Bedside Nurse wrote on Jun 17, 2007 10:23 PM:To Brenda Ham: When the charge nurse position was eliminated in 2001, were they replaced with supervisors? If not, then you really can't make a comparison. According to Ellerbe, the supervisors will be on the unit 90% of the time performing the same duties as the current charge nurses. Many charge nurses now are not bedside nurses, and some charge nurses don't do much of anything. This change would certainly be a way of making them more accountable. Don't worry, bedside nurses will remain at the bedside doing what they do best--taking care of the patients.

Hey Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2007 10:30 PM:re: your commenting on common sense, yesterday @ 6:27pm. You wouldn't know common sense if it came out of your camera and bit you !!

el_patron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 1:54 AM:Darrel Beck has been stupendously wrong for years. He fancies hisself a Ramona historian, but doesn't know how history is gathered; his global warming nonsense is made up porch talk. He has shown that he knows nothing of past climate history, yet prattles on. The reason liberal talk radio isn't commercially strong is because we don't need the repeated organ grinding you Republican monkeys chatter to. We have music, and lyrical radio such as the NPR programs to listen to. It's a proven fact that Faux noise radio listeners thought there were WMDs in Iraq for years after the rest of the world knew better. The faux listeners don't know science, and suck up the silliest notions. Imagine believing rush limbaugh! On anything! Beck does. Imagine Beck having a grandchild that wants to be a molecular biologist, go to UCSD, then realize gramps doesn't believe anything they do. Imagine that.

el_patron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 2:07 AM:What Drrel Beck is complaining about is what used to be the public service aspect of TV & radio. Those of us old enough remember when the media was required to have general purpose public messages, and a balanced public posture. They usually hid their free giveaway service time to late Sunday night, but they did have to balance political services in all aspects of time and presentation. They are the public's airwaves, and the profits are huge. So they were required to give something back. That all fell away under the onslaught of big business. Now, an owner can slant and bias anyway he wants, if a strong enough owner in a corporate world. That's what happens at Faux, where they breed ignorance. You can see it in the letters here. Now the faux owners are trying to buy the Wall Street Journal, and the world knows it will lie like fox if that happens. Darrel Beck thinks having some sense of balance is tyranny to his ignorance, and it is, since ignorance needs cover.

