Newsweek, a popular weekly news magazine that I consider the mildly liberal counterpart to the mildly conservative US News & Weekly Report, runs an article this week called Fiction and the Tax Cut, in which the author calls the recently passed tax cut "the most wealth-oriented tax bill in history". Of course, by "wealth-oriented", she means to say that those who pay, by far, a larger percentage of their wealth than anyone else, is getting the biggest break if you count it by dollars. What she isn't telling you, though, is that they are getting the smallest break if you count it by percentage of income.

(Before I issue my opinion, keep in mind that I consider myself one of the "poor" people here, since I make even less money than the moneyless group the author of the Newsweek article writes about. Keep in mind also that, as one of those poor people who is not getting any "help" from the Bush tax cut, I fully support it. Finally, keep in mind that this is because I firmly believe in the idea of people helping themselves, and I do not believe I have earned a tax cut simply because I don't pay any income taxes! (That is, to this point, I have always received a rebate of everything I had paid for various reasons, but mostly this one: I'm poor!)

Too many people are easily persuaded that the rich people are getting more than they deserve if the poor people aren't getting more than the rich. What that group does not realize is that the rich (the "rich" individuals or married couples who make $90,000 or more per year -- that is, $90,000 total between the two) already pay around 90% of the total federal income taxes in the US. This means, inevitably, that any tax cut will necessarily cut their taxes by more dollars then people making less, simply because people making less don't pay as much in federal income taxes.

For my final thought, a separate but related idea:

In an article titled Be Careful What You Wish For, referring to the Bush tax cut, at TomPaine.com (web site for a public interest journal), the author poses an interesting suggestion: "the Bush administration decisively has assumed responsibility for the performance of the economy. If it comes roaring back, great. But if it doesn't, they will be seriously vulnerable."

Now consider this: If every liberal and "moderate" news organization in America believes that the Bush administration will suffer dire consequences if the economy goes bad between now and November 2004, then what are the chances that zero Democrat politicians are thinking the same thing? I say the chances are slim to none -- Democrats everywhere know that the economy is Bush's weak spot. What worries me, however, is that there are probably some (definitely not all) Democrats who would love nothing more than to see a huge Democratic victory in 2004, at any cost, including economic collapse. What terrifies me is that some Democrats could actually be trying to thwart the President's plan to ensure economic troubles.

Notice that I do not say that any one actually is doing this. I would never believe it if I did not have powerfully incriminating evidence. But the idea frightens me simply because I know how politics works, and I know the type of ruthless bastards we are prone to elect. May God (or whatever higher being you prefer, if any) have mercy on the rest of us if our elected officials are truly in it for personal gain instead of the public good and general welfare.

There, I'm finished. That wasn't so bad. If you want more, ask a direct question and I'll give you the best answer I know to give.

Dave has developed a new web site, for which I will write at some future time, called Founding Issues. The site is aimed at discussion of "fundamental issues" -- that is, politics that matters. I hope for the site to take off. If nothing else, it looks damn good!

My Matrix spiel is coming, I promise. It's turned into a rather large assignment, and complications with school and my car have pushed lots of things back. This summer has been fun, but it's been demanding on my time. I apologize, but it's not like any of you miss my political drivel anyway. If nothing else, you're probably relieved to be able to get to the posts about me with ease. So, um, you're welcome or something.

I'm going to the Braves game today, along with Marcy, Jim, Megan, and Randy. You may or may not know those names, so I'll briefly introduce them to you. Marcy is my girlfriend of some five weeks, and hopefully many more. Jim is my younger brother, who is leaving to become a Marine just before I turn 21. Megan is one of Jim's and my closest friends since we moved into our house in Warner Robins in 1991; she lives across the street there, and she graduated with Jim this past weekend. Randy is one of Jim's closer friends, a big, scary-looking Mexican who's probably one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet (looking scary has its advantages, though).

We'll be in the right field corner, probably just barely in foul territory. I believe the tickets are for section 131, row 15, but I could be mistaken. If you're watching the game on Fox SportsSouth tonight, check us out!

Major League Baseball has installed an umpire evaluation system in 13 of baseball's 30 stadiums, a system that mostly consists of cameras that determine whether a pitch should or should not be called a strike. Major League Baseball has also told the World Umpires Association that umpires whose calls did not match the system at least 90% of the time would be judged as not meeting standards. Just under 70% of the umpires have signed a statement declaring no confidence in the system, citing several inconsistencies given what the umpires' jobs have been in the past.

Arizona Diamondbacks pitching ace Curt Schilling is taking the umpires' side, but Schilling's complaints are a bit more selfish. You see, Schilling (like some other pitchers -- Greg Maddux comes to mind) is a perfectionist; he studies his performances and how umpires make their calls. The problem, though, is that this new umpire evaluation system only allows strikes to be over the plate. Pitches that an umpire would have called a strike that was just off the corner would no longer be called a strike, or the umpire would not be "meeting standards".

I am going to guess that the liberal-minded crew at ESPN are going to be with the umpires here, but I'm against them. The Official Rules of Major League Baseball states:

The Strike Zone is that area over home plate, the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hallow beneath the knee cap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball. [italicized emphasis is mine]

The key in determining balls and strikes is the horizontal location of a pitch relative to the plate as it crosses the plate. If a ball does not cross over the plate, but instead crosses to the left or right of the plate, it should not be a strike. However, umpires today tend to call pitches that just miss crossing over the plate strikes when a player stands close to the plate in the batter's box or when it otherwise seems like the batter could have reached the ball. This is unfair and against the rules of baseball, which were established to allow the batter to stand as close to or as far from the plate as he wished, given that the area over the plate will always be the strike zone, given that it meets the vertical requirements (between the shoulders and knees).

