Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Story Tools

Email this story | Print this story

Indexes


December 1st, 2008
November 30th, 2008
November 29th, 2008
November 28th, 2008
November 27th, 2008
November 26th, 2008
November 25th, 2008
November 24th, 2008
ADVERTISEMENT

Liberalism and lead

Finally, this disturbing linkage has been established

Updated: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 6:49 AM PDT
Comments (149 comment(s))

Is liberalism caused by heavy metals? Dr. Heinz Dummkopf, of the Institute for Political Disorders, seems to think so. He has done extensive research into the effects of lead and other toxic metals on human belief systems. The results are quite revealing.

"A look at history tells us that most of the crazy stuff that happened in the 1960s was caused by people who grew up with lead-painted houses and toys, along with lead-supplemented gasoline," said Dr. Dummkopf at a recent press conference. "Look at Congress today. Most of these leaders grew up in the same era as well."

William "Billy Bob" Rodreel, local country and western bar owner, agrees with the scientist's findings. "Lead-ladened liberals have destroyed this country," he said. "I have tried to raise my boys to be real men."

Rodreel was referring to teaching his sons the highlights of firearm appreciation and hunting defenseless deer. "But all they want to do is smell flowers, read poetry and marry each other," bemoaned the middle-aged businessman. "What the heck has happened to our culture?"

Dummkopf has released his conclusions in a 650-page report, published by the Committee for Returning Sanity to America. Here are some:

1. Lead toxicity has been found in the blood levels of liberals born between 1940 and 1970, at 20 times the normal rate of the general population.

2. Those with the highest rates are politicians, liberal arts college professors and book-writing/blog-bloviating Bush-haters.

3. In contrast, conservatives have much lower levels of lead, but have much higher hop residue, found in America's cheapest beer.

4. People with high lead content tend to eat tofu, drive hybrids with "Baby on Board" stickers, and discipline their unruly children with "time out." These people, by a margin of 4-1, prefer that Congress simply conduct public hearings on baseball steroid usage, rather than deal with the people's real business.

5. On the other hand, the conservative control group, by an equal margin, like chopped meat tartare (mixed with Hamburger Helper), drive "dualies" with "Insured by Smith and Wesson" stickers, and use beneficial butt-kicking techniques to correct their kids. Most feel the same discipline approach is equally appropriate for present members of their legislative bodies.

Undeterred by critics, Dummkopf is pushing Congress to spend millions for continued research into this phenomenon.

"We must get to the bottom of this. We can't go on with half of the country suffering from a potentially fatal disease," he said.

Steve Hansen is a Lodi writer and satirist.

Reader Feedback

SportsGuru wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:14 PM:

" .
Liberalism and Lead ... slowly but surely, both will kill you eventually..... "

Report Abuse

jeff wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:41 PM:

" 'Again, the old talking point that the war in Iraq was ONLY about WMD's is wearing thin and is no longer mainstream thinking anymore.'

see: doublethink "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:58 AM:

" This blog is not displayed because you have added the blogger "Giovanina"
to your Ignore list "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:56 AM:

" Giovanina wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:53 AM:

" They found WMD's quite a while back. The PC White House was not revealing the info because they did not want to bring out who originally sold them, and where a large portion of them went

And right there when you referred to the Bush Administration as the PC White House was when I decided to put you on ignore. "

Report Abuse

Giovanina wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:54 AM:

" Leonard wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:39 AM:

" WMDs the offense of leading the country into a war based on lies does not grow any less with the passing of time. "

Are you saying that at no time did Saddam create, have, or use WMD's? "

Report Abuse

Giovanina wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:53 AM:

" They found WMD's quite a while back. The PC White House was not revealing the info because they did not want to bring out who originally sold them, and where a large portion of them went. I would say they are protecting Germany, France, China, and Russia. If T.R. was alive, he woudln't care what they thought, and he would have given us the info. But you can read it in this book.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10101&offer=&hidebodyad=true "

Report Abuse

Giovanina wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:47 AM:

" voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:40 PM:

" Republican Mel Martinez dispelled this lie about Cuban/Chinese oil drilling on the floor of the Senate. You can watch his speech here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5hR14NF0es

LOL Martinez dispels lies? This guy was virtually kicked out of his National Republican Party chairman position. He is a RINO. There was a big petition drive to get him out, and he left.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008886866 "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:39 AM:

" WMDs the offense of leading the country into a war based on lies does not grow any less with the passing of time. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:37 AM:

" Just admit that WMD's is old hat. Then I can bring you up to speed. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:36 AM:

" Leonard, Yes there is nothing certain in war. However, if Obama had it his way
it would have been much worse. I don't know how you can vote for this chump given all the mistakes he has made.

