Is it possible? Someone talking to Drudge seems to think so. We have heard for years now that Clinton plans to finish her first term as a Senator from New York, without any hint of any higher aspirations -- mostly because that's never been necessary, because the media has treated Clinton as its darling -- they want her to run for president! I rest assured every night that that won't happen for at least four more years, and until just now I was almost sure that I had narrowed down the Kerry running-mate contest to five contestants. I initially thought Congressman Dick Gephardt (MO) made the most sense, with Senator John Edwards (NC) not being far behind. But the more I think about it, neither adds much to Kerry's ticket. And Wesley Clark? It just isn't happening.

So who is it going to be? An announcement is expected in the vicinity of July 4 -- a fitting time for such an announcement -- and what better time for Hillary to announce breaking her "promise" to New York for the "good" of the country? What better way to guarantee winning key liberal states like New York and California (as if Kerry would have any problem with them anyway)? Even better, what better way to deliver a huge blow to Hillary's budding political career with an electoral defeat in 2004? Because, honestly, I don't think the Democrats have the pull to overcome economic recovery and modest military success, which always look good for a sitting president.

We'll know soon enough!

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Spider-Man 2. A sequel is supposed to dwell in the shadow of its predecessor, but this one does not. Spidey is beaten and humbled -- by enemies, friends, the public, and himself -- and yet he still comes across as one of the most realistic heroes imaginable ... not for shooting spider webs out of wrists, but for the human element. Above all else and beneath the mask, Spider-Man is Peter Parker, an emotional, rational being like the rest of us. He has decisions to make, and whether they make sense or even matter to anyone else, they matter to Peter Parker.

The key to this film's success, aside from Tobey Maguire's excellent portrayal of a hero torn among many difficult choices, is Sam Raimi's ability to open and close numerous plot elements while maintaining a coherent and cohesive plot. The movie takes its sweet time to inform you of what has changed, who is important, and why it is all so ... before we are rushed through an action-packed, emotional frenzy that climaxes with one of the most satisfying endings I have ever enjoyed for what I would normally describe as an entertainment film (as opposed to being a serious film).

Spider-Man 2 succeeds in many ways that I did not expect, justifying my decision to watch the midnight showing and stay up past 4:00am talking about it!

UPDATE -- John Douglas of the Grand Rapids Press agrees with me: "This is one of those rare cases in which the sequel is much better than the original." Scott Holleran of Box Office Mojo does not: "Saving New York as a burden more than as a favor, Spider-Man is stripped of heroic motives and [...] it is boring. Heroes do not show up begrudgingly out of some vague sense of duty." (Major spoilers on the other side of both of those links!)

I put a grand total of maybe two hours of work into this web site's new look, and the result is -- in my opinion -- quite impressive! I'm not impressed because of the beautiful design; that, at best, is subject to one's opinion, and I would hardly justify patting myself on the back for something as superficial as that. What I do find impressive, however, is how I managed to alter the look of this site -- and I mean almost ever page on this site (check the Election 2004, Photos, and Writings links on the right side of this page) without touching the HTML. This means I don't have to redo any PHP to keep the site functioning. Everything I did to change this web site from one look to the next was done in CSS.

To compare the current look to the old one, view the June 2004 archive -- after all, it is still June!

I'm early. It's my web site and I can jump the gun if I want to! I'll add more links as I find their addition to be appropriate, and I'll continue to take care of the nitpicks as they are noticed. Thanks for, um, whatever it is you do.

The Macon Telegraph is "dealing with [another] journalistic breach", warranting another round of questions regarding the standards of journalistic ethics. Telegraph Executive Editor Sherrie Marshall has written an eloquent apology to both the industry and the paper's readership, which culminates with these words:

Does intent matter? Is there any forgiveness for the sin of plagiarism? That's for individual editors and newspapers to decide. But in an industry reeling from unethical behavior, editors have to send a clear message about what we won't tolerate, about the standards that must be upheld if we are to maintain credibility with our readers.

For more on what those standards are, review the Code of Ethics put forth by the Society of Professional Journalists.

You will notice a few minor changes around here in the next 48 hours or so (say... around midnight, July 1). Nothing fancy -- the blue background and black text on white will remain the same, but I'm organizing the structure of the page a bit and bringing back the links box on the side of the page. I think it looks better, and whether it does or not, it makes it easier for people (mainly myself) to browse to web sites I visit most often without snooping through a complex hierarchy of favorites folders. So, ready or not, here it comes...