The point is that the official rules support the freedom of the batter to stand close to the plate if he likes inside pitches, or far from the plate if he likes to extend fully when swinging the bat. With umpires declaring their own freedom to call pitches off the plate as strikes if they believe a player could have reached it, they are no longer meeting the standards of baseball.

This story also appears at the Political State Report, or Polstate. Read or post comments here.

. . .

With Democrats desperate for candidates, Republicans in the state of Georgia may run into the opposite problem: too many candidates in the 2004 primary could leave the Georgia GOP short on experienced lawmakers in office. With two Republican Congressmen vacating their seats for a Senate run, and five state legislators vacating their seats for the two Cognressional seats, there is much to be gained -- and lost -- on March 2, 2004.

Congressional Representatives Johnny Isakson (R-GA6) and Mac Collins (R-GA8), who each have announced their candidacy for the US Senate seat being vacated by Zell Miller (D), have inadvertently created a political storm in the Peach State. Several lawmakers have already announced their candidacy for the Congressmen's vacated seats, which in turn will vacate their own seats in the Georgia General Assembly. Another Congressman, Jack Kingston (R-GA1), is mulling a run for the Republican nomination for Senator Miller's seat, and still several other state legislators are considering running for Isakson's and Collins' seats.

To date, three Republican State Senators (Majority Leader Tom Price of Roswell, Chuck Clay of Marietta, and Robert Lamutt of Marietta) have announced their candidacy for Johnny Isakson's 6th District seat. Another State Senator (Mike Crotts of Conyers) and the General Assembly's House Minority Leader (Lynn Westmoreland of Sharpsburg) have announced their candidacy for Mac Collins' 8th District seat. To date, no Democrat has officially announced a run for either seat.

Some are suggesting that the Isakson-Collins race alone could create a rift in the Georgia GOP, which would undoubtedly be exploited by political opponents. Perhaps even more hazardous, though, is that with so many Republican state legislators vying for election to the Congress, Republicans are likely to lose clout in the General Assembly -- either because more experienced Democrats will take their positions, or because less experienced Republicans (rookies) may lack the capitol charisma to push their collective agenda.

Of course, while the press continues to report that the Republicans are at a disadvantage, let's not forget what happened the last time (in 2002) when all we heard on the news was how great things looked for Democrats -- Republican voters came out in droves, probably fearing the Democrats' alleged safety, and took over the Governor's mansion and the Senate.

Let's also consider the fact that we have no idea what Democrats are going to do about the various seats up for grabs. There are only so many Democrats who could run for Zell Miller's Senate seat, but there are many who could run for the regional nominations of Isakson's and Collins' House seats, not to mention the seats being vacated by at least five Republicans in the General Assembly.

The election cycle is just starting to heat up. 2004 is going to be a crazy year.

Below are two of my follow-up comments to the story:

Had you wondered where I had gone? Really? So had I. Life is funny that way.

Over the last several days, I have seen X-Men 2 once and The Matrix Reloaded three times, I have seen my sister off to Wyoming for the summer, and I have generally otherwise relaxed and avoided contact from the outside world -- except the occasional dose of work and every second I can get with Marcy.

My car is nearly fixed. The mechanical wounds were healed days ago; now we are waiting for the windows and dashboard to arrive and be installed so that I may drive my own car again. As soon as I get it, I plan on driving over to Best Buy and having this installed to replaced the one that was so pointlessly and haphazardly removed. (Note: MP3 CDs!)

Other than that, very little is going on right now. My brother is graduating from high school tomorrow night, and tonight there is a graduation celebration of some kind being held at Megan's house, who has lived across the street from us since Dad moved into the Warner Robins house back in May 1991. I should probably find out what that party entails before I drive down there... Hmm.

A review of (and a few thought-provoking questions inspired by) The Matrix Reloaded is forthcoming. A few people have asked me why I didn't write up some philosophically explosive reaction to the movie last Thursday. The answer: I thought I'd give the three people that read this a chance to see the movie first. So, go see it!

I will tell you that the best and second-best lines of the movie are only one word each, and I can't decide which is better.

In case you were wondering what the Internet was up to, here's the latest progress report:

Since its inception almost 30 years ago, the internet has been transformed from a primitive device for sharing thoughts and ideas, into a massive network where people pay to connect and read advertisements they don't want, while calling each other "asshats".

Yeah, that was worth every second it took to read, even with the horizontal scrolling. If you're not as tech-savvy as, say, the average idiot, you might not get all of the jokes -- especially one that's on all of us: it's all entirely true!

Oh, it's that time of year again. Happy birthday Diana. Happy birthday Corinna. Happy birthday Kim. Happy birthday Bill. (I love May 20. Especially on Tuesdays.)

Since Ayn Rand originally sold the movie rights for Atlas Shrugged to Albert Ruddy (The Godfather) over twenty years ago, four attempts to bring her epic 1957 novel to the screen have fallen through -- three with Ruddy at the helm, and the last falling apart in 2000 because his time ran out. Now, Crusader Entertainment has taken it on, and CEO Howard Baldwin wants to leave nothing out. That would be no easy task, as the novel uses 1100+ pages of small print to present the essential principles of Rand's philosophy advocating strict adherence to self-interest and reason.