Seizing defeat from the jaws of victory???

I'll have to think about that one:) "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:26 AM:

" Brian: Nothing is certain in war. Serving Generals are required to support the decisions of the civilian leadership. A number of retired Generals opposed the surge.

In any case, the final effect of the surge remains to be seen. There is no certainty that the gains made by the increased US presence will last now that the Administration is stripping soldiers out of Iraq to shore up our deteriorating position in Afghanistan.

If there is one thing the Axis of Incompetence is good at, it is seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:20 AM:

" Not even Katie Couric speaks of WMD's anymore. Now that's revealing. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:18 AM:

" Leonard, Nice try to you as well. Perhaps you should read the many reports on the war in Iraq. WMD was just one of many many reasons why McCain
voted for the ear in Iraq. Again, the old talking point that the war in Iraq was ONLY about WMD's is wearing thin and is no longer mainstream thinking anymore. Even your party knows it just doesn't cut the mustard anymore.

Leonard, do you realize it's 2008? "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:13 AM:

" Based on what the top Generals were saying before the surge, it was clear that it would work. Obama decided it was not in his best interest to vote for the surge because it may compromise
his ability to attract more of the anti-war crowd. It seems to me he's more concerned about his politics than the people. I'm not surprised. "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:11 AM:

" Nice try to rewrite history their Brian.

McCain repeatedly cited Iraqi WMDs as his motivation in the lead up to the war.

You can't just change the past to fit your current political agenda. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:03 AM:

" Leonard, McCain voted for the war because the Saddam Regime was a state sponsor of terror. Now as a state sponsor of terror, his intentions were quite clear to us and the world.

If you think John McCain should sleeze his way out of this vote based on all the other evidence then, by all means,have at it. You're entitled to your opinion that the war in Iraq was not important enought to fight because there were no WMD's.

I figured by now you would understand that "No WMD's" is old hat. Perhaps you should get up to speed on the present
disposition of the war in Iraq. Old talking points just don't cut it anymore. "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:41 AM:

" Sometimes politicians get things wrong.

McCain voted for a war to save us from Sadams WMDs.

Everyone now acknowledges that there were no WMDs.

Does that mean that McCain needs to "sleaze" his way out of his mistaken vote? "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:34 AM:

" Obama voted against the troop surge in Iraq. The troop surge worked. I wonder how Obama is going to sleeze his way out of this? "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:50 AM:

" dyan: Come out come out wherever you are! "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:29 AM:

" leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:07 PM:

" Brian, with an answer like that, you should be a politician yourself. "

Ya got that right! :-) "

Report Abuse

leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:07 PM:

" Brian, with an answer like that, you should be a politician yourself. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:02 PM:

" voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 3:21 PM:

" Brian, do you see any "inconsistencies" in McCain? Just wondering . . .

voter, oh McCain has inconsistencies, that's for sure. He's definately inconsistent in pointing out Obama's inconsistencies. He must be more vigilent in pointing them out. The liberal media isn't on his side at all at pointing them out. "

Report Abuse

Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 20, 2008 6:50 PM:

" Now that's funny Leonard! "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 6:16 PM:

" For the record, I definitely do not think Bush should negotiate directly with the Iranian President.

Given Bush's demonstrated skills at diplomacy, Ahmedinejad would probably walk away with half the Eastern Seaboard, the deed to Bush's Crawford ranch and Ann Coulter's virginity. "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 6:06 PM:

" Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:43 AM:

He does still require Iran to suspend it's uranium enrichment before negotiations can begin.

Its all semantics. If you define any negotiations that occur before the Iranians suspend uranium enrichment as non negotiations then I suppose Bush's position is entirely consistent.

