. So far, corporate media has not raised the possibility of assassination and is pointing to bad weather conditions as the cause of the crash.

Over at the DC IMC, there is a laughable piece about the relationship between the World Series and the deaths of politicians, such as Wellstone. The author, "synchrondeity," claims with all seriousness: Years when the both teams in the World Series happen to be from the same states plane crashes tend to happen. And for some reason Saint Louis is usually involved. Hmmm...I was born in a suburb of St. Louis, what does it mean??? ha ha ha...

I have a problem with conspiracy theories because they often link so many disconnected events/ideas/etc together that there is no coherent argument. I also have a problem with the endless use of the word "critique" as if it legitimates conspiracy theories or unsubstantiated attacks on individuals/ideas/etc. *sigh* I struggle alone.

***Entry 123***
Saturday, October 26, 2002
02:10 p.m.
I'm wrapping up my beach experience early tomorrow morning and heading back to the city. It's been nice to get a break from the chaotic city life, however, I beginning to really miss all my great friends and housemates.

Spending all this time in Southern Maryland has caused me to be much more introspective than normal and I'm not sure that is a good thing. Since I'm an extrovert, I'm used to having many people around me at once. I'm used to conversations that quickly dash back and forth between various subjects (a la a seriously distorted Seinfeld episode starring Josh, Jill and myself).

Although I've tried to allow myself to relax by just sitting on the beach, I've been unsuccessful. I've taken up time contributing to DC IMC posts, I usually ignore; writing long detailed process emails on the DC IMC editorial list and the underread DC IMC discuss list. I've read the Soviet realist...err propaganda...err endless crap Cement and the really excellent pro-woman/anti-war Three Guineas by Virginia Woolf.

So, I found things to occupy my time, but I will be happy to return home to the city.

***Entry 122***
Friday, October 25, 2002
06:57 p.m.
I've expanded ***Entry 121*** into a Zoe's Diary piece for the DC IMC. You can read the new version, "Another Sad Day" here.

***Entry 121***
Friday, October 25, 2002
01:57 p.m.
I just received news that Senator Paul Wellstone has died in a plane crash today. This is truly tragic.

In many ways my disillusionment with the American political system began in 1999 when Wellstone dropped out of the 2000 Presidential race. I went to work for Bill Bradley, largely because Wellstone endorsed him. In one of the proudest moments of my life in Democratic politics, I got my picture taken with Wellstone. He was really nice.

I am tormented now that he will never get the chance to run again. Wellstone was one of the only members of Congress that I liked and trusted. Everytime I saw him speak I thought about how nice it would be to have him be the President; but now he won't be. This is a sad day for the US.

I'm sure the conspiracy theorists from the left will have a field day over this one...but they will prove to be irrelevant, as the almost always are. For now though, I pay my respects to a really good politician.

***Entry 120***
Friday, October 25, 2002
01:40 p.m.
Sam Smith of Progressive Review has written this solid and intelligent analysis of the American Left. There's a conversation on DC IMC editorial list about whether it should become part of the notorious ANSWER feature. I said yes.
And for *even more* proof that the left can't get over itself on the DC IMC, there's this ridiculous piece by yet another ANSWER apologist. I guess all this crap will end after tomorrow worthless protest.

***Entry 119***
Friday, October 25, 2002
12:49 p.m.
If I used "movable type" instead of pitas, I would file this under: "The joy of running errands in post-sniper suburbia." What follows is a list of the various little errands I ran today.
1. I Went to my ATM. I didn't go to the drive through ATM, which I had been using I went to the walk up ATM. It's closer to my school and easier to use.
2. I got gas. Apparently, so did everyone else. The cheap Sheetz gas stations were all packed with people standing proudly beside their cars. It was certainly a nice change of pace from the duck behind your car scenario during the whole sniper bit.
3. I got contacts. I've been wearing the same pair for over 3 weeks. I didn't want to have to walk the long distance between the parking lot and the store so I suffered. Now, I have 3 happy new pairs. My eyes are very thankful.
*Important things to note: I'm not one of those people who believes that since the snipers have been caught, I'm safe from a potential threat. I don't believe the suburbs, or anywhere else, are safe from "everyday violence," but I am breathing a little easier knowing that the *known* threat (the sniper) is currently in jail.