Screenwriter James Hart (Contact, Hook, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and more) says he hated Atlas Shrugged when he read it in college. "It was the peace and love era and the values of the time weren't consistent with Ayn Rand's philosophy. Years later, I read it again and it blew me away."

What changed his mind? Hart says,

We're on the threshold of what Ayn Rand predicted. Socialism has crept into everything and we're penalizing the thinkers, the movers and shakers for being successful. In a way, the world that Ayn Rand created in Atlas Shrugged is the United States today.

It seems like, for several years at least, society has been leaning more and more toward discouraging advancement -- that is, society has worked very hard to remove encouragements for success that upset the underachievers because they are not recognized for their underachievements. Socialism is creeping in, and we are being socialized to be afraid to succeed lest we should offend someone who hasn't. If you want proof, think about how the average person feels -- perhaps even how you feel -- when they succeed at something: they feel compelled to be modest in order not to offend those who are incapable of the same success!

It is time for humanity's spiritual renaissance. It is time for people to realize that, in order to prove Thomas Malthus wrong and for economic growth to continue to outpace our growth, we must encourage raw achievement. Most importantly, we must stop discouraging the achievers from achieving and remove the sanctions against their further achievement. We must stop hindering the brains and brawn that can get things done and allow them to earn their keep, allow them to earn a greater keep for all of us.

I've gotten off-topic. The point is that I'll be among the first in line if it ever makes it to a theatre near me! I hope the story appeals to you. If you feel particularly ambitious, perhaps you should pick up a good book...

This story is also posted at the Political State Report. Read or post comments here.

After Speaker of the House (Georgia General Assembly) Terry Coleman patted himself on the back for a legislative session well managed in Valdosta this week, the Feds are ready to investigate the Georgia legislator under suspicion that he used campaign money for personal expenses. Coleman has twice before been the subject of complaints before the State Ethics Commission, each regarding improper management of campaign funds.

Georgia's Speaker of the House Terry Coleman (D, Eastman) celebrated a successful 2003 legislative session at a Thursday luncheon at the Valdosta Country Club in Lowndes County, declaring the session a success despite political upheaval and economic distress. (Speaking of political upheaval, protesters lined up outside the country club to voice their opposition to Coleman's position on the flag.) Coleman pointed out that, despite these and other trouble spots, "we actually passed five more bills this year than last" -- results of the quantity versus quality question are still pending.

Meanwhile, federal authorities are investigating Coleman's alleged mismanagement of campaign money. Coleman is suspected of using campaign donors' money to pay for, among other things, mortgage payments on a condo in Atlanta. (He reimbursed his campaign to the tune of $38,120 in January.)

Twice before Coleman has been questioned for ethics violations:

Georgia law does not completely address the issue (nor does the AJC article identify the law). According to HB 1225 passed in 1999:

(Note: the abridged text of the bill above leaves out references to subsection (a) of the bill, which specifies what constitutes "ordinary and necessary expenses". Given the text of the bill as I read it here, I agree with Coleman's lawyer, who can find no evidence of illegal conduct on Coleman's part.)

It is a difficult to suggest what such a legal investigation may imply for Terry Coleman's political future. As someone who disagrees with Coleman's politics, I do not hesitate to suggest that the investigation could have spawned as a result of carefully directed inquiries from political opponents. (Some suggest this is what happened with former President Clinton in 1998, though his case is entirely different.)

In any case, despite my political opposition to Coleman on many fronts, I see no wrongdoing in this case given the evidence as presented publicly and the law as I have read it. Furthermore, he has the right idea about the flag issue -- it's a waste of our legislature's time, and I am grateful that the issue is (hopefully) resolved.

There will be a total lunar eclipse tonight, most visible in the eastern United States. Beginning around 9:00, totality (when the earth's shadow completely covers the moon) will occur from about 11:15 to midnight. Grab a partner and scout a good location, and hurry!

In the last few days, I have seen It Runs in the Family (the Douglas family film 2003!), X-2: X-Men United, and tonight I am going to see The Matrix Reloaded. I am so consumed by movie hype right now that I am finding it difficult to concentrate on real-world things, like school and work. (Marcy gets plenty of attention though. No worries there.)

I have few complaints about X-Men 2. Most of the special effects were incredible eye candy, but a couple of moments (particularly with water -- maybe you'll recognize what I'm talking about) looked less than realistic. I noticed the same type of problem (again with the water) in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. My only other complaint, which isn't really a complaint yet having only seen the film once, is that the story was entirely predictable. I have never followed the X-Men hype, and I never read the comments, and -- well I just never knew anything about the X-Men until I finally saw the first movie about a year after it came out. And, well, for the plot to be entirely predictable can't be good. Then again, for all those that knew the X-Men like the backs of their hands, it shouldn't matter, because they could predict it all anyway.

It Runs in the Family was surprisingly a good movie -- a lot less funny and a lot more emotional than I had anticipated. And three generations of the Douglas's made up the boys of the featured family in the film, along with Rory Culkin (another one!). I'm glad I saw this film, but I don't know what to say about it...

And mmmmmmmmmm... The Matrix! I have been reading so much about this movie without actually reading into the spoilers. All I know about the plot is what I can guess from the trailers, and everything else I've read is philosophy behind it and box office hype. Some expectations see The Matrix Reloaded grossing up to or more than $150 million by the end of the weekend, which would blow away the $110 million gross in the same span by Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. Others are saying that Reloaded might approach $500 or $600 million in the long run, potentially challenging Titanic's all-time box office gross record. Keep in mind that Reloaded is rated R, meaning kids can't get in without accompaniment, which would make any approach to any box office records simply amazing. (I think the record for the highest grossing rated-R film of all time is $202 million, which Reloaded is a cinch to surpass.)