Vice President and Senate President Dick Cheney was heard exercising his freedom of speech last week when he told Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT since 1975) to "go fuck yourself". As the Washington Post reports (free registration required to view article), other newspapers toyed with dashes and ellipses and left the rest to the imagination, as if people who have intereste in reading the newspaper have never seen the word before -- well the Washington Post doesn't believe in toying around, and they printed the word. Meanwhile, Cheney told Neil Cavuto, I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I had done it," and that those who heard the putdown agreed with him. "I think that a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue," said Cheney.

Meanwhile, newspapers around the country are slamming Cheney (and Bush by extension) for his forceful language, suggesting that someone in such a respected position as Vice President should know better than to use language like that. They then go back to Bush calling a New York Times reporter a "major-league asshole" in 2000. But what's missing from most of these reports is the same criticism of John Kerry's usage of the word "fuck" in a December 2003 Rolling Stone article. If what Cheney said was so offensive to Democrats, then Kerry should be scrutinized just as heavily. (Also, considering that I watch the headlines for these things on a daily basis and I never read about Kerry's verbal indiscretion in December, I smell bias in the media...)

In a 1995 interview for the comics web site "The Podium", Paul Pope stated his political views:

I agree. Completely. And following the next question, he expressed an idea that I have suggested many times: that you should vote only for yourself, what you know, and who you know, because trying to vote for what society wants is like ordering food at a restaurant for someone you've never met -- you don't know the person, so how could you know what they want? We've got a slim chance of choosing the best option unless we all vote for our own self-interests. At least that way the true cumulative American interest is represented on election day.

But this is how Pope said it:

It's tough to talk about any of this stuff easily, or without coming out sounding like yet another big mouth pedant who knows what's better for you than you do yourself. I think America is in a real mess politically, but on the other hand, politicians are vastly unimportant people. They only have the power to force you to do or not do something. The real importance in human society lies in the hands of the people who actually contribute to its fruition--the artists, scientists, and workers who make and do things which enrich their own lives and subsequently everyone else's. Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, all of the political class seem to me much more like King Louis XIV or some such outmoded autocrat. I gave up on the whole shameful circus long ago and now I take Voltaire's advice and cultivate my own garden. In the long view, my own life's pretty insignificant, but it's significant to Paul Pope. So I'll do the things which will let my best potentials shine, and for me, that's creating art.

That my name is Paul and my nickname is Pope is pure coincidence -- I earned the nickname several years ago because my full name is John Paul McCord III. (I was gonna be pope, but I wasn't Catholic enough.)

Fair warning: this comes from MTV. You would think that I would have lots to say about this, but as I have neither seen the film nor bothered to analyze any of its allegations, I'm only the messenger. Even after I see the film (by the way, I don't intend on paying to see it), I won't bother doing any research behind it. I refuse to waste my time.

That said, I saw The Notebook tonight, and it was probably the best true romance I've ever seen. I wrote more about it on my livejournal, where you can contribute your own thoughts about it if you have seen it (or if you have strong opposition to seeing it, or if you just feel like typing something).

This is very interesting:

Rather than voting for a favorite party, it seems to me that the better voting strategy would be to vote in whatever manner better moves the political center in the direction you want it to go. Such a strategy would encourage voting for the "other" party (the one you identify with less) whenever that party runs a candidate who is unusually close to your own political position. For example, I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 because I thought he was a fairly conservative Democrat and I wasn't overly impressed with Bush Sr. I actually preferred Bush Sr. somewhat, but I figured that Clinton would be able to pass conservative policies that Bush couldn't and would move his party a little to the right. For the most part, I think that turned out to be true, even if I did become disgusted enough with Clinton to vote for Dole in 1996.

David Leip's Atlas of US Presidential Elections is a nifty web site that, among other things, allows users to predict the outcome of the presidential election by choosing who will get a state's electoral votes and by what margin. You can also choose which states are toss-ups, and it will subtract from your electoral prediction accordingly. Not only does it generate colored maps to display your predictions, but it also enters your prediction into a database to generate a cumulo-average prediction of the web site's users. It's very nifty indeed. See my maps here, and feel free to comment on them.

UPDATE -- After checking a few polls, I adjusted a couple of my numbers, figuring that Kerry would pick up a toss-up state or two, although I'm leaning on confidence in Bush to be much higher than the consistently biased media reports. (My bases for that are the 2000 and 2002 polls compared to their respective elections; both times, the polls considerably underestimated Republican support in key states and were left bewildered.) Ordinarily such an adjustment wouldn't matter, but what resulted is a plausible electoral vote count that would result in a 269-269 tie, which would be exciting on a number of levels.

