In the first year of Reagan's administration we had tax cuts. The following year we had a terrible recession, with a real decline in GDP of 1.9%. The following four years the yearly unemployment rate averages were 9.7%, 9.6%, 7.5%, and 7.2%.

Meanwhile, the national debt increased at rates of 16.4%, 17.8%, 17.9%, and 17.0% over the next four years.

It's true that the third year out from Reagan's tax cuts GDP grew 7.2%, but we still had 7.5% increase (the so-called "jobless recovery").

Hey, I'd like to propose another futile sports-related cause: Changing the nickname of the next round of the tournament to the A-List Eight.

Elite Eight is only alliterative from a spelling standpoint, not a sound standpoint, and, hey, if you're one of the top eight in the country, you've definitely made the A-List.

Going in to the A-List Eight, there is exactly one team left that was seeded higher than #2, that's the third seeded Oregon Ducks.

I know, it one sense parity means that schools other than the traditional powerhouses have a shot, and there's a little bit of that (the Ducks being, perhaps, the best example. By the way, if they meet Ohio State in the final, it would be a rematch of the first NCAA Mens' Basketball Final, won by Oregon in 1939).

But true parity means that most teams are fairly evenly matched, and that doesn't seem to so true in this years tournament, though we've at least had some close games in this round.

I'm sick and tired of people throwing around the man-hating feminist crap.

I've known quite a few feminists. I've also known a few man-hating women. It's been my experience that there's no overlap between the two. The feminists all seem to have healthy attitudes towards men.

If anything, I've found that feminists don't have the same expectations of men fitting into stereotypical roles. Funny that, it seems that seeing women as people leads to seeing men as people.

Let's hope it's a Widmer, Red Hook, Amnesia (is Amnesia Brewing a great name, or what!?), or one of the other great microbrews available in the Northwest, and not a bland corporate brew.

It's long overdue for the Republicans to relinquish the elephant as their symbol. It's said that elephants never forget, yet Republicans seem to never be able to remember.

I don't know of an animal that is the epitome of forgetfullness, so, unless such an animal can be found, I suggest the Grand Not As Old As The Other Major Party change their symbol to Huh?

He probably needs to wash his hair in there somewhere.

I agreee with the other letter writers who say that Cowherd's unlistenable. Unfortunately, here in Portland if you listen to the sports station you also have promos for his show to avoid.

I don't understand why people would listen to someone whose persona is "I'm a bigger doofus than you are."

Jim Rome is often unlistenable, too, but at least he'll have the occasional good interview, and he was spot-on about the Pat Tillman a couple of weeks ago.

Bush and co. keep talking about a "pre September 11, 2001 mindset", but that's not what changed the world. What changed the world was the President being warned of the threat on August 6, 2001 and doing nothing about it.

Maybe Democrats need to be talking about Bush's August 5 mindset, and the fact that his August 6 mindset was exactly the same.

You write in the beginning of the book, "Everything that's called cheating is not cheating" and "all cheating is not morally objectionable." I'm wondering, how do we define cheating, and do we just define it as what the other team does?>/i>

Okay, I hate to be the grammar police, but I think what he probably meant in the book was "not everything that's called cheating is cheating" and "not all cheating is morally objectionable."

Because some things that are called cheating really is cheating, and some cheating is morally objectionable.

What we really need is a national conversation about race and sex and language. It seems like what's happening is more like a bunch of people talking at and past each other.

I'm sure that Imus was caught off guard by the uproar, as he's been saying this sort of stuff for years, with no repurcussions. It's also true that far worse goes out over the airwaves every day, with no repurcussions.

I haven't actually heard his apologies, so I can't judge how sincere they are, but it does seem like there should be a place for atoning for one's wrongs. It seems like we have fuzzy lines, but when it's deemed that someone has crossed the fuzzy line, retribution is swift and total.

There also seems to be little or no gradation of punishment. I have to think that Imus is wondering "gee, nobody said anything after all the other stuff I said."

I've often wondered how the producers and station managers for these shows can sleep at night, and why, apparently, they don't ever say to the talkers "you know, the stuff you said today is repulsive."

So, the talkers keep pushing the bounds of decency, and every once in a while, one is deemed to have crossed the line. Most of them cross the line all the time, yet they continue to do so without consequence.

I also have to wonder if Imus is a sacrificial lamb because he has been critical of this administration and the war in Iraq.

The answer is simple for Congress:

Tell the White House to provide ALL the emails used by staffers using RNC accounts. If they are not provided, impeachment hearings for Obstruction of Justice will commence.

What the Warriors guaranteed themselves last night is a non-losing record. Of course, since the play the Trailing Blazers tonight, they're close to assured of an actual winning record.

As for teams in a playoff race meeting teams that have no reason to play hard, it's just part of the luck factor. Some teams got to play Phoenix when Steve Nash was hurt, it's really just the same thing.