Enough about that. I'll be seeing the movie at 10:00 tonight. I'm having trouble containing my excitement!

Oh yeah, the baseball. As of yesterday, the Atlanta Braves are the best team in baseball. At 27-12, they are now a half-game ahead of the Yankees. This is amazing because (1) the Braves unloaded Tom Glavine, Kevin Millwood, Damian Moss, and some key ingredients in their bullpen after last season; and (2) they started out at 4-12, setting up for a long, dismal season. 23-4 since then has blown the competition away. The Braves are second in the league in hitting, behind St. Louis, with a .279 batting average -- the Braves have never hit so well, and the pitching is definitely holding up! They can not be stopped!

Two years ago today, I began and finished reading the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the first of a five-part trilogy by arguably the most talented writer of the late twentieth century, only to find out the next day that his time had come to an abrupt halt the day before my reading began, on May 11, 2001. Two years and a day later, I am compelled to raise my towel in salute to Douglas Adams, and to remind readers everywhere that the Thursday after May 11 is Towel Day in his honor. Don't forget your towel this Thursday, May 15!

Thomas Malthus, a political economist around the turn of the 19th century (lived 1766-1834), predicted that man would eventually use the world's resources before our needs were served, and the entire world would be driven into poverty. (See his Essay on the Principle of Population, in which this theory is very thoroughly discussed. For more on Malthus, see Google search results.)

Of course, during his time, he had no idea that technology would ever develop at the pace that it did in the 20th century and that it will in the 21st century. On the other hand, even if he could imagine such unimaginable technological growth rates as we have seen in the last hundred years, no one from his time could imagine such prohibitive measures being taken to prevent technological advancement in today's world.

The popular opinion regarding Malthusian theory of economic growth is that Malthus had it backwards -- his prediction that man's consumption would strip the earth of its resources failed to consider (1) technological growth and (2) that man's wants and needs evolve as well as anything else. In other words, as our resources change, our wants and needs are at least partially shaped by what we can possibly provide. We adjust to the environment in which we live. (Agent Smith says, "There is another organism on this planet...")

The question I would like to pose is this: To what degree was Malthus right considering man's habits of mass consumption and self-imposed barriers to innovation such as copyright laws, and to what degree was Malthus wrong considering technological and other innovations?

Don Davis has composed over seven hours of music for The Matrix, including thirty minutes (not nearly enough) available from the first film's score, about forty minutes from the Matrix Reloaded soundtrack, and hours more actually in the films -- not to mention his work for the Animatrix or the video game, Enter the Matrix, which probably add more to the backstory of the Matrix than either of the sequels. The point: I would like to see an all-inclusive release of his work for The Matrix, much like the "Ultimate Edition" soundtracks for the Star Wars films. Thirty-to-forty minutes of music out two solid hours in the film is not enough to satisfy!

The Slashdot crowd seems to like this story, rating it as highly as possible, so apparently it's worth sharing.

The story under which I posted these comments was equally interesting: Colin Fahey intentionally earned the lowest possible score on the SAT, a 400. You may think this would be as easy as turning in a blank test. Actually, turning in a test without answering any questions at all would probably earn you something close to a 470. In order to earn the lowest possible score, you must be capable of scoring something very close to a 1600. You have to choose incorrect answers in order to reduce your raw score to something below zero, which means you have to know not to choose the correct ones. Ahhh, more difficult than it seems!

In describing his test-taking experience, I found these words most entertaining:

When I worked very hard to determine the correct answer for each question, and then proceeded to pick the exact WRONG answer (in fact, the most RIDICULOUS answer), I had a very strong emotional reaction. For a while I worried that this new peculiar feeling of freedom was in fact insanity; I was finally making the transition to madness.

Notice the time I'm posting this: 4:45 in the morning. I only have a three-week break between spring and summer semesters, and I was looking forward to a much slower-paced, relaxing three weeks before resuming the breakneck work-school schedule to which I have grown so accustomed. So much for sloth.

After visiting Marcy for her late-afternoon break, I picked up some fast food for Mom and Jenny, and before I even got out of the Krystal parking lot, a cable or belt in my engine snapped. Immediately, my ears were hammered with a high-pitch, high-tempo repeating "clang", presumably of the snapped belt slapping neighboring parts as it spun. My power steering immediately died, so was it the power steering belt? *shakes magic 8-ball* Not knowing what exactly the problem was and not wanting to drive too far on it, I parked the car around the corner in the parking lot outside the library where I work because I figured that's a place the car could sit for the weekend if I couldn't get the car in position to be fixed by Monday.

You only wish the story ended there. At about 3:00am, I was just getting ready to turn off my computer and get a little sleep when the phone rang. The call ID said Bibb County Sheriff's Department. My first reaction was that my Uncle Jimmy, who works for the Sheriff's Department, had some news worth sharing at 3:00am. My second reaction was that someone wanted to tell me, at 3:00am, that my car was being towed. Of course, it never occurred to me that someone might have actually broken into my car. I mean, why would they?

To get to the inside, of course! By the time I arrived at the scene, Office DeFoe had filled out most of the report and was preparing to run prints on what few parts of the car weren't covered in the night's dew. The front passenger-side window was smashed with a hole, but they didn't go in that way. The rear driver-side window was completely shattered -- the rock is still in the back seat -- and they used that window to unlock the driver's door.