I admit that I believe the race will not be that close; I believe Bush will earn 280-300 electoral votes this November. He will earn a clear majority in the popular vote, and the Democrats will once again cry foul for their polls say it isn't possible. (And no, this isn't wishful thinking; I have no stake in Bush or Kerry being president from 2005-2009.)

Have you tried the new Coca-Cola C2? Because it has 55% less sugar (which cuts the carbs and cals by 55% too!), my peers have suggested that it has to be horrible, tasting like Diet Coke -- or worse! But I've tried it, and not only do I think it tastes as good as regular Coke, but I think I can describe it in a way that will convince you that it isn't so bad: Have you ever gone on a Dr Pepper, Cherry Coke, or root beer beinge, and then had a regular Coke? You know how that Coke tasted a little unsweet since you were used to more sugary drinks? That's Coke C2 -- same Coke, less sugar.

If you've tried it, what do you think?

Let's take a look at Georgia's 11th Congressional district; I guess all the good shapes were taken. Either way, this fall's race between freshman Congressman Phil Gingrey (R), who won in a tough 2002 election despite the gerrymandering, and Cedartown attorney Rick Crawford (D) should be a nailbiter. But if campaign fund-raising means as much as the "experts" say it does, Gingrey had a huge advantage from the start, raising over $1 million before Crawford had raised $20,000.

In 2002, if you recall, millionaire businessman Roger Kahn and former Congressman (six terms, 1983-1995) Buddy Darden faced off in a heated Democratic primary, which Kahn won with a slim majority, 52.3% to 47.7%. Kahn was then defeated in an even closer general election in November, losing to Phil Gingrey 51.6% to 48.4%. (The residents of what became the new 11th district had been similarly split in 2000, with Bush garnering a narrow majority, 50.1%, of the district's voters, compared to 48.2% for Gore.)

Hoping to turn the tables on Gingrey, Rick Crawford things he has what it takes to put a Democrat in Congress from Georgia's 11th district. As the Associated Press reported this weekend (via the Macon Telegraph:

Crawford says he will attempt to make the case that a partisan Republican is representing a bipartisan district. As for Gingrey's fund-raising success, heralded by national Republicans last year as a record among their freshmen, Crawford dismisses it as "a herd trying to protect its weakest members."

Pundits and politicians agree, however, that Crawford has a serious uphill battle to endure if he's going to unseat the incumbent. Buddy Darden opines:

The best opportunity for the Democratic pickup was in 2002. That does not mean to say the incumbent is not beatable, anybody can be beaten on a given day, but once there is an incumbent in there, that changes the dynamics, of course.

Crawford's "official" views on various topics indicate a moderate standing; compared to those in New England, one could fairly label Crawford a "conservative" Democrat. His top priorities appear to be the economy, education, and healthcare. He is careful to support tax-relief, small-business browth, and deficit reduction without hinting at support for or opposition to the current president's economic policies. He advocates hiring more teachers to reduce class size, preventing private school vouchers from being funded by tax dollars, and expanding job training. And he wishes to reduce healthcare costs (drugs and insurance), broaden access, expand coverage, and emphasize preventive care. He doesn't mention personal issues like abortion or federal issues like defense and the war on terror.

Gingrey, on the other hand, advocates an anti-abortion stance in the very first sentence of his "Phil on the Issues" page, indicating a strong moral conviction. He then lists his concerns regarding education, the environment, the economy, and defense. He advocates a more libertarian stance on education (government's influence should be limited) and a new science called "green chemistry" that seeks to prevent pollution in the first place. Gingrey appears to support the Bush administration's defense and economic strategies across the board, but with regard to tax relief, he says, "the problem...is much deeper. We must eliminate our current tax code" because it stifles our current economy and is much too complex.

(This article also appears at the Political State Report. View it and comment on it here.)

The last time I took the Presidential Match test, I was evenly split between Bush and Kerry. In reality, this is not the case; I am currently in favor of Bush because I believe Bush and his team have doen a great job for the last 3+ years, and I don't think Kerry would represent my values as well as Bush. That said, I certainly have reservations with the Republican Party, particularly when it comes to censorship and family values, energy policies, and healthcare.

Well, I finally got around to seeing where I would fall according to the ACU, and it turns out -- surprise, surprise -- that I'm right in the middle with a 47-53% rating, depending on which way I go on a particular issue on which I am currently undecided.