Similarly, if you define sex simply as sexual intercourse, then Bill Clinton' claim that he did not have sex with that woman is just as true. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 3:21 PM:

" Brian, do you see any "inconsistencies" in McCain? Just wondering . . . "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 3:17 PM:

" Brian, still waiting for you to explain how Obama is an appeaser. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 3:07 PM:

" Girard74, What separates the Republican party from the Democratic party is the Dems willingness to allow Obama to imply he would negotiate with Amadinejad without any preconditions.

Unfortunately, 50% of the voters in this country don't see the many inconsistencies in Obama. This is very troubling. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 3:00 PM:

" girard74 wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:18 AM:


G74, this post of yours confirms what I thought you might say.

Thank you :) "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 2:57 PM:

" Leonard: Your post (Jul 20 @ 11:01 AM) was very well said and I totally agree.

Gerard, We appreciate your service very much...thank you. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:23 AM:

" voter wrote, '[Hillary Clinton] doesn't support many of the "far left" causes and is so entrenched with corporate lobbyists (as is McCain) that I doubt she would be able stray too far from the status quo. Certainly, her positions are far from those of Dennis Kucinich, who is well to the left.

This comes back to my 'snake' analogy. No one with far-left leanings will ever be elected president. Clinton's centrist positions are only for political expediency. It didn't work for her obviously because she simply cannot be trusted. But she's far-left; of that I am certain. (IMHO)

Kucinich, no matter how you dice him is far-left and has no problem admitting it. But just how is he perceived by not only those on the right, center or just left of center? He's a joke - he'll never be taken seriously. "

Report Abuse

t&c wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:22 AM:

" My two cents worth says that Bob Barr and Ralph Nader will take voters away from both sides and what McCain and Obama choose as a final campaign run on the economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will make this a very close contest. If Terry McAuliff and his band of attack dogs decide to swiftboat McCain, as did Rove and his attack dogs did with John Kerry, John McCain will retire from the political scene altogether. And then their choices of running mates will definitely send both back to the drawing table for a different strategy, considering which group they want to pander to in order to gain their confidence. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Brian asked, 'Do you agree that Bush has not changed his position on Iran?'

No, I don't believe Bush has changed at all. As this pertains to the criticism of Obama it comes down to the idea of 'preconditions' that should always be determined prior to sitting down with any adversary.

Obama placed himself in a very precarious position when he stated that he would meet with these despots with no preconditions. While it appears noble and in line with his 'change' philosophy, such a notion is incredibly naive and very dangerous if actually adopted.

Obama's problem, of course is that he could not easily change his position because to do so would make him look unprepared and too inexperienced to assume the office of which he seeks. And he is absolutely correct.

The only thing he could do would be to very slowly 'adjust' his position in the hope that no one would notice. Ahh, but we've noticed, haven't we? "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:01 AM:

" girard74 wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:28 AM:
" Brian - as far as my military service is concerned, I am rightfully proud that I was permitted to spend seven years in the United States Air Force. I was fortunate to have never been called to war, although I believe I was adequately trained to do so.

However, my military service is something that I 'did' - it is not who I 'am.' I've never asked anyone to recognize or respect my offerings on this forum based upon that period of my life.

To my way of thinking, the significance of military service is not what any one service member may or may not have done but rather what they were willing to do. While a willingness to put ones life on the line for our Freedom ought to be implicit in citizenship, our service men and women make that willingness explicit when they put on their uniforms.

You may have never been called on to serve in combat to defend my freedom but you were willing and ready to do so and for that, you deserve my thanks. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:45 AM:

" Brian, since you brought it up, lets discuss appeasement. Share you understanding of the term and how this relates to Mr. Obama. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:43 AM:

" Girard74, Your contributions to these bloggs and everywhere else, be it military or anywhere else are much appreciated.

Do you agree that Bush has not changed his position on Iran?

He does still require Iran to suspend it's uranium enrichment before negotiations can begin.

Why does the left see it differently? "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:35 AM:

" You know, girard, I am not a fan of Mrs. Clinton's either and would not be inclined to vote for her; however, I don't see how you can label her "far left". She doesn't support many of the "far left" causes and is so entrenched with corporate lobbyists (as is McCain) that I doubt she would be able stray too far from the status quo. Certainly, her positions are far from those of Dennis Kucinich, who is well to the left. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:34 AM:

" Ivan Dixon - what names? 'Silly' and 'arrogant' are descriptions of behavior. They apply to virtually all of us on these blogs at one time or another.