The ultimate irony here is that I never lock my car. My theory is, if someone is determined to get inside my car, I would much rather them open the door and take what they want than break through my windows and leave me with the check. So, naturally, the one night I lock the door (and also the day after I bragged to Marcy's parents about how my American car has had fewer problems than my family's "more dependable" Japanese cars) is the one night that someone is determined to get inside.

The damage: two windows, a CD player, and at least one CD. I'm not sure how many CDs I had in there, but I took most of them out earlier today and I took some more out to the car. I don't remember when I took the others out, but I know I brought several in. Either way, I know at least one casualty: 30 Seconds to Mars.

Jenny was a bit surprised by my serenity. From the time I arrived at the scene, I was more fascinated than upset by the fact that my car had been broken into. My reaction was a quick glance, a smile, and a "what do I do now, officer?" kind of look. I explain my attitude this way: I didn't really care that some lower lifeform felt the need to vandalize my property. My caring is reserved to the fact that now I have to deal with even more crap in the morning and probably for the next several days (car windows aren't so easily replaced, you know). Of course, a simpler explanation is that I'm just a very passive person, and I am very much in control of my emotions. The negative emotions are nearly nonexistent, mostly because I'm just really good at accepting reality for what it is. What will be will be, and an emotive reaction won't solve anything...

You can bet that I'll let you know what all this leads to. I expect the engine problem to be solved fairly easily, and I expect the glass to take a few days (but maybe not). What I look forward too least is working with the insurance company to figure out who's paying for what. Mom!

UPDATE: Pictures added. I couldn't resist, and I know you can't either. (Hmm, I should have gotten a picture of the rock in the back floorboard. Oh well.)

UPDATE v2.0: OH! I left out the most important detail! The food arrived at its destination and was devoured as planned, although seven minutes were allowed for worry and complaint, as I was forced to take the circuitous route home. Of course, I was really glad I had the food when the car died; it gave me something to do while I waited for my sister to show up.

You've probably heard the American proverb (as it were), "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) seemed to be having a tough time as leader of the Senate in the last few months, having "failed" to do what he didn't do (which, in his political opponents eyes, means automatic failure, because obviously something isn't getting done!). His leadership was called into question, some accused him of following the White House too closely, and others believed he needed to get out of the way to allow someone else to actually lead the Senate.

To that, all I had to say was, "give the man some time". A heart surgeon by trade, Frist entered politics in 1994, having not even been registered to vote until some time shortly before he ran for office. He was elected to the United States Senate from his first campaign, and he's done a great job since. But, naturally, having not been involved in politics for the previous 40-something years of his life, he might have to adjust a little to his new role leading the Senate.

The latest news is that Frist has suggested modification to a significant Senate rule -- reducing the difficulty in overcoming a filibuster, which essentially allows up to a minority of the Senate to defeat up to a 59-Senator majority on any issue:

Currently, 60 votes are required to break a filibuster... [Frist's] resolution, co-sponsored by several senators, will require 60 votes only in the first attempt... In each attempt after that, the vote requirement will drop by three until it reaches a simple majority of 51 votes.

Good politics? I say yes. This means that the first time an issue is called for a vote, 41 Senators can say, "No, we will not allow this issue to be voted on." After that, though, those obstructing the vote must reinforce their cause and gain something closer to a majority of the Senate's support, or the issue will inevitably be voted on.

Never mind the obvious implications this has on Miguel Estrada's nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals...

I can handle 4 A's and a C, especially when I was expecting 3 A's, a B, and a C (if not 3 A's and 2 C's). A 3.6 GPA for the semester is Dean's List, which means the hell I put myself through in the last week was very much worth it!

Rory and I discussed one of his friend's ideas that he called the "theory of self-consciousness", which goes something like this: the body and mind are united via some means that our minds are not capable of understanding, but that bond is more powerful than, say, the skeptical argument I just presented. Rory's friend, based on this theory, would suggest that the genetic constitution of one's genes would therefore generate a similar image of oneself inside the Matrix as one would see outside the Matrix. This is similar to a blind man looking like what he thinks he looks like.

My problem with this is that a blind man does not live inside a dream world where his entire reality could be false. At least the blind man (probably) has full control over his other senses in the real world, and therefore can at least feel the contours of his facial structure and so on. Inside the Matrix, however, there is no guarantee that anything one "knows", including the names of oneself or family members, the laws of physics, religious beliefs, or anything else -- there are no guarantees; there is no knowledge.

Still, as our existence is based on a world in which we do have full, authentic access to our senses (or do we?), then we have no objectively observable method to test Rory's friend's theory. We only know a world in which our senses are our consciousness, rather than a world in which our senses are spoonfed. (But, wait, there is no spoon! Okay, sorry about that...)

In other words, my skepticism lends to my objectivism -- I have no way to prove or disprove any solution to this problem or that it is even a problem, so I remain agnostic about the point and continue to ponder over it because, well, it's just damn cool.

Finally, all this discussion reminds me of a portion of the lyrics from one of the greatest songs ever written/performed. The best of you will recognize it:

I think it fits the tone and theme of The Matrix. Don't you?

This requires knowledge of two things regarding the Matrix. First, Mouse's skepticism: "How do the machines know what Tasty Wheat tasted like? Maybe they got it wrong..." So the machines had to guess at things. Point one. Second, Neo looks like Thomas Anderson because of what Morpheus calls "self-residual image" -- he looks like what he remembers himself to look like. Point two.