I thought those who enjoy reading my politically charged rants might like to know that I don't just make it up; I really am about as middle-of-the-road as they come. I just happen to be much more vocal about the issues on which I disagree with Democrats and liberals because their bias dominates the airwaves.

Interesting: A lieutenent colonel in Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen, his volunteer military group trained in unconventional warfare tactics, may have been an al-Qaeda operative. We don't know for sure, because his name is not incredibly uncommon, and the 9/11 commission is still trying to tie up those loose ends. And even if it turns out to be true, there's no guarantee that al-Qaeda hadn't infiltrated the Iraqi government in order to carry out some terroristic plot there. (But what makes more sense to you?)

I am of the persuasion that it is impossible to ever have more good than evil or more evil than good. Actually, I am of the persuasion that because everything is only the complicated effect of some complicated combination of causes, there is really no such thing as good and evil. But if you have to pretend that there are two opposing forces called good and evil, then I say that they are always in balance, no matter how good or bad things seem. Let me explain.

If most of the evil in the world is defeated, then all the good in the world grows complacent and people begin to feel comfortable, and they slack off. So if evil goes away, then good diminishes to match it. Likewise, if most of the good in the world went away, then all the evil in the world that thought it had taken over would suddenly realize that whatever their reasons for being bad were are no longer valid. They now have to be good, or else they'll all destroy each other. So if good goes away, then evil diminishes to match it.

But this is only assuming you have to accept these ideas of good and evil or right and wrong. I just think of them as convenient, imaginary ideas that we created in order to organize our own thought processes. Clever beings, we are.

It looks like the liberal media -- that is, the significant portion of the media that follows a liberal political ideology -- has finally been caught red-handed. Only days after hundreds of publications gleefully spread the news that the 9/11 Commission had determined that there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda (something Bush and his administration never explictly said), just the opposite has come out: there are numerous connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, some in the mid-90s while Osama bin Laden was in Sudan, others a bit later while Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan.

But if these connections have been known about for as long as they have, why is the media so ignorant of it? That is a rhetorical question with two possible and equally probably answers, and a plausible third: the first two being that no one told them and that none of them did their homework to actually find the truth, and the third being that those who did find it chose to omit it for the sake of harming a Republican administration's reputation.

The rest should be all over the news in the next few days, but it won't be. The liberals in control of most networks and publications across the country will downplay it as best they can and even try to undermine any good news for Bush by spinning it as negatively as possible. Watch and see. If I'm wrong, I'll buy your lunch.

This is all straight from Neal Boortz. Imagine for just a moment that September 11 went down notoriously for an entirely different reason: because Bush ordered the lives of 300 innocent Americans to be terminated because of a "perceived threat".

Sick? Absurd? You betcha. Unrealistic? Not at all.

I await your response.

"The Democratic congregation accepts me and it is faith that unlocks the door." -- Herman Cain, successful businessman and... reverend? From the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer on May 17: "Veteran congressmen Johnny Isakson and Mac Collins are Cain's opponents in the July 20 primary. Their campaigns are traditional. Quietly, Cain -- an associate pastor at Antioch Baptist Church in Atlanta -- has been in church, preaching or praying at congregations all over Georgia."

Given the tendency of the African-American demographic to vote mostly for Democrats, it is worth noting that Cain did not ask for anyone's votes during his sermons, but pastor Wayne Baker and the Reverend Joe Roberson did.

This is an interesting tactic, to say the least: a conservative Republican using his faith to connect to a congregation that would most likely have described its members as liberals and Democrats.

More from the Ledger-Enquirer article:

Judging by various demographic statistics, it certainly isn't his party affiliation.

(This article also appears at the Political State Report. View it and comment on it here.)

If you are 18 or older, a Georgia resident, and interested in voting in the July 20 primary election in Georgia, then don't forget to register to vote on or before this Monday, June 21! State law requires voters to be registered 30 days before an election -- that means do it now! You can register to vote at just about any building that serves a civic purpose, including libraries, city halls, and even some grocery stores.

Related: I have recently written and posted several articles to the Political State Report regarding primary races that should concern anyone in the midstate. I have concluded that any 8th District or 3rd District residents should vote in the Republican primary regardless of their political affiliation, because the candidates for the Democratic nomination are either already decided (3rd) or can't win anyway (8th, Senate).