While I cannot accurately decide what you meant when you stated, 'Girard, I think we all knew who you were talking about,' again I find it interesting how some are so incredibly clairvoyant that they can actually peer into my mind and come up with a conclusion like that. Clearly I was referring to Hillary Clinton as a far-left loon of whom I have no respect and find untrustworthy. That short thread regarding this matter is not ambivalent at all. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:28 AM:

" Brian - as far as my military service is concerned, I am rightfully proud that I was permitted to spend seven years in the United States Air Force. I was fortunate to have never been called to war, although I believe I was adequately trained to do so.

However, my military service is something that I 'did' - it is not who I 'am.' I've never asked anyone to recognize or respect my offerings on this forum based upon that period of my life. My mentioning of those years in the past has only been to offer my real-life experiences as support for my stand in any debate that addresses the military.

I have no idea what is must be like for our current men and women in the military to fight the wars in which they are engaged now. My entire term of service was nothing compared to the sacrifices that these noble soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are making on a daily basis. I am immensely proud to be a veteran, of course - but I am much more proud of those who went before and came after me. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:27 AM:

" Brian, please explain for us how Obama's "approach" was appeasement? do you understand the meaning of appeasement? "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:24 AM:

" Cogito, You should look up her latest interview this morning with Wolfey on CNN.

She is so out of touch. "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:23 AM:

" Personally, I would like to see you both grow up and stop calling each other names.

These blogs were a better place when you were debating.

They are a far worse place now that you have each resorted to childish name calling.

Shake hands, call pax and be done with it. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:22 AM:

" I see Ivan briefly poked his head in the door to offer up his two cents. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:20 AM:

" Girard74
Isn't Leonard a gas? "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:18 AM:

" Girard, I think we all knew who you were talking about. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:13 AM:

" You're being silly and arrogant, Leonard. Everything is NOT always about you.

My reference here to the 'far-left loons' and those I find trustworthy was directed at Hillary Clinton. I was responding to Bob Hussein Loblaw's comments.

As for my feelings, once again you believe yourself to be very important, don't you? I don't know who or what you are; I've never met you and I really don't care to. To suggest that I would permit you to 'hurt' me is preposterous.

You did, however prove to me that you are anything but a worthy opponent. When confronted with someone whom you cannot shut down, you resort to your sophomoric name-calling and insults. It was you who crossed the line awhile back and as a result I reported the violation to the moderators of this board. I like the rules; they keep things civilized. You seem to think that you harbor all the knowledge, facts and truth.

I informed you that I will no longer engage you on this forum. Aside from this explanation that hopefully will cause you to move on to others with your vitriol and bile, I've kept my word. "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:06 AM:

" And Brian, Ms. Pelosi has the unmitigated gall to openly critique the career effectiveness of other politicians. She is as clueless as they come, and the clueless continue to vote for her. Sickening. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:02 AM:

" V-Back in May, Bush called Obama's willingness to even talk with Iran as appeasement. "

V-Obama's approach was more appeasement than anything else. His arrogance will get us in a lot of trouble if he is elected. He seems to think that all he has to do is hold up his hand and say stop and all of our enemies will be eating out of his hands. This is dangerous and naive. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:55 AM:

" I get a kick out of Obama when he said he doesn't need to meet with the top Generals in Iraq to form a position on the war.

This is yet another knee-jerk reaction indicative of the left.

And I'm still laughing at Pelosi's plan of action to ease the gasoline problem by tapping 10 percent of the strategic oil reserve (a mere 3.5 day supply for the nation). She's a piece of work. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:54 AM:

" What would you call establishing a diplomatic presence in a country that you had previous labeled part of the "axil of evil"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran

Back in May, Bush called Obama's willingness to even talk with Iran as appeasement. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:49 AM:

" L wrote: Meeting rhetorical defeat at every turn, Brian has no choice but to resort to the constant ad hominem.

I get a kick out of Leonard with his self-proclaimed victories.

To each his own. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:34 AM:

" Leonard wrote: Does playing Clintonesque word games make you feel better about yourself?

L- I don't know what you are talking about. If you think the sanctions on Iran will be lifted without Iran meeting the preconditions you're drinking too much Obama kool-aid.