Okay, so here's the problem with someone's looks in and outside of the Matrix. If all knowledge of their looks is based on what they grew up looking like inside the Matrix, then why does that have anything to do with what they look like outside? Or how can they possibly be the same? The machines use a computer to control thought processes, not physical growth. In other words, why didn't the Neo that woke up in a pod of pink goo come out looking like Ted Nugent or Barbra Streisand?

Just a thought. These thoughts were inspired by David Mitsuo Nixon's essay, "The Matrix Possibility", featured in William Irwin's The Matrix and Philosophy. Click on the image of the book's cover on the right side of this page for more information on the book.

Here is a copy of the press release announcing the Indiana Jones trilogy DVD. It will be available November 4. There will be one disc for each movie and a fourth disc devoted entirely to bonus materials. I will own this set...

What next, Star Wars? Before I get started, check OriginalTrilogy.com, a web site dedicated to the preservation of the original theatrical cuts (and eventually have them released on DVD as well, not just the special editions) of the films of the classic Star Wars trilogy. See their FAQ for more information. (At time of this writing, the petition had accumulated 29,500 signatures.)

Now, on with the show...

From September 2001, LucasFilm clarifies that they can not simply jump into a DVD project for the classic Star Wars trilogy. It will take time, but from the hints presented here, it should be worth the wait! (I still think Lucas could make a fortune by releasing *only* the movies, everything we have on VHS so far, as individual titles on DVD.) From the September 2001 feature:

Another article from February 2000 expresses more reasons for delaying development of the trilogy's DVD. It seems as though fears of pirated copies of Star Wars films is a major concern, though LucasFilm denied this then. (As technology has improved, I wonder if they would still deny it, or if they would simply deny this as a reason for delaying the DVD project.)

Although about twenty and forty months old, respectively, this is still more information than the StarWars.com FAQ, updated quite frequently, gives:

Thanks, George. We got that memo.

Last tidbit. According to this FAQ, Natalie Portman may shoot some scenes for the Return of the Jedi DVD, and Jimmy Smits (Bail Organa, Princess Leia's adopted father, who is presumably but not necessarily on planet Alderaan when the Death Star destroys it) may shoot some scenes for the A New Hope DVD.

Happy hoping!

Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day is worth looking at, but only if you check out the brief explanation below it. Lesson learned? "Although the vast majority of meteors is much smaller and burn up in the Earth's atmosphere, the average homeowner should expect to repair direct meteor damage every hundred million years."

In other exciting news, two copies of the latest Harry Potter book, not due for release until June 21, were found in a field in Britain still bound to each other (this is typical of newly produced books; a special guillotine-like device separates them). A man who chose not to be identified gave the books to The Sun, which has told the odd story of the most heavily guarded children's book ever being found six weeks before its release date. I'm sure that several Sun staff members read the book overnight and are probably reading it now...

If you get the chance, figure out your placement in Dante's Inferno. I'm in the third circle of Hell with the other gluttons...

In probably the most enjoyable economics column of the year, Adam Lashinsky shares wittily (or half-wittedly?) that, well, he has no idea what should be done about the tax cuts: "Should the cuts be $726 billion or $550 billion or $350 billion? Beats me." Lashinsky earns brownie points by admitting that, "when it comes to bitterly contested theories about what's best for the economy, everything is negotiable." In other words, there is no wrong, there is no right, and he sleeps very well at night (thank you, Don Henley). There is only belief and disbelief, which can be infinitely more dangerous. Most importantly, though, Lashinsky masks his own opinions about the matters at hand so as to give his article an aura of objectivity, though his bias against a tax cut for the rich indicates that he is, at the very least, skeptical of such a sweeping tax cut plan.

Keeping in line with his indiscriminate and veiled opinions, Lashinsky also points out that the economy is in bad shape not because of anything any President, Congress, or Federal Reserve actions did, but because

...irrationally exuberant businesses bought far more stuff than they needed and then stopped buying stuff for three years... It seems that if businesses feel like they have an opportunity to grow again, aided by a lessened fear of war, they'll begin to think about buying stuff again. When they do that, the economy will grow.

This is important, because he makes sure to clear his idea that politics has nothing to do with the alleged failure of our economy in the last couple of years; September 11 aside, our stuttering economy has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with economics (a subject about which I would argue too many politicians know too little).

My idea for an appropriate tax cut is one that would reduce the tax burden for those who actually pay taxes while encouraging those with the biggest breaks to get our country back into the habit of donating to causes of our choice rather than of the government's choice. The average liberal (I oversimplify the "liberal" label to include those who generally oppose Bush's tax cut plan), with a general distrust for human nature, would rather see the government mandate a higher tax rate for the rich and a redistribution of the wealth to those who need it most. I only question the "need" of this wealth. The foundation of our economy was built to support an effort-driven society through which the money would be delivered to those who we collectively decided had earned it for the work we collective created for them. The more progressive our taxes become, the further from this dream of economic individualism we venture, and the closer to economic dystopia we find ourselves.

My idea of individualism, as opposed to neoliberal socialism, is that we as individuals know well enough how to run our own lives without a third party, such as the federal government, imperialistically deciding that it knows better how to handle our money (for instance) than we do. Certainly, if the government sticks its invisible hand into everything we do, even to the point that it does much of it for us, then we lose our ability to question the government's intrusion and even accept it as a part of life. Not that I distrust my government, but I would much prefer to trust individual people like me to do the right thing with their money simply because I want that option for myself when/if I ever find myself with enough money to be able to make those decisions. Let me reiterate: I do not distrust my government; I simply believe we should all trust ourselves.