Keesha and I had waited to see the new Harry Potter movie because I knew my sister was planning on seeing it with my cousin Jami while visiting from Oregon, and I thought it would be nice to make it a small family thing. So over the first weekend of The Prisoner of Azkaban's release, Keesha and I watched The Sorcerer's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets to prepare for the new Harry Potter movie. All the little things in those first two movies that I had forgotten or overlooked surprised me, so watching them again was definitely a good idea.

So we four set out to see The Prisoner of Azkaban Tuesday night at 7:00. We went, we saw, we enjoyed. I actually only have very few complaints, and they are all minor. If you haven't seen the movie already, I am about to spoil some very minor plot details (but nothing major), so you might want to skip the rest of this.

First complaint: the movie was too short. The other two Harry Potter films were a good bit over 150 minutes, but this one was barely 120 minutes. From a movie that was released six months later than expected, I was hoping for more footage, not less!

Second complaint: not enough Malfoy. Whether I'm talking about Draco or Lucius doesn't matter, because neither of them did very much in this movie. I'm certain that the book said a lot more about them, or at least Draco, so I'm wondering why the little blonde brat wasn't involved in more of the plot.

Third complaint: no Quidditch / no redemption. After the Gryffindor team lost their match, it is only fitting that Harry Potter should catch the seeker to redeem himself by the end of the movie. Even better, after Harry received the newest, fastest broom ever, it is only fitting that Harry Potter should blow everyone away at a championship Quidditch match, catch the seeker, and redeem himself for his failure earlier in the year.

Fourth complaint: explaining the obvious. In every movie, there is one silly line that explains in more detail than is necessary exactly what just happened. I understand that millions of kids need those lines to help them understand the plot, but that doesn't mean millions of adults should also be subjected to them. Couldn't there be an alternate version of the movie where they just left those scenes out?

I think that's all I've got. Overall, it was a great movie, and I am now anticipating the fourth. One day, I'll actually get around to reading the books to fill in all the gaps.

"Hopefully" is probably the most incorrectly used word in the English language. "Hopefully, I will pass this test," means that you will past this test, and you will feel hopeful when you do. Does that make much sense? Let me clarify this further: "Hopefully, the war will end soon," means that the war will end soon, but the war will feel hopeful when it ends. Does that make sense? I am as guilty of this as you are, which is why I point it out here. There will probably be more to come.

Alter Bridge, a.k.a. Creed without Scott Stapp, will release their first song, "Open Your Eyes", to radio stations across America tomorrow, but VH1 lets you hear it today! Mark Tremonti is still the primary force behind the music, so the sound is similar, but the vocals are an audibly welcome change. Give it a listen or ignore it; I'm just a messenger.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens writes for the Court:

When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law.

The Supreme Court decided not to decide today whether the words "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance, instead deciding that Michael Newdow simply can not sue the Elk Grove Unified School district over it. But if the Supreme Court does not purport to resolve the "weighty" questions, then what is its purpose? Dismissing the case on a technicality, in my unenlightened opinion, solves nothing.

Further, I believe the words "under God" should be removed from the Pledge. This does not reflect any kind of anti-Christian or anti-theological sentiment by any means. It simply reflects a desire for our country to adhere to its own prescribed ideals.

Sixty years ago, the idea of allowing a black man to have equal rights and an equally weighted opinion was absurd, but some American thinkers on that subject were years ahead of their time and helped to make it happen. Now, the idea of destroying religious bias on a state level has been thinkable since the writing of our Constitution 225 years ago, yet we still balk at the idea of allowing any religion other than our own to be acknowledged by the State.

It is time for America to overcome this superficiality of religious superioty: no one truly, cognitively knows the truth about any religion or otherwise supernatural explanation of the world until it's too late to share it with the rest of us -- so let's drop the holier-than-thou attitude and show the rest of the world, but more importantly ourselves, that we understand that.

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) still has a monopoly over college football's postseason, but today we can breathe a breath of fresh air. Why? Because the BCS finally improved upon itself in a way that makes sense? Of course not. The most recent BCS move is more absurd than doing nothing. But one thing it does ensure is that, seven months from now, fans will once again be united in disgust for the BCS's inability to fairly and accurately choose an undisputed national champion.

The newest change to the BCS formular is the creation of a fifth major bowl game. According to the old BCS, the four major bowl games (Fiesta, Orange, Rose, and Sugar) featured the top four matchups, with the primary match featuring the #1 and #2 teams, so the winner would be national champions. According to the new BCS, one of the four bowl games will still host the national championship game, but about 7-10 days after it hosts its bowl game in the same 2-3 period as the other three bowl games. That is, the national championship bowl host will actually host two bowl games.