el_patron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 2:15 AM:Sorry, Kyle Costanza, student, Rincon Middle School, Escondido, and no hard feelings, but we older folks are going to burn up all the gas before you get much of it. No hard feelings. There just won't be that lifestyle of just driving around, at least not cheaply. Oh, gas will be for sale, but it won't be $4. Synthetic gas from coal, Artic gas, ethanol, all of it is expensive. Oil from tars and shales are expensive and use precious water. We in San Diego drink the water from the shale oil country. I bet it takes a gallon and a quarter to make a gallon of ethanol, after measuring the farming, curing/drying, brewing, and refinement/delivery. Everyone needs to think ahead, to centralized lifestyles and mass transit. Shared cars. A great life.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:27 AM:Kyle Costanza, God Bless you young man. I love this! As he puts it: "...I may be just a simple middle-school student..." This is great! I really encourage the youthful Mr. Costanza to continue his writing, and his interest in our public discourse. One piece of advise: Think about history. Back in 1936, a home was $819.00, by 1976 it was $38,000, and 1992 it was $168,000. My Grandfather used to tell me a loaf of bread could be bought for a nickle, I never saw it. The cost of things we need and buy everyday goes up. Gas, electric power, water... it's all part of our system. And it's all relative.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:44 AM:Exactly right, Darrell Beck! They can't compete in the market place of ideas, so some of the Stalinist left want to silence right talk by 50% under the guise of equal time, and the Fairness Doctrine. And think about this for one second. In anything, if it sells, people must want it. Right talk radio has grown expodentially, while most left talk venues have failed to attract listeners. You see the same in television news. Fox News rountinuely crushes all other cable outlets, and Bill O'Reilly alone has better numbers for a single program than CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC put together. In America, when you don't like what someone else is doing, in the American tradition, you build a better mousetrap. In the Stalinist Hugo Chavez version, you shutdown the opposition to give you equal time, and that is not democratic.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 5:02 AM:I'm kinda mixed on this letter by Julie Anders today. I believe like she does, that we already have the tools from 1986 for comprehensive immigration enforcement, and that the current bill is just a get-out-of-jail card for criminals. But, why is it our responsibility to address the needs of small farmers in Mexico? Isn't that the responsibility of the Mexican government? NAFTA is, in my opinion, the "Mexican Employment Act." We see in our own country, the government couldn't or wouldn't protect our own small farmers. Congress routinuely gives massive amounts of pork to corporate AG companies, while ignoring the plight of our own small farmers. Over time, what was once the backbone of of America, has now become rare. I am continually amazed by the beliefs of some people that somehow this government is supposed to be the arbitor of "fairness", when it has clearly demonstrated, time and time again, that is does not have the capacity to do so.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 5:09 AM:The deaths of soldiers of any conflict is always a depressing thought. But, the living still need you, Robert Jones. So, while your sitting on your pity pot, the world of those dead soldiers continues, and could continue through you, and your actions. While I don't celebrate the death of anyone, except Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and ... well, I correct myself, I do celebrate some deaths. My point is: Get into action. What better thing can you do as a citizen, a fellow human being, and compassionate American than to help those who are now without a father, a husband, a wife? Plenty of ways to do it too: Homefront San Diego, and the Navy League are just two of my favorite ways to help.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 5:12 AM:One interesting aside to Stefan Georges letter today. The Danes, who once championed the smoking of marijuana in public places, are now making it illegal to do so, via secondhand smoke legislation.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 5:22 AM:And an answer to some from the other day, I know you are concerned about how I schedule my time. For the last couple of weeks, I've been taking some needed time off from training, as I just completed the Rock n Roll marathon on June 3rd. As my body gets older, the time inbetween to recover seems to be greater. Later this year, I'm planning to do the SuperFrog half iron, in preparation for Ironman Arizona next April. So, you will shortly be seeing less of me, do to time constraints. I know this will be a hardship for some, as I know, you rely on me for my witty and thoughtful remarks on a daily basis. As for how I'm able to accomplish the rest, well.. I find that if you start with a good foundation, God, family, work, and charity, it all just seems to fall into place. I hope all you Dad's had a great Father's Day, and you single Mother's who are doing the work alone. You are doing the Lord's work.

MB wrote on Jun 18, 2007 7:22 AM:To Janae Falzon about Tardy Sweeps: Consider the following: Those same tardy students have been taught by their parents' attitude toward life and these same students will be late for their jobs when they graduate(maybe); how about the students who ARE on time to class and must pay the price for the tardy student(s) breaking the rhythm of the lesson. Do the good students pay the price of the tardy student(s)? The TARDY student, in most cases, doesn't really care about his/her education, but rather a place to socialize. I have seen the SWEEP work effectively to reduce tardies. Teenagers don't like to be bored and sitting at a desk with absolutely nothing to do or allowed to talk. It just kills them. Most students get the message. Those who don't you see many times in the SWEEP room time after time. Reward the GOOD students, who want to learn, with a positive classroom atmosphere.

wolf wrote on Jun 18, 2007 7:35 AM:There is no evidence, zro,nanda, that 2nd hand smoke hurts anyone and courts have agreed. The clinton folks skewed the science to reach the conclusion they wanted. I pity the kids that believe the garbage their schools teach

OBSERVATION wrote on Jun 18, 2007 8:03 AM:Hey Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2007 10:30 PM:Did you have anything credible to say to Alf or do you lack any credible opinion or infomraton?

Alf wrote on Jun 18, 2007 8:11 AM:Well, "Hey Alf", if you think that common sense was involved in our invasion of Iraq, 'you ain't got none'. If you believe even 5 percent of what is emitted by GWB, you are more sick than I thought. Still an unashamed Libertarian, Alf.

Mr Beck's error wrote on Jun 18, 2007 8:13 AM:I have only one important correction to make to Darrell Beck's letter. He seems to believe that a better product, i.e., one that attracts more buyers, is therefore the truth. I don't see how these things have anything whatsoever to do with each other. Maybe those on the right just love juvenile finger-pointing and name-calling. Maybe those on the left prefer something more boring: long conversations about important topics. Regardless, the fact that rightist radio is popular only means one thing: it's popular. The 2006 election might be another measure of popularity of the erroneously called "two sides". There too, though, truth is not the issue.