Now that there is a good chance that we might be given that chance, if Bush's tax cut proposal is eventually passed, perhaps consideration of what tax cuts could actually mean should be in order. In a Washington Times column published on January 7, Richard Rahn commented that, "The Bush plan is trying to partially correct some of the objectively unfair aspects of the present tax code. The Republicans now have a chance to show they favor both tax fairness and economic growth." In my opinion, the unfairness stems from New Deal-era reforms that led to somewhat socialist policies bent on redistributing wealth by drastically emphasizing "progressive" tax rates. The Bush tax cut proposal, which would reduce the highest tax rates, seeks to correct the mistakes of our economically ignorant past and get our tax rates back on track a bit.

The arguments on one side of Bush's plan suggest that the short-term benefits are nonexistent or negative, while opposing arguments support Bush's plan for its long-term benefits. In response to criticisms in opposition of Bush's plan, I offer first a generalization: for just about every economic cause-effect relationship I can think of, the short-term effect is precisely opposite of its long-term effect. That is, a tax cut generating a short-term deficit (that would also generate, as a result of an increase in consumers' disposable income, billions of dollars of increased consumption expenditure) stands a very good chance of yielding long-term surpluses; indeed, the Congressional Budget Office, among others, predicts budget surpluses once again by 2011. Combine the long-term benefits for the aggregate economy with the short-term benefits of individuals with increased disposable income, and one would think we would have a happy economy!

This is hardly the entire picture when it comes to debating the legitimacy of Bush's tax cut plan. But when the leading argument against the plan is emotive rather than substantive (I continuously hear the same line about a "tax cut for the rich"), I find it difficult to credit the disbelievers with any legitimacy. For over two years now, I have read newspaper, magazine, and journal articles; government press releases and speeches; and the written opinions of people like me in various forums; and, even on the short end of the tax-cut-benefits stick, I have yet to find any compelling reason to believe that Bush's tax cut proposal is wrong.

Our Founding Fathers built this nation for individuals who shared an idealistic dream that we could support ourselves and our country without the overbearing intrusiveness of a central government that could not help but involve itself in our daily affairs. We had a dream once. What happened?

The scenario:

The US government greatly expands aid to the unemployed. Unemployed workers now receive benefits equal to 75% of their previous wages, and these benefits will continue indefinitely as long as the unemployed workers are unable to find work. The new benefits would not be financed by new taxes; the government will simply borrow the money. (Assuming a closed economy, this means borrowing against our future, or deficit spending.) Show what you think the would result from this policy for output, unemployment rate, interest rates, and the price level in the short and long run.

A complicated economics problem requires a complicated, analytical response. I lack the expertise to offer such a response with authority, but I am arrogant enough to take on the task and assume I know what I am talking about.

Unemployed persons are defined as having no employment and being available for work during the week before the Current Population Survey and either had made efforts to find employment within the previous four weeks or were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off. It is worth noting that unemployed persons do not include non-participating members of the working-age population -- that is, working-age persons who are unwilling to work.

I would imagine that, should unemployment benefits be inflated to such levels as 75% of previous wages and not expire until work is found, unemployment would gradually but sure increase. As a matter of fact, the labor force participation rate would decrease, and those actively seeking work would decrease and technically not qualify for unemployment benefits. However, with benefits at such levels, seeking loopholes to remaining a part of the labor force without actually sincerely seeking work would become an art form -- at least, more than it already is. With the ability to earn 75% of previous wages without actually working for it while enjoying considerably more leisure time, the incentive to work would be greatly reduced and the "unemployed" label would not be incentive enough to get many of the lazier Americans back to work.

To this end, as I have explained, unemployment would rise, though by virtue of the true aim of the unemployed population, "real" unemployment would actually not increase, and the "real" labor force participation rate would decrease. But because of various legal loopholes, people who should not qualify would find ways to earn unemployment benefits.

Conceivably, the personal benefits of such unemployment could lead directly to an unemployment "boom"; the unemployment rate could conceivably double, triple, or worse. (Really: why work if you can make 75% of your check for doing next to nothing?) If the trend got out of hand too quickly, production (output) could suffer badly. Fewer workers would be required to work longer, hopefully more efficient hours, and would likely be paid higher wages for their work.

Still, if the percentage of the labor force that is employed is too greatly reduced, the workers left may not be enough to keep production up, and real GDP could fall. With expectations of reduced output, aggregate demand would fall; depending on how much aggregate demand falls, price levels could rise slightly, drop slightly, stay about the same. In any event, reduced production and reduced individual income would generate less consumption expenditure, and eventually the price level would have to drop to account for a slower velocity of circulation. Interest rates would be lowered in order to encourage purchases of, well, anything, but drastically reduced output would trump drastically reduced interest rates, and an economy on the verge of collapse would virtually freeze, all but sealing a doomed economy's fate.

Such a drastic change in unemployment benefits policy could be catastrophic for an economy this size. The long-term effects are virtually impossible to predict, because at the first sign of trouble, Congress and the Federal Reserve would work diligently to correct the problem. Presumably, the new unemployment benefits plan would be scrapped if economists were able to pinpoint it as being at fault, and the economy would right itself naturally via equilibrium-seeking means, observing the laws of supply and demand. After all, our economy is built on expectations and habits, and no major problem survives for very long as long as consumers, firms, and the government make changes only a little at a time.