It works sort of like this: the fifth game will allow leading teams from the lesser conferences to face off in a big-money game as long as their rankings in the BCS top 12 hold up. This doesn't accomplish much. Qualifiable teams like TCU, Boise State, and Miami Ohio may receive a monetary spike for their athletic programs, but this won't improve the rest of their conferences much. Instead, it will only give those same few teams the same financial advantage that the big conference teams already have. This bowl game worsens the disparity; it helps nothing.

But, in a roundabout way, this could be good news. If fans see the new BCS schedule for what it is -- a mockery -- then they will revolt as January approaches as well as after the season ends, and by the time the BCS contract runs out, the NCAA will have heard our message loud and clear: we don't want the BCS system.

What NCAA football needs is a playoff system -- nothing as elaborate as what we see for college basketball or even the NBA. For all I care, the BCS formula could continue to decide the rankings. But there must be a playoff. My suggestion is:

1. Conference championship games should take place after the last regular season game is played so the bowl-selection BCS rankings, which will decide bowl placement, are not affected by them.

2. Put the top 8 teams according to the end-of-season BCS rankings in a playoff bracket, with no more than the top two teams from any conference. Any third team from a single conference in the top 8 is skipped -- no exceptions.

3. Any two teams in the top 8 from the same conference will face off in round one, so no conference is over-represented in later rounds.

4. Round one is quarterfinals, the Fiesta, Orange, Rose, and Sugar Bowls.

5. Round two is semifinals, two games played on the first Saturday that is at least seven days after round one.

6. Round three is the national championship between the surviving teams, who will theoretically now possess the #1 and #2 rankings in all the significant polls and rankings. It is played in mid-January, one week after round two, and two weeks before the Superbowl. Ratings!

Any questions?

I just finished reading two New York Times articles. The one I discuss below is "An Economic Legend", Paul Krugman's latest column in which he attempts to dispell the myths and relate the truths of Reagan's economic legacy. The second is "Legacy of Reagan's Presidency Now Begins the Test of Time", an appropriately titled article by R.W. Apple Jr in which he contemplates how well Reagan's eight years as President will stand up to history.

Without further delay, here are the points of interest in Krugman's column:

[A]ccording to a recent article in the Washington Times, Ronald Reagan "crushed inflation along with left-wing Keynesian economics and launched the longest economic expansion in U.S. history." Actually, the 1982-90 economic expansion ranks third, after 1991-2001 and 1961-69 — but even that comparison overstates the degree of real economic success.

What's unfair about Krugman's revelation here is that he fails to explain how either he or the Washington Times article determined how economic expansions are measured for ranking. Different statistics will rank them differently, but Krugman isn't interested in that. He's only interested in deflating the Reagan bubble right now. Now for flaw number two:

[T]he economic expansion under President Reagan did not validate his economic doctrine. His supply-side advisers didn't promise a one-time growth spurt as the economy emerged from recession; they promised, but failed to deliver, a sustained acceleration in economic growth.

What Krugman fails to mention this time is that Democrats were in control of the House of Representatives throughout Reagan's presidency, and the House is where all money-related bills (to become laws) originate. However, Republicans were in control of the Senate for Reagan's first term, so they were able to contain the Democratic House and push much of Reagan's policies through. Everything was looking great in 1984, hence the largest landslide in Presidential election history, despite the Democrats taking over the Senate, which they controlled for the next four years.

So for the duration of Reagan's second term, the entire Congress was controlled by Reagan's and Republicans' political opposition. And we all know politicians -- their primary goal is power; their secondary goal is service. Democrats did everything they could to dismantle Reagan's economic agenda, touting their people's party mantra and further blaming the negative economic results on Reagan's politics. It didn't work, as the election of George H.W. Bush proved, but the result nonetheless is a declining economy at the end of Reagan's term, which Democrats are now trying to blame on the President who had very little to do with it.

Krugman goes on to admit that, while unemployment and inflation fell significantly during Reagan's administration, their overall average numbers throughout his eight years were very high, so that should be bad for Reagan. This is absurd; if they were high when Reagan got there, it was not Reagan's fault. If they came down to more reasonable levels while he was in office, you can give him and Congress the credit for it.