Let's be fair, then wrote on Jun 18, 2007 8:19 AM:Just to add information to the conversation about the fairness doctrine in broadcast media, let's not forget that the Bush appointees at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have, for the first time ever, involved themselves in trying to direct content. They've claimed it's on the basis of fairness, but what they've done is targeted Bill Moyers and similar programming. Numerous studies have shown that PBS news shows have had at least an equal number of "left" and "right" talking heads as guests, and that this has even been true of Moyers' shows. No matter: ANY contrary opinions are singled out by the Bush appointees. This is the government, folks, dictating content. Now that's the fair Hugo Chavez comparison.

to el patron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 8:25 AM:Let's assume this Democrat Congress is able to push through this Stalinist Fairness Docrine. That would, in theory, force right-leaning talk hosts to give equal time for the liberal point of view on a given topic. But, the question begs, what about a 3rd point of view? Let's say, the point of view of an Islamic terrorist. Do we also give them equal time? Do they get a seat at the table? Oops, wait. Never mind. The modern liberal and the Islamic terrorist often share the same point of view.

Two quickies wrote on Jun 18, 2007 8:26 AM:1) Prime Minister Maliki has told the US to cease arming Sunnis to fight Al Qaida in Iraq, asserting that this is creating more and better-equipped militias that the Iraqi government is trying to control. Will we respect the request of the Iraqi government? Stay tuned. 2) The US bombed an Al Qaida house and at least 7 children were killed. This is tragic in many ways. The bottom line of it will be that more Muslims will hate us. But how shameful of those in the house to keep the children there! One part of the story that I don't understand, though. The US claims that it did not know children were in the house, and also that the Al Qaida in the house were hiding behind children. How can both be true? If Al Qaida was trying to use the children to hide behind, isn't it necessary that the US had to know they were there? Something's fishy in this explanation, and if I think so, imagine what Al Jazeera is telling that part of the world!

GFN wrote on Jun 18, 2007 8:49 AM:Darn it Ron, you are beginning to affect me. "Mongo" has feelings for Sheriff". I like how you write, learned a lot from it, don't always agree with it, but I do respect it. Your blogs today contain much wisdom and insight and I don't have much to add because of that. Enjoy the SuperFrog; we will try to keep each other entertained and upset until you get back to normal duty.

OBSERVATION wrote on Jun 18, 2007 9:28 AM:el_patron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 2:07 AM: I was considering an answer to Mr. Beck as well. I did not have to submit. Your observation and reply was right on the money.

Harold wrote on Jun 18, 2007 9:43 AM:The death of soldiers of any conflict is always a depressing thought. But, the living still live in the shadows of our mistakes in sending these soldiers to a needless death, Robert Jones. So, while Ron perpetuates his smoke and mirrors dream of freedom (US style—freedom that we allow others to practice when it benefits our continuing dominance and greed) sitting on his piety pot, the world of those dead soldiers continues, and could continue, thanks to those with Ron's pipe-dream. Wake up Ron—it was just a dream!

to wolf wrote on Jun 18, 2007 9:51 AM:Thanks for sharing. Like a lot of research on marijuana, that with secondhand smoke tends to administer it in high enough doses to get the effect. I do believe that living in a household in which others regularly smoke probably mimics the high-dose research and is dangerous. But outdoors? Not a chance. The case of restaurants/bars is on the borderline: the staff is there 8 hours, so that's the problem. We seem so arbitrary about what health-risks get legal attention and which ones don't. Too bad this is all politics and, in effect, bribes. That the alcohol producers can thrive while marijuana remains illegal boggles rationality. These are interesting issues for people who like to divvy the world up into left-vs-right. Is regulation of tobacco socialism? Is the legal status of tobacco capitalism? Marijuana regulation socialism?