***Entry 118***
Friday, October 25, 2002
12:26 p.m.
The problem of transparency and hierarchy in the DC IMC has returned. Earlier today Clarissa moved a discussion on this issue to the DC IMC discuss list. You can read her original post here. Of course, I've written a response...and since it is relevant to this entire blog project, I'm reposting it, in its entirety here.

It's funny how this debate comes in cycles. We discuss transparency and hierarchy, and come to no profound, long-lasting solutions until we are bored with it...and then we move on "to more pressing issues." And yet, it returns...again...and again. Maybe it has something to do with the seasons.

We've had a lot of interesting debate on the editorial list the last couple of days about the ANSWER feature...and that debate has lead to a reevaluation of the process itself. Perhaps, given this crisis, we should begin to look at the process for the entire DC IMC again.

I believe that hierarchies develop because some people step up to complete some task and then are considered authorities on that task. We challenge these hierarchies occasionally, but then avoid them because the issue itself is *super* contentious. Last time around, Derek brought up Jo Freeman's essay "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" which remains the most useful text related to this issue. Particularly relevant are the solutions she listed. I urge everyone to read this text before coming to some overarching conclusions as to where we will go next.

I admit that I haven't read all of the background of this current issue. Perhaps, that is because some of the conversations have been in the notorious "cc" lists, which are not publically archived, but I don't really know. I've read Clarissa's critique of the process and see similarities between it and between previous conflicts. And since that is all that is posted onto this "discuss" list--that is all that anyone on this list has to create a response to the current issue.

We need to seriously look at the "structure" of the DC IMC--even if that structure isn't formalized entirely. We need to look at the underlying problem: is it really just a crisis of everything not being out in the open...or is it even deeper than that?

Personally--and many of you can guess what is coming next--I see it as a problem related to consensus process, which is filled with all kinds of tyrannical elements and does not always represent the ideal of a participatory democratic process. I know that I'm not likely to find many supporters here, but I suggest we look at other methods of decision-making that hold onto the participatory elements that consensus process intends to have, but does not end with the final result of unanimous decision making. In other words, I'm suggesting that we continue having solid discussions--online, at meetings, etc.--but that we do not attempt to reach unanimity and instead follow something that resembles majority rule.

Why will this help with transparency and hierarchy? For one, in the case there is a minority perspective, they more vocal in opposition to the majority perspective and more willing to make sure that once a decision is made, the majority is held accountable. For instance, if the DC IMC as a collective body decides to give decision-making authority re: computers to a certain group of people, those that oppose giving this authority to this group will be more likely to make sure that the selected individuals are following the group's guidelines and not giving themselves more power. Additionally, their opposition will be documented in an actual vote tally in the minutes of the group--rather than the vague and inconclusive "one member stood aside" that seems to be the current method of recording a lack of unanimity.

These are just my current ideas. I'm working currently on formulating a more comprehensive analysis of how to move a group from consensus process to a more open, more inclusive, more dynamic majority-rule esque process. I promise to present this evaluation online--likely in my blog--once it is finished in the next couple of weeks.

***Entry 117***
Thursday, October 24, 2002
09:11 p.m.
Wow. I'm a shocked and elated Zoe! My little ***Entry 116*** on my feelings lead to this *super* flattering post from ChuckO. In the spirit of cross-blogging, I'd like to thank you, ChuckO; not only for recognizing my contributions so eloquently, but for the work you do. Infoshop is one of the most multifacited and useful sources of information on the internet and your blog is quickly gaining praise from me and Joanne.

I think what this experience shows is, like I've said before, that every once in a while, it is a good idea to show some appreciation for the contributions of your peers. Otherwise, they get disillusioned, bitter and reactionary. The link directly above goes to a piece called "Fostering a Sense of Community and Respect" and is in relation to the DC IMC meeting that actually led to my "Critique of Consensus Process" paper. What I should note, is that the Community I was striving for in that piece is not the all encompassing community of left-leaning activists. I agree fully with ChuckO, that we are not "all in this together" as I personally don't believe solidarity can extend to those I have serious philosophical disagreements with, such as "International ANSWER" and various other dogmatic socialist/communist groups.