I still haven't been able to find any reference to Bush saying it's not in our nations best interest to talk to Iran. That said, I suspect this is something you saw in your crystal ball.
For the record: Talking and negotiatiing
are two different things. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:07 AM:

" Leonard, I base my position on the talks in Iran on what I've read.
I don't know how I could be intellectually dishonest when every article I've read about the envoy to Iran says about the same thing.

If you were to take the time and read the article I've posted then you would agree with me. Instead, you blame me for what has been written in these articles. What else do you see in your crystal ball? "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:01 AM:

" Leonard wrote: That's weak and you know it. I have, in the past repeatedly thanked Girard for his service to our country and I will do so again now. That service, however, does not give him a free pass to spend the rest of his life acting like a whimpering baby. "

L-You only call G74 a whimpering baby because he won't kiss your butt.

I commend him for standing strong in his convictions. You're entitled to continue your cheap shots. I suspect you must do this to make up for YOUR lack of cajones. "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:25 AM:

" voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:16 AM:
" girard, Brian, just who are you calling "loony"?

I doubt he gives it much thought. Its more of a reflexive thing, I suspect.

Meeting rhetorical defeat at every turn, Brian has no choice but to resort to the constant ad hominem. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:16 AM:

" girard, Brian, just who are you calling "loony"? Anyone left of your own political belief set? All of the left-leaning posters here or just politicians? How about republicans who feel betrayed by Bush? How about republicans who will cross over and vote for Obama? "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:16 AM:

" Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:56 AM:

If Iran decides to suspend uranium enrichment there will be negotiations.
Get it through your head that the envoy
to Iran is a matter of testing the waters to see if Iran will bite.

Chuckle...

Does playing Clintonesque word games make you feel better about yourself.

The fact is that we are in the process of negotiations with Iran. Further negotiations will be required to establish the announced Interest Section. Further intellectual dishonesty on your part will not change the Administrations actions either for the better or the worst. "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:11 AM:

" Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:56 AM:

" Well Leonard, I have no problem calling YOU a left-wing looney.

Of course you don't. I expect nothing better from you. The sad thing is that there was a time when I expected better from Girard. Those day's are past, he has apparently decided to adopt the Brian style of discourse. "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:09 AM:

" Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:56 AM:

If anyone else had disrespected a veteran as you have you would be right there to pounce on them.

That's weak and you know it. I have, in the past repeatedly thanked Girard for his service to our country and I will do so again now. That service, however, does not give him a free pass to spend the rest of his life acting like a whimpering baby. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 8:00 AM:

" girard74 wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:27 PM:

" Brian - there are those whose hatred for President Bush is so deep and wide they will never believe him to be anything but evil personified. Arguing with them is useless.

G74- Yep, I know. But I'm always amazed how far the loones will go. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:56 AM:

" Well Leonard, I have no problem calling YOU a left-wing looney. I suspect Girard74's family jewels are much more significant than yours.

If anyone else had disrespected a veteran as you have you would be right there to pounce on them.

If Iran decides to suspend uranium enrichment there will be negotiations.
Get it through your head that the envoy
to Iran is a matter of testing the waters to see if Iran will bite. I suspect they will give us the finger. As a result, stronger sanctions will be put upon them. We're not the only country divesting in Iran. "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:26 AM:

" Brian, if attending negotiations with the Iranians isn't "negotiating" I don't know what its.

Your argument reminds me of Clinton trying to redefine the word is.

The proposed opening of the Special Interest Section is just the icing on the cake. "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 20, 2008 7:24 AM:

" Bob, when considering all of this, I think one thing you have to take into account is the fact that I have apparently hurt Girard's feelings in some way. Some might shrug something like this off but Girard has decided that he will respond by obliquely tossing insults at me, insults that he evidently doesn't have the cajones to address to me directly.

Thus, when you see him whining about "left-wing loonies", he's talking about me. Also, when he gripes about those who are not "trustworthy" that's me as well.

Its all pretty pathetic when you think about it but I understand that Girard has his own problems that have led him to become a sniveling parody of the poster he once was, utterly incapable of confronting those who happen to have different opinions from his own. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:01 PM:

" I don't 'jump' to any conclusions. My analysis of some of these far-left loons is based upon their own history; not anything that I've done. After awhile it becomes clearly apparent that there are those who are simply not trustworthy; as such I refuse to waste any time and energy thinking that maybe for once she might have changed her stripes. She never has. As the adage goes, 'a snake is a snake is a snake.' Hillary is a snake. "

Report Abuse

Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:55 PM:

" Nawww, it's way more fun to jump to conclusions like a good conservative wonk.