But remember, it was the Democratic Congress after 1985 that would bring about the economic decline of the early 1990s. America finally realized this shortly after Clinton was elected president, and a massive Republican victory in the 1994 midterm elections was the resulf of that. The Republican-controlled Congress, then, was in control of all the money legislation that led to the economic boom of the late 1990s, which Krugman (and countless others) credit to Clinton:

There was, in short, nothing magical about the Reagan economy. The United States did, eventually, experience an economic miracle -- but not until Bill Clinton's second term. Only then did the economy achieve a combination of rapid growth, low unemployment and quiescent inflation that confounded the conventional economic wisdom.

True, this happened during Clinton's second term, but all Clinton did was follow the leaders who passed the bills in Congress. He, like Reagan, had the power to veto them, but in the interest of not stooping to dog-eat-dog politics in which nothing gets done, he (like Reagan) signed the bills into law allowing the Republican Congress to dicate his economic record. Now, remember, only ten years previously, the Democratic Congress had attempted to undermine Reagan's economic record by forcing their agenda down his throat, which cost the economy big time in the early 1990s. So what was a Republican Congress to do? The same thing, except by forcing their agenda down Clinton's throat, they actually scored big points for the economy, and Clinton took all the credit while also getting a few tax hikes through.

Okay, so we'll never know exactly whose policies caused which economic booms or crashes. The real truth is that we're all on the same side, because we all want everyone to be happy and live comfortably. But neither Democrats nor Republicans are mature enough to try to make that happen. Their only aim is to undermine the other party's agenda, so rather than working together for the common good and general welfare of all Americans, their primary interest has become the quest to secure power for the Party. Serving the American people is entirely secondary.

Isn't it time, then, that we gave someone else a try? Like a political party that doesn't have the history of power-mongering like the Democrats and Republicans?

A few Democrats are upset because they were not invited to speak for Reagan, and this puzzles me. Two years ago, when Senator Paul Wellstone (Democrat from South Dakota) and his family were tragically killed in a small plane crash, not a single Republican was even invited to the ceremony, much less to speak. Considering that Reagan was about as conservative as Wellstone was liberal, it puzzles me further that the "extreme" right wing is holding these ceremonies so respectfully and compassionately, while two years ago the "moderate" left turned what was supposed to be a eulogy into an evening of violent verbage -- essentially a pep rally.

If you were paying attention two years ago, you remember the coverage of the Wellstone debacle. Why, then, are Democrats now so critical of Republicans (and others) paying their last and well deserved respects to one of the greatest presidents of the twentieth century (the conservative equivalent of FDR)? Are they so thick as to have forgotten their own idiocy only two years ago?

You could not see my web site and I could not receive email for about 20 hours yesterday and this morning. I survived without email, so hopefully the absence of my web site didn't kill anyone. I'm back, hopefully without further interruption. Yay for neotope.com.

"His work here is done, and now a shining city awaits him. God Bless Ronald Reagan."

- President George W. Bush, June 5, 2004

I know this is the wrong way to think about it, but someone is going to suggest it sooner or later, and I'd rather we talked about it while the Gipper is still on our minds. It has been said that, aside from his father, our current President's presidency is more like Reagan's than any other--or at least his goals and motivations are most similar to Reagan's. So, given that this is an election year and we're looking at a week or more of tribute to one of the most underrated Presidents of our time, how likely is it that the positive look at Ronald Reagan will inadvertently aid Bush's reelection bid just by virtue of similar policy ideals?

Ten years after the murder of his wife Nicole and her friend Ronald Goldman, O.J. Simpson has granted a few interviews. You can catch O.J. with Katie Couric on "Dateline" (NBC) Friday night at 8:00, with Greta van Susteren on her "On The Record" (Fox News) Monday night at 10:00, and with Catherine Crier on "CourtTV Wednesday" at 9:00pm. Google News links to much more, including teaser comments revealing Simpson's straight-to-DVD reality show in which prankster O.J. -- nickname "Juice" -- will "juice" in much the same way that Ashton Kutcher "punks". Want to know more? Me neither.

After about eight years of dominating the rock charts with three albums and a handful of hit singles, Creed is no more. Guitarist Mark Tremonti and drummer Scott Phillips have rejoined with bassist Brian Marshall (who left the band about three years ago for personal reasons) and found a new singer, Myles Kennedy (formerly of Mayfield Four), to form a new band called Alter Bridge. Meanwhile, vocalist Scott Stapp is working on his first solo project, due out August 31. Alter Bridge's first album One Day Remains is scheduled for release on August 10.