Economic doomsday scenario? Sure. Impossible? Well, not quite. (I really, really wanted to comment on the depreciation of the value of the dollar and global economic failure and the second coming of Japanese superiority in the global economy, but this is closed economy...)

It's the question that drives us. You know the question as well as I do. "What is the Matrix?" Well, Chris Suellentrop of Slate has an answer for you: Harry Potter with guns! An R-rated Star Wars! A "sci-fi movie with philosophical pretensions that did shockingly gangbuster business at the box office"!

Okay, enough of the cheap one-liners. What's really at stake here is where Suellentrop goes with this article, and how much sense it makes. The implications of the idea are huge, and the potential for conflict between man and machine within the Matrix are left even more nonsensical than before if the suggestion holds any water. The suggestion: Neo "doesn't want to destroy the Matrix".

Think about Neo's last lines from the first movie. Think about the very last sentence. What do you think he means?

Song for the moment: "Where Do We Go From Here?" by Filter.

Dave, I know exactly what you mean about your December 12th business. As someone who isn't in the know, I think my story parallels well enough that I can figure out what's going on there. While it doesn't parallel exactly by any means, it's similar enough that I think some of you should get a kick out of it. However, being somewhat personal and involving others, it's in that place where I tell stories like this that only a few of you can get at. I apologize if your exclusion offends you!

<!--About eight months ago, shortly after Claire broke up with me, I noticed a girl in the cafeteria at school. I didn't know who she was or anything about her, except that she was the most beautiful creature I had ever seen. Wanting not to disrupt a perfect relationship (that is, she is most beautiful and nothing can change that), I never approached her. I don't approach or avoid girls based on looks; that's shallow. If a social opportunity presents itself, I am outgoing enough to pounce on it, but otherwise I gaze, wonder, and imagine what life has next in store for me.

For the last couple months of that semester and the first couple months of this one, I lived as a hermit. I focused almost entirely on school, and I rarely went out. My social life had become virtually nonexistent, except for an occasional movie with Anna or Lyndsey or afternoon with Zach, who were my saving graces following the inevitable demise of my relationship with Claire.

Suddenly, about six weeks ago, I approached Diana (who has since become a very good friend) and made an effort to become better acquainted. She had been intriguing since the first time I had heard her speak, and I wanted to know more about what she thought about the world. Within a week, I had become part of a group, and I found that the beautiful girl I had first eyed several months previous was sitting in the chair across from me.

It was then that I first heard her speak, and I was kept silently in awe. She expressed herself plainly, clearly, and beautifully, and she expressed many interests common with mine. Prior to this point I had no intention of pursuing anything further than a platonic relationship with Marcy, but upon hearing her words I had to make an effort.

Within days, I learned that my new "best" friend Rory, also in the group I had newly found myself a part of, had sprung his own trap for Marcy. He and I played ping pong madly nearly every afternoon, and when the girls weren't around we'd discuss our progress as though it were a game, but not such that Marcy were an object to be won. No, we knew better than that. Even better, we both liked the other guy, which is what made the dual pursuit so much fun. He and I both knew that she could choose either or neither of us (though we arrogantly knew she would choose one), and we both believed that the other guy would serve her well should she choose him and not me. (Okay, we know the rules. All is fair... But, given that, isn't it also fair to actually like the other guy, share knowledge, and make sure that the ultimate winner is the girl we pursue? Wasn't our course the most honorable, and isn't that why neither of us could pull away but nor could we sabotage the other?)

Rory soon developed the idea that Marcy would not choose him, and in any case he and I had already discussed another option for him -- he had decided to get back with his ex-girlfriend (they had broken up only two weeks before because they were afraid that a relationship as "perfect" as theirs at age 19 was much too frightening. They overcame that fear once they forced themselves apart. This, among other reasons, suggests to me that they should be very happy together. Not only do they sincerely care for each other, but they are mature enough to force a break and realize what they really want.) Rory turned out to be right, and the morning after he and Melody got together (but before anyone but Rory, Melody, and I knew about it), Marcy approached me and essentially let me know where she stood -- that is, she stood with me.

You've noticed in posts since then that she and I are together, and I couldn't be more excited about it. This is especially exciting to me because it marks the first time in my life that the one and only girl I had eyes for had responded to me positively. I was in pursuit of no one else, and I had no care for any relationship at all -- unless I could be with a particular girl, Marcy, and she decided to want me back. Sure, I've dated before, and I naturally wanted to be with the girls I was with, but never has the one at the top of my list -- let alone the only one on the list -- given me anything more than a friendly "hello".-->

Needless to say, I am as excited as ever about the position in which I have found myself. If you're a close friend of mine, unless I just haven't talked to you, then you know what I'm talking about. And if you're not, you should know that it has everything to do with Marcy.

<!--(Of course, if this relationship goes anywhere, as there's always that miniscule chance that any budding relationship could be "the one" -- not jumping to conclusions! -- if this relationship goes far, this story will be a part of me forever. If not, it's still worth telling as long as I remember it.)-->

I will be so glad when Monday night gets here. Finals will be finished and I will be able to spend my time however I please!

I was haphazardly reading through the official rules for entering a contest to see a couple of my favorite bands (SPAM warning! Submit entry at own risk!), when a clause under item 5 caught my eye:

Canadian residents selected as winners will be required to successfully answer a time-limited, unaided, mathematical skill-based question prior to being awarded a prize, and failure to successfully answer the question will cause the prize to be forfeited and awarded to an alternate winner.

I know it's popular to joke with the Canuckians, but I must have missed the math connection. Shouldn't the PC police be all over this?