to Mr. Beck's error wrote on Jun 18, 2007 10:16 AM:One word really stuck out in your post: the word "truth". Should truth be our ultimate goal in a free society? Should the free market be corrected in order to get to the truth? If so, whose truth? Rightist radio has many truths and half-truths. Long conversations have many truths and half-truths. Political thinking is philosophy. Can there ever be any real truth? No. Because if truth was mandatory in all cases and in all markets, where would the entertainment industry be? If we try to correct rightist radio, shall we also correct Hollywood, TV sitcoms, books, and other forms of entertainment by making truth the ultimate goal? The pursuit of truth is an exercise in futility when putting forth one's opinions. It is, for the most part, about beliefs. Plain and simple. Let the right wingers have their radio hosts. There are many other places for the left to get their message out. They only have to be creative and innovative, which they are more than capable of being. They do their cause no good when they try to silence, as opposed to compete.

to "to El Patron": puhl-ease wrote on Jun 18, 2007 10:20 AM:I agree with you about the fairness doctrine, although calling it Stalinist is absurd, even when Bushies do it (see 8:19). But your saying that liberals and islamic terrorists often share the same point of view is also absurd, and you know it. Try to control yourself a little. One could say that the islamic terrorist and the conservative are similar also. Strong religious fundamentalism. Hatred of Hollywood values. Belief that violence is the best way to settle things. Such ridiculous comparisons are easy and stupid.

Alf wrote on Jun 18, 2007 10:27 AM:Just what views do "The modern liberal and the Islamic terrorist often share", "to el patron" at 8:25am? As much as I find fault with many liberal views, just as I find fault with many conservative views, I have yet to see or hear American liberals espouse terrorist views. If you consider wanting to get out of Iraq to be an "Islamic terrorist point of view", if you feel that wanting to stop having "our boys come home in a box" is unpatriotic, I submit that it is you who share the same point of view as Islamic terrorists, that of kill, kill, kill the infidels. I have sometimes heard sense from some liberals as well as some conservatives, something sorely lacking in your post. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Well... wrote on Jun 18, 2007 10:51 AM:...el_patron, underneath your diatribe against Mr. Beck, there is one glaring problem that you never addressed: you and those who think like you offer nothing more than a rotten product. Nobody likes it. Nobody wants it. Just like Mr. Beck said. And he's right.

Mr Beck's error wrote on Jun 18, 2007 11:11 AM:I certainly wasn't advocating anything you suggest, 10:16. I'm all for as many voices as possible, and it's up to us individually to make out the truth, if it's there. The www makes this debate much less pertinent than it was in the days of public service media requirements, when there were only 3 tv networks. Freedom entails responsibility, including the responsibility to inform oneself beyond propaganda. My earlier post argued only against Mr Beck asserting that the winner of the popularity contest must speak the truth. This is false. I do fear, 10:16, that you have fallen into the right radio's most insidious claim: that there are no truths, only opinions, only "sides". Of course many things are just matters of opinion. But there are also facts sometimes. If not for these, then a democracy would be based pure and simply on public relations, persuasion, and trickery. It is mostly that...but not all and only that, despite Bush and Rush's efforts to the contrary. One quick easy example: Bush claimed in a speech to the people that you need a court order to get a wiretap; his warrantless wiretap program had been in effect for a long time when he said this. So that was a lie, pure and simple, and opinion had nothing to do with it.

to "Well..." wrote on Jun 18, 2007 11:17 AM:Try to curb your overstatements. It's false that "nobody likes it" even if Rush and company do better in the marketplace. Between public radio, satellite radio, and the internet (and Bill Moyers and Amy Goodman on tv) there are many sources of other opinions. It's a disease of capitalistic thinking that money is the one and only measure of worth. It's the same way of thinking that assumes the right-radio is "better" or "truer" as the belief that the trashiest hollywood movies are the "best". No. All this means is that they know how to draw the buck from people. Their truth or their morality have nothing to do with it. Rush and company are successful entertainers, just like the best professional wrestlers.

Well... wrote on Jun 18, 2007 11:36 AM:to 11:17am, if Rush & Co. are successful entertainers, then why the concerted effort to silence them?