Those of you who know me well have criticized me in the past for liking Creed. But I can't help it. The music just sounds good to me. But here's my take on the split and new projects: I expect my ears are more likely to follow Mark Tremonti's guitary to Alter Bridge than Scott Stapp's voice to his next semi-Christian rock project. But considering that Creed was at one time my favorite band ever (laugh all you want -- I wouldn't admit it if I didn't want it to entertain you), I'll at least give the new band and new solo career a chance.

Dirk is an Atlanta Braves fan, and the following is taken from an Atlanta Braves discussion group that got a little off track. He describes himself as a "Blair Democrat", and in a discussion about politics that led naturally to the war in Iraq, he had this to say when one close-minded leftist dared anyone to try to justify America's business in Iraq:

I think the time to make the best of the situation was around 1995 when the Oil For Food program was just getting started. That would have been the perfect time for the US -- who had the chance to do this but our President chose not to -- to offer to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and help revitalize its economy for the sake of its people and the global oil market. The Clinton administration didn't like this idea (oil money helps rich Republicans, after all), and so we took another path -- one that led to further hostilities.

My opinion is loaded with biased terms and phrases, and it isn't better than anyone else's. It's just better for me than anyone else's.

Karey Kirkpatrick, co-screenwriter (along with Douglas Adams) of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie, has interviewed himself (and tells you why) for the HHGG Movie Blog. From the moment I first heard of Douglas Adams' death, I was skeptical of anyone else's making the movie in his stead. But Kirkpatrick cured me of that disorder with what he had to say in the interview: "I think people, especially die-hard HHGG fans, will be happy to see that it is very much the same story as the radio play, the book, and the TV series with all the well-known and beloved scenes, characters and concepts. Arthur, Ford, Trillian, Zaphod, Marvin, Eddie, Vogons, Slartibartfast, Deep Thought, Lunkwill & Fook, the mice, whales, petunias, dolphins, 42, even Gag Halfrunt; all present and accounted for."

The Transit of Venus is a phenomena witnessed very seldomly -- in fact, next Tuesday's transit will be the first witnessable from Earth since 1882. (Google News points to hundreds of stories.) The transit of a planet occurs when it passes between another and the sun, thus only transits of Mercury and Venus are possible from Earth. It will begin at 05:13 Universal Time, which is 9:13pm July 7 on the US West Coast (more info), and it will last several hours. NASA has a map that shows when and where it will be viewable (more maps here), some safety tips for properly viewing the sun, and a Sun-Earth Day 2004 web site with lots more, including where to find webcasts. This Transit of Venus FAQ should answer many of your questions, including why transits of Venus follow a regular pattern of recurrence at intervals of 8, 121.5, 8, and 105.5 years. FYI, The event won't be visible in North American sky until the sun rises, and by then it will be almost over. If you miss this one, you'll have one more chance at it on June 6, 2012, when the transit will be most visible the Pacific.

The links at the top of this page that should concern you say "blog" (that's this one), "livejournal", "braves", and "polstate". Here's the deal: this blog has/shall become my soapbox, where I will deposit my theories, rants, and anything else that doesn't have much to do with my personal life. The livejournal is where you will find all my personal anecdotes and an occasional wild post about The Matrix or music, though you might find those crossposted here as well. The Braves site is where I will do my best to write about the Atlanta Braves and their progress throughout the 2004 season. I've been busy for the first two months, but I'll try to do better. Finally, Polstate is the Political State Report, where I post my Georgia politics news articles that are almost always posted here as well.

The point is that anyone who is here for my blogging needs to be over at my livejournal, because that is not only where I write the fun stuff, but you can leave comments over there and interact with my posts, just like I always wanted you to do here but I was never motivated enough to program it in.

That is all.

I have stumbled upon the truth. Melloccino spawned the idea, and then I ran with it. You may not like what I have to tell you, but I promise that it is the truth. But first, a warning: If you have not seen Reloaded and/or Revolutions and you're planning to, do not read this! If you have seen them, then take ten minutes and try this on for size. I have not posted the entire explanation in its entirety here, because that would be redundant. It is available at my livejournal under the subject heading "The Matrix Revealed". Add your own thoughts by posting a comment!

I see Dave is planning to revitalize Founding Issues, his political web journal to which I had planned to contribute last year. With the 2004 election on the brink, I hope I am invited to the party again; only, this time I'll have lots to say! If not, though, I'll still cite Dave's thoughts pretty regularly. So... Watch for it.