Rock me Sexy Jesus! "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:27 PM:

" Brian - there are those whose hatred for President Bush is so deep and wide they will never believe him to be anything but evil personified. Arguing with them is useless.

I know this because I feel the same way about Hillary Clinton. After eight years of her and her husband in the White House followed by her stint in the Senate as well as her failed presidential bid, it became apparent to me that she is incapable of even the slightest bit of integrity. In response to whatever comes out of her mouth I automatically dismiss it as a lie.

The difference, however is that I freely admit my disdain for Mrs. Clinton and have advised anyone who wishes to debate with me regarding her that I simply won't give her the benefit of any doubt. If those who feel the same way about Bush would admit their obvious bias against the man, it would save others a great deal of time by simply ignoring their tirades. My advice for you would be to simply take that into consideration. Of course this is only my opinion. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:45 PM:

" Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:31 PM:

" Do I hear the sound of flip-flops in the White House??? Heheh. "

Bob Hussy, perhaps you should read the articles I have provided too before you jump to conclusions. "

Report Abuse

Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:31 PM:

" Do I hear the sound of flip-flops in the White House??? Heheh. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:08 PM:

" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/16/iran.usforeignpolicy

Leonard, Read this article carefully. It states there will be no negotiations unless Iran suspends it's nuclear enrichment program. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:02 PM:

" http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080716/pl_afp/usirannuclearlisten

Leonard, this is not the only source where it states there will be no negotiating. I have found many others. "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 19, 2008 6:12 PM:

" Brian, I don't know what you are talking about. The Administration is sending a representative to talks with Iran in Geneva next month plus they announced to Congress last week that they are planning to open an Interest Section in Tehran in the near future.

Check your sources, they must be out of date. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 2:19 PM:

" Leonard, I gave you the benefit of the doubt in your email to me that Bush is opening up negotiations with Iran.

After further research, this is not the case. I could have just as easily have accused you of allowing someone to spoon feed you this misinformation.
But I didn't. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 2:13 PM:

" In any event, We aren't going over there to negotiate. The preconditions to suspend uranium enrichment have not been met.

Those going to Iran are under strict orders to listen to what Iran has to say but not engage in one-on-one discussions with the Iranian negotiator. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 2:00 PM:

" Leonard wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:50 PM:

" A conservative I know suggested to me that Bush may just be opening negotiations with Iran to damage the Obama campaign.

This raised an interesting question. If Bush really thinks (as he has repeatedly stated) that negotiations with Iran are bad for the national interest and if he is simply negotiating with the Iranians to gain a political advantage for his party, is he not betraying his own oath of office? "

Leonard, where did Bush say that negotiations with Iran are bad for the national interest?

Actually sir, Bush has said that we should only negotiate with Iran if there are preconditions. "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:00 AM:

" Chuckle....

Apparently someone's feelings are still hurt.

The time has come to man up, my friend. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:41 AM:

" dyan: Are you a writer?? "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:23 PM:

" Dyan - during my lifetime I have met a few honorable, decent and successful 'janitors.' While Stanford Man may very well have taken the remark as an insult (which I have absolutely no way of knowing, but could easily understand how someone with a higher degree of education might feel that way), I don't believe it should merit a very high degree of outrage. Some of the abusive language directed at me over the past six months or so would cause me to welcome anyone to address me as janitor instead. But all people are different and Stanford Man (or you) could find himself more insulted than I.

Again, if there are abuses on these boards it is hardly 'ratting' to bring such incidents to the moderators of this forum. The discourse often becomes unbearable as a result of a few who disregard the rules; that's why the 'Report Abuse' button is available for each blog entry. "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:55 PM:

" Senator Craig and Cuba say it is true. So Whom are you going to believe? Either way, right or wrong, we lose. "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:50 PM:

" A conservative I know suggested to me that Bush may just be opening negotiations with Iran to damage the Obama campaign.

This raised an interesting question. If Bush really thinks (as he has repeatedly stated) that negotiations with Iran are bad for the national interest and if he is simply negotiating with the Iranians to gain a political advantage for his party, is he not betraying his own oath of office? "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:24 PM:

" Brian, what's your source of info on Cuban oil spills? The only spill in that area that I can find reference to was one caused by a tanker collision (both foreign vessels) in 1998. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:40 PM:

" Republican Mel Martinez dispelled this lie about Cuban/Chinese oil drilling on the floor of the Senate. You can watch his speech here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5hR14NF0es "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:28 PM:

" dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:24 AM:

" You're right. What lacks focus are liberals. They would rather pay $10 for a gallon of gas and let the Chinese and Cubans drill off of our shores - and their technology is a lot less advanced than ours! "

Dyan, this is why liberalism is a mental disorder. No one else but liberals would say it's ok for other countries to drill off our coast and have a higher rate of an oil spill than us. It seems to me their logic
is outrageous. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:30 PM:

" dyan: Are you a writer? "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:34 PM:

" By the way, having a disagreement with "The Stanford Man" over writing style does not mean calling him a "janitor" as one of your fellow boggers did a couple of weeks ago. "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:24 PM:

" First of all, I'm not going to be a crybaby or a rat. If one gets one these blogs, they need to expect the consequences. Second, The person who insulted my husband was not Girard, but he or she knows who it is. Again, I will not mention a blog name. All I'm saying is let's not point the finger about "personal attacks" when three are coming back. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:38 PM:

" dyan wrote, 'Some ... called one of Hansen's supporters "the proctologist," ... insulted "Stanford Man" who I've heard through the grapevine is an English professor ... and even made insulting remarks about my deceased husband. So let's not pretend you guys are as pure as the driven snow.'

First, if there are ever any comments made that violate the rules and policies clearly stated at the bottom of the page next to where we click the 'Post Comment' button, they should be reported to the LNS through the 'Report Abuse' system.

Second, because someone may be a professor doesn't mean that they are always correct or that we should automatically accept his/her opinions as our own, does it?

Third, while I have never made any disparaging comments about your deceased husband (I wasn't even aware that you are a woman or that you were ever married), I do not know if anyone else knows these facts either. That being said, there are those here who for some reason expect others to take into account facts that are never placed into evidence. Are we expected to read minds as to what may be personally offensive to others? "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:45 PM:

" As I said in the beginning of these blogs, liberals can dish it out but they can't take it. Talk about about "personal attacks?" Some of your blogging pals called one of Hansen's supporters "the proctologist," insulted "Stanford Man" who I've heard through the grapevine is an English professor at said university, and even
made insulting remarks about my deceased husband. So let's not pretend you guys are as pure as the driven snow. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:30 PM:

" girard, your post at 11:06--well said.

dyan, some of the posters here have been writing extensively for years--their facility with the language, wit, and intellect on display in these forums every week. What other evidence do you need? "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:17 PM:

" I read Ann Coulter all the time. Some love her wit some hate it. I never read Al Frankin. Some love his wit, some hate it. Does that mean both are "bad" writers? Obviously, their style of writing does not appeal to everyone, but then it's not designed to do so. Some people don't like Hansen's style. Fine. We get the point as it is the same from the same just about every week. "

Report Abuse

Dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:05 PM:

" Nothing personal. I just find it interesting that those with the least writing experience are the most critical. But I guess that's human nature as well. "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:06 AM:

" Dyan - I write a great deal. This year alone the News-Sentinel has printed four of my Letters-to-the-Editor. And unfortunately my anonymity is no longer secure. Now I fully understand that they will print virtually anything from anyone, but the point is that I 'DO' not just 'talk.'

Nevertheless, if I hadn't written one word and was never 'published' (I use that term advisably as it applies to the LNS), do you still suggest that I would have no standing to criticize others' work?

This forum exists precisely for the purpose that you seem to believe should be restricted. And youre not alone, of course. I find it interesting (and often frustrating) that those who cannot intelligently voice their opposition to any offering (from either an author or blogger) move on to personal attacks, threats, sophomoric name-calling, etc. While I fully understand that a few subjects (politics, religion at the top of the list) create emotions that are often difficult to control, losing that control only exhibits literary and personal immaturity. "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:21 AM:

" So what is your writing resume Girard?
If Ebert loves a movie and Roeper hates it, does that mean it is trash? Arm chair critics crack me up! "

Report Abuse

girard74 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:15 AM:

" dyan - are you possibly suggesting that anyone who does not 'write' is incapable of discerning good writing from bad of others?