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 11:53 AM:I can't help but gleen from your retort, Mr Beck's error @8:13 AM, that you "feel" people who listen to right talk are less well informed about subjects, topics, and policy? And I'm getting the same vibe I always get from a response such as yours, that somehow the products you read, watch or listen to are better? And more truthful? Isn't this the same old lib mind set, that I'm smarter, therefore I should tell you? With the internet, and the huge variety of outlets, it would seem to me, that your barking up the wrong tree. If people listen to right talk, and check out their veracity, you shouldn't have a problem. As a believer in open discussion, opinion, and debate, you should be thrilled to have such a girth of options available to us all.

GFN wrote on Jun 18, 2007 11:58 AM:To "to El Patron, 8:25 post...I was nodding my head in agreement with every sentence, the words outstanding and brilliant leaping into my being, then you diminished the whole post with your final, unnecessary, not always correct last statement. Don't allow your need to belittle others ruin what was a terrific post.

to Alf wrote on Jun 18, 2007 12:10 PM:You say you find fault with "many liberal views". I'm curious. Which ones. Can you give us 5 liberal viewpoints that you totally disagree with, or at least mostly disagree with?

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 18, 2007 12:18 PM:to el patron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 8:25 AM I know what you means. All of us liberals, centrists, independents and Democrats are all waiting to be declard enemy combatents by his majest, GWB, and then sent to GITMO for rest and recreation.

to el patron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 12:21 PM:Back at "to: to El patron, Alf, & GFN". That sentence was a Coulter-esque jab at liberals. Lighten up a little bit and have some fun.

to Well and Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 12:31 PM:Well makes a good point about why the concerted effort to silence the right radio people. I'm not sure how concerted an effort there has been. I do know that Bush appointees have made deliberate efforts to silence Moyers on PBS: this is well documented and the appointee who did so had to resign. I think I'm a pretty typical liberal and I loathe the idea of stifling them. But your question is excellent to the degree that it's valid. Ron, 11:53, I have said here and before that I'm for open airwaves. I should point out, though, that there is by now a TON of good research that shows that people who tend to look to the righties for news have flat-out false beliefs about world events much more than do people who listen elsewhere. Sorry, that's just a fact. To me, this speaks more about the content of the righties' programs than about whether lefties are somehow geniuses or elite or whatever. If you listen primarily to people who systematically lie or distort facts, you wind up believing falsehoods...not complicated. I wish more people who listened to Rush et all also would read The Nation, The Progressive, etc. It's our individual responsibility to find truth as best we can.

Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 12:40 PM:And I'm starting to hear it once again: "That Jesus was a commie." That, somehow he would be "pleased" with stealing by legislation, from one individual, via a legally elected political representative, and giving a "taste" (as Tony Soprano would say) to the poor. As I understand his teaching, he wanted to change men's hearts, not their pocketbooks. His thinking was very clear, if you change a man's soul, the fruits of this change would manifest itself in charitable works voluntarily. This idea of taking by force because they "feel" the outcome is good, is nothing short of Machiavellianism, and certainly not a Christian principal. As taught by the Ten Commandments: Thou shall not steal.

LaLa wrote on Jun 18, 2007 1:18 PM:Re: Liberals and talk radio:I don't believe that Beck needs to panic. I see Kucinich is one of the sponsors wanting to restore the Fairness Doctrine. That alone should be the kiss of death for the proposition. And of course, it should be evident on the face of it that the Fairness Doctrine isn't needed.

Wrong again Ron, and Darrel Beck wrote on Jun 18, 2007 1:34 PM:Conservative radio and Fox Noise: Now we know why Darrel Beck and Ron are so ignorant, as if we didn't know before. Actually, Fox's ratings have been slipping for three years. Must be that great programming.

fair and what? wrote on Jun 18, 2007 2:00 PM:So I guess we now know where Darrell Beck gets his enlightened information about current events. I always thought he had a PhD in Political Science.