***Entry 116***
Thursday, October 24, 2002
07:43 p.m.
Earlier today, I was irritated. I was upset because I put *so* much energy and effort into almost every project I attach my name to, only to be criticized, dismissed, or ignored. I rarely get blatantly positive feedback for the work I do and honestly, sometimes I'd really like it. Then again, if I search hard enough, I see that some of the projects I affiliate myself with are improved by my contributions. I may not always get the credit I desire, but I influence the projects and change the course of events ever so slightly. Perhaps, I'm just beginning to understand Foucault's whole "death of the author" theory....But here are some examples of what I'm talking about.

1. Adam Eidinger's campaign. A couple of days ago, I emailed Adam with an idea to have a final statehood march before election day. He liked the idea...and according to his email, "There has been a great response" to this plan. I did this. I am proud. And speaking of Adam, here's another story about Adam's candidacy from the Post.

2. The DC IMC. Out of everything I have been involved with in DC, I have suffered the most emotionally through my involvement with this group. My whole "Critique of Consensus Process" project originated because of my irritation with the organizing process in the DC IMC. As it has evolved into a paper on democratic political theory, I had forgotten why I began writing it. At first, it was to influence the DC IMC (and to get credit...) but it has become this overwhelming project that I am truly struggling with. But its original importance was recaptured today, as you can read here at the bottom of the Oct. archives of the DC IMC editorial list.
The Editorial working group of the DC IMC has been struggling with how to react to the implicitly ANSWER-driven criticism of the DC IMC's impending coverage of their "little socialist rally" this Saturday. There was endless discussion and unanimity--the goal of consensus process--was never achieved. But, instead of defaulting to a manipulation of those that disagreed (including myself) or doing nothing, the group decided to go with the majority opinion. (The classic problem addressed most readily by Jane Mansbridge in Beyond Adversary Democracy.) That is, the DC IMC editorial working group rejected consensus process in favor of majority rule. I'd like to believe my little anti-consensus process asides influenced this, but regardless, it happened and I feel great about it.

3. Earlier today, I was wondering about my ability to really be a democratic political theorist. Look at the paragraph above, I think I proved my ability to myself. I can go on with my life as intended. :)

***Entry 115***
Thursday, October 24, 2002
02:07 p.m.
A lot of people are still coming to this site from the DC IMC looking for the "International ANSWER" evaluations. I archived my site this afternoon, but you can read what I wrote here.

***Entry 114***
Thursday, October 24, 2002
01:32 p.m.
Obviously, I'm not feeling very positive today. I got the chapter 1 rewrite back today...there are still sections I need to rewrite *again*...particularly the section about Fishkin's deliberative opinion polls. Not only can I not just dismiss him as an elitist--which was the problem from the first draft--but I also apparently misread him. Great. I have to start over on that whole section. And I won't even get into the problems with Barber.
What I'm really concerned about is that maybe I'm not cut out to be a democratic political theorist. I have the motivation, but I'm not sure that I have the ability to really grasp it enough to make it. Maybe I should concentrate on media criticism, which I am just as interested in...*sigh.*
Today in my 10am Women in Modern Western History class we spent nearly the entire time talking about the media, the police and the sniper. I spent all last week writing about it, so it was easy for me to contribute to the discussion. However, my professor then made a comment about the difference between journalists and historians. Journalists, she noted, can quickly analyze a whole slew of information and come to a conclusion; however, the conclusion isn't that profound. Historians, she noted, have a difficulty coming to a conclusion, but at the end make some profound observations.
What's my point? Clearly, I fall into the journalist category. I even admitted that in class. In fact, my personality type is considered common for journalists.
What does that mean? Maybe I'm headed toward the wrong field? Maybe I need to think things over more? Maybe I need to take more time to delve into Fishkin and Barber to prove all this wrong? Or maybe...heading towards the irrelevant...I just need to eat lunch and go to work.

***Entry 113***
Thursday, October 24, 2002
01:20 p.m.
*sigh* Can we really call all this progress?
1. The sniper presumably, was caught. Many misguided Washingtonians believe they are safe again.
2. My original comment re: this weekend's "anti-war" rally was misinterpreted and I've tried *in vain* to enlighten the DC IMC readers.
My answer is a sound "no."