I can hardly draw a straight line but I can certainly recognize 'art' from trash. The very same applies to how we analyze the literary offerings we come across on a daily basis, especially within the Lodi News-Sentinel. "

Report Abuse

Stanford Man wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:34 AM:

" dyan: You are casting your pearls... Well, you know the rest. "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:24 AM:

" You're right. What lacks focus are liberals. They would rather pay $10 for a gallon of gas and let the Chinese and Cubans drill off of our shores - and their technology is a lot less advanced than ours! "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:48 AM:

" This is getting tiresome, dyan. Read about it yourself in the Houston Chronicle.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3457319.html

Oil floats, so the storm surge washed a great deal of the spill inland, contaminating not only marshes, but residential areas as well. "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:41 AM:

" Where are those oil-soaked birds and beaches? "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:39 AM:

" Obviously, there is no resume in writing to see. "Bad writing is in the eye of the beholder is what I told her." Think outside the box, voter. Amen. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:26 AM:

" dyan, why would my published writing have any bearing on the quality of this piece? And why would any poster who values anonymity direct you to a piece of their published work? "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:23 AM:

" dyan, are you stating that government reports are wrong about the amount of oil spilled, or are you stating that all of that spilled oil is trivial and not a concern? "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:15 AM:

" So voter - again -what have you written so we can see what "good" writing is? "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:13 AM:

" And Piccaso couldn't paint like a photograph either. LOL! "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:12 AM:

" Yeah, you're right about Katrina. Millions of birds were covered with crude and they are still cleaning up the beaches. LOL "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:05 AM:

" 113 platforms were totally destroyed, and 457 pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10″ or larger diameter. The amount of oil spilled was comparable to the Exxon Valdez disaster. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:02 AM:

" dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:30 AM:
" How much oil was spilled in the Gulf during Katrina? Zero! "

LOL! You'll believe just about any talking point blasted over the airwaves, won't you? Katrina was the cause of 124 off shore spills and hundreds of onshore spills. According to Houston Chronicle report (and the US Mineral Management Service):

"The quantity and cumulative magnitude of the 595 spills, which were spread across four states and struck offshore and inland, rank these two hurricanes (Rita and Katrina) among the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history." "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:52 AM:

" Yes, dyan, the piece is all over the place and lacks focus and direction. A short piece such as this needs tight focus for effectiveness. Read back over the posts--the intelligent conservative leaning posters (girard, cogito) don't find humor in the piece either. It fails to connect with the intended audience. Assessment of this as bad writing has nothing to do with political leaning. "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:42 AM:

" Let's see if I can explain this so even voter can understand it. 1. It's a satire on modern "research" techniques. (correlation studies, which for the most part are BS). 2. It also pokes fun at the heavy metal crowd. and 3. Makes fun of stereotypes of liberals and conservatives. Get it? No I didn't think so. "

Report Abuse

Giovanina wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:33 AM:

" LOLOLOL Liberals are so sensitive.

Lead lined liberals, what a concept. "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:32 AM:

" Voter: What have you written so we can see how it is done? I'm sure your politics do not influence your judgment. "

Report Abuse

dyan wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:30 AM:

" You guys. Get real. Every other country in the world with natural resources is drilling off shore without ill effects.
Modern techniques are safe. Our dumb laws were passed back in the sixties when safe thechnology was not available. How much oil was spilled in the Gulf during Katrina? Zero! "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:30 AM:

" Brian, still waiting for your literary analysis of what wisdom is expressed "between the lines" of this piece. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:28 AM:

" dyan, good writing has many traits, but most glaringly this dreck lacks focus and neglects the reader. Satire depends on the writers use of wit, a clever and inventive use of language to compare and contrast ideas in an amusing way. Since posters with a wide array of political leanings have weighed in to express a lack of amusement, we can safely say that the piece is witless. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:39 AM:

" Oh, Brian. "

Report Abuse

Bob Loblaw wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:12 PM:

" Brian your statement is illogical. Natural seepage is just that - natural. It occurs naturally. Why would you compare that to a man made (and thus avoidable) spill? Odd. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:02 PM:

" http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977397794

Liberals don't want you to know that natural oil seepage contributes to more oil in the ocean and beaches then oil production. "