Of cable news wrote on Jun 18, 2007 2:35 PM:Many have blogged here today, with a severe bone to pick with Fox News. Personally, I prefer to watch cable news over the networks. Fox News or CNN is my preffered, which I usually alternate back and forth. Sometimes MSNBC, but not too much. My question is, what is it that many liberals have with Fox News? Personally, I don't see that much of a difference between the supposedly right tilted Fox News and supposedly left tilted CNN or MSNBC when it comes to strictly reporting the news. What is it? Is there bias in the actual news reporting? Is it with the opinionated programs? I mean, when I watch the basic news reporting, or updates, or the strictly news shows on any of the 3, I really don't detect any difference. The opinionated programming seems to tilt more right on Fox News because of O'Reilley and Brit Hume's show. But so what. CNN has Lou Dobbs, and MSNBC has lefty Olbermann. Big Deal. They're all just airbags spouting their opinions. The measure should be the straightforward news. And on that front, I don't see much of a difference. So I ask, why the liberal hatred of Fox News?

Classic Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2007 2:55 PM:Ron states that it the "same lib mindset that I'm smarter and should tell you." There you have it I guess. Ron's a liberal? Because all he does here all day i tell why he is right and why anyone else is wrong. He doesn't just say what he believes, but why what you believe is wrong.

Fairness Doctrine wrote on Jun 18, 2007 3:10 PM:it's no suprise to me that folks who listen to talk radio would have a problem with something called the fairness doctrine. The irony is is how off base some of their fears are concerning this doctrine. Personally I'm a believer in giving folks enough rope to hang themselves and that's what can be expected with the viciousness of talk radio. Guys like Darrel Beck and Ron and others who support these shows need to be told what to think. If anything gets in the way of that it will throw them off. And like Ron says if it sells it must mean people want it. Hate has always sold. It's right up there with sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Granted there are rules governing those things, too. The irony is is that the guys on talk radio are doing just that; selling a product. In the end what they are worried about is their bottom line.

Alf wrote on Jun 18, 2007 3:16 PM:Well, "to Alf" at 12:10pm, I am not going to present you with a certain number. In all fairness, I'll give 2 of each. First - liberals - their PC crap, conservatives - their religious right condemning anything that actually promotes personal freedom and Liberty and equality. Second - liberals with their social engineering via "redistributing of wealth" AND conservatives with their war-mongering ala GWB - their hands grabbing in my pocket. Third - BOTH sides being for expanding government with the primary difference only being into which program their ill gotten gains go. That's enough for now. Truly an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Harold wrote on Jun 18, 2007 3:32 PM:Classic Ron (2:55). Wrong way Ron is "right" politically, but rarely politically "right"!

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 18, 2007 3:42 PM:Of cable news wrote on Jun 18, 2007 2:35 PM One must wonder why you even the question. I neither see nor hear of many liberals hating Fox News. I sure read a lot of discontent by the neocons and ideoloques on this blog Is it one of your techniques to be wolves in sheep clothing.

Gas Prices wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:05 PM:Hey Kyle Costanza, just think, by the time you start college, you'll wish that the increase in the price of tuition is as small and manageable as the increase in the price of gasoline. By then, you'll realize Big Oil isn't so bad. It's Big University who are the crooks.

GF N wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:14 PM:I hate to bother you'all, but left-wing, right-wing radio is all about to go bye-bye with the emergence of Dr. Michael Savage. The Doc is needed now, whether you agree with him or not.

Commandments wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:17 PM:The Commandments say something about killing, too, I believe. And coveting. And using the name of the Lord in vain. It's fun to use the Bible selectively to prove that one's own choices and decisions are just ducky with God. The Koran is, I'm told, also fun to use this way. I know a lot of people lately are critical of religion. I just think humans are not up to it.

Class assignment wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:31 PM:Compare and contrast the US attack on Iraq in 2003 with the Japanese attack on the US in 1941. Were either provoked? Unprovoked? A violation of international law? Justified? Not?

News wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:45 PM:I don't pay attention to FoxNews becuase they strike me as the worst of the bunch. It is on FoxNews (and radio righties) that we hear most how the media is liberal in bias. Something about that always struck me as sleazy: here is a major mainstream media outlet (outlets if you include the radio stations, which are huge) complaining about the media, to give the very false idea that they, somehow, are rebels, heroes for overcoming the nasty big bias. So that whole image seems phony and slimy to me. But I don't watch the others either, for reasons having much to do with the quality or depth or ability to articulate or desire to focus on the Paris Hilton stories. NPR, BBC, NY Times, LA Times. I don't see these as very tilted at all. Liberal bias? The Nation. Pacifica Radio. Free Speech TV. If there is a mainstream bias, it is miniscule. So that's another aspect of FoxNews that bugs me: it greatly magnifies these little differences in its selfish interest to build a cohort that's loyal to them and hostile to the others, to build a strong but unreasoned "us" vs "them". Slimy.

Better class assignment wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:53 PM:More like apples to apples: Compare and contrast the US attack on Iraq in 2003 with the US attack on Germany in 1945. Were either provoked? Unprovoked? A violation of international law? Justified? Not?

Stalinist Doctrine wrote on Jun 18, 2007 5:07 PM:to Fairness Doctrine 3:10pm. 1. Does the viciousness of talk radio also include those hosts on the left? 2. Is it possible that media like radio, TV, books, etc. aren't telling us what to think, but simply are reinforcing what we have been taught growing up? You know, such things as personal responsibility, skeptical of the inherent evils of government, kindness to others, basic morals, belief in God, allegience to the greatest and freest nation in the history of mankind, a strong military to ensure our survival, etc. 3. Do you really think these guys on talk radio make a ton of money? Is it possible they just do it because they like to do it?

to Focal Point wrote on Jun 18, 2007 5:25 PM:The DNC recently cancelled 2 Dem debates that were to be hosted by Fox News. The reason given was they were biased and therefore not legitimate. I don't know about the conversations among your liberal friends, but does this development not constitute sufficient proof?

to News wrote on Jun 18, 2007 5:35 PM:But...have you actually watched Fox News for a fair amount of time in order to secure a fair and informed assessment or opinion? Much as one should do a fair amount of research on candidates and issues before pulling the old lever at the voting booth. It's probably the easiest research one could do. Simply plop your butt down on the couch, go to Fox News and watch. Then go to CNN an MSNBC. Compare. Contrast. Decide for yourself like an informed citizen should. Have you done that? I think you'd be surprised. Some of the aforementioned radio hosts also blast CNN for their left tilt. I had to see for myself though. I didn't see it.

wolf wrote on Jun 18, 2007 5:41 PM:To Class assignment: The UN had passed a series of resolutions which Iraq defied. The credibility of the UN was at stake which is a liberal icon. Iraq had invaded a soverign country in 1991. Germany declared war on us when we declared war on Japan. As a conservative I would not have invaded Iraq, but the Congress voted Bush a green light.

Alf, Alf, Alf wrote on Jun 18, 2007 5:46 PM:You didn't disappoint me. I bet my friend that you wouldn't be able to come up with 5 liberal points of view that you vehemently disagree with - which should be easy cheese for any libertarian, let alone an unabashed libertarian. You only came up with 2. But that's good. Because I won $50. And I'm taking my lovely wife out for dinner tonight. Thanks, Alf.

Let's see wrote on Jun 18, 2007 5:46 PM:Germany had actually invaded and "conquered" several other nations, among whom were our closest allies. Hmmm, that's a difference. Germany had one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world. Hmmm, that's a difference. No wait, I'm sure there is a similarity here somewhere, gimme some more time. Oh yeah, here's one: Hitler and Saddam were both very bad. There you go.

Dude wrote on Jun 18, 2007 5:52 PM:Class assignment wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:31 PM: This is a blog. Got something to say? Spit it out.

Econ 101 wrote on Jun 18, 2007 6:06 PM:One must wonder if any of Kyle Costanza’s teachers (or parents) have the acumen to direct Kyle to one of the many sources that would dispel his anxiety over the price of gasoline. I doubt it . . . considering how deeply rooted the “antimarket bias” is (as pointed out in “The Myth of the Rational Voter,” by economics Prof Bryan Caplan). On the rare chance that either Kyle or his teachers, or his parents, will read this blog . . . here is a fresh quote I would recommend: “One reason that people are upset by gas prices is that the price is in your face every time you drive by the gas station. But it may surprise you that this year the price of lettuce, broccoli and apples in-creased much more than the price of gas. You probably don’t know that because they don’t post big signs like gas stations do. And think about what it takes to bring us gasoline. First, oil has to be sucked out of the ground, sometimes from deep beneath an ocean or underneath ice, or from places where workers risk their lives. And just to get to the oil means the drill has to bend and dig sideways through as many as seven miles of earth. What they find has to be delivered through long pipelines or shipped in monstrously expensive ships, then converted into three different formulas of gasoline, trucked in trucks that cost more than $100,000 each, and then the gas stations have to spend a fortune on equipment to make sure drivers don’t blow themselves up while filling the tank. Even after all that, gasoline is still cheaper per ounce than the bottled water gas stations sell.” (John Stossel)

Hey Janae Falzon... wrote on Jun 18, 2007 6:26 PM:what color is the sky of the planet that you live on?

Bedside Nurse 2 wrote on Jun 18, 2007 6:58 PM:To: Bedside Nurse: I beg to differ with you. I worked on an awesome floor with awesome Charge Nurses. They have been eliminated for SueElleyns favored Shift Supervisor. My Charge Nurses ran the floor in the most productive and time efficient manner. They were in the patients rooms when you needed an extra hand, they were there when you had that difficult family to console, they were there to hold a hand of a dying patient when no one else could. So I am sorry to hear that you work on a floor at TCMC that did not have this type of Charge Nurse. Yes, the role has changed it will not be the same, and many of these awesome Charge Nurses have chosen not to fill these newly created positions because of the new job description. Time will tell if this was the right decision. I do not believe it was. The Drs. want to be able to go to someone in Charge and quickly converse with them about a patient when the primary nurse was not available. This will change, as the Shift Supervisor will now be hiring, firing, counseling and going to meetings!! Lots of bedside care and mentoring going on the Assembly rooms!! I hope and pray that we can live through the turmoil that we are now faced with. Let me say this, I am not opposed to change. I just think this particular decision is not the best for the patients at TCMC. To all my fellow nurses both pro and anti union, let's please all try to remain professional at the bedside for the patients and their families that we serve. I know that there are days that this is difficult, for the sake of those that need our care and professionalism please stand tall and take a deep breath and do what you do best.

Question for GFN @ 4:14 wrote on Jun 18, 2007 7:11 PM:Who is Michael Savage and why do you think he is so important? I assume from your post that he is a radio guy. I suspect this may be hard to believe, but many of us are clueless about this (or maybe I'm the only one). You seem to think he is quite special. Why? Seriously, I am clueless. I'm certainly curious about anyone who transcends the mostly dumb left-right thing that talk radio has whipped us into believing. Share!

Someday wrote on Jun 18, 2007 7:26 PM:Someday, the NCT editor will explain how or why attending to this blog seems so random and sparsed to us. It would really help. We are, obviously, trying to have a conversation here, but so often hours and hours go by with nothing...then a storm of in-between messages. I can completely sympathize with a small newspaper having to do too much, having to parse its staff's activities too much. But it would be wonderful if the editorial staff could put something out here, an explanation of what they do with us bloggers, to help us align our expectations with the reality of the situation. Thank you very much!

FOCAL POINT wrote on Jun 18, 2007 8:42 PM:to Focal Point wrote on Jun 18, 2007 5:25 PM It only states the opinion of the DNC. Liberals are not necessarily Democrats. I have not heard anyone really bad mouthing FOX news. I am apolitical except during an election year.

Alf wrote on Jun 19, 2007 4:27 AM:While I'm glad that you got a dinner for two, "Alf, Alf, Alf", I actually do work. I was cooling down between mowing the lawn and working on dropping the bottom half of a bush-euc. (a tree service used their boom-truck to get the top 20 feet). I will give you the remaining 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 later, it's time for my sister's 4:29am wake-up call. Still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

News wrote on Jun 19, 2007 6:44 AM:To news at 535 wants us to spend time with FoxNews and the others to fairly assess. I have done some of that. And I posted my conclusions above. I'm not, as you could see, particularly thrilled with any of them so maybe your analogy to a voter assessing candidates is a good one. Like the candidates, these folks give us sound bites and posturing, efforts to appeal to our desire to be entertained and even flattered. I used to think that unlike candidates, the news stars aren't competing to rule the nation, but I'm not so sure about that now. In any case, what I've found is that you can more or less tune out of all the radio guys and the tv guys and be well informed via the print media (and, I admit, BBC) that's online. As for all the loudmouths on radio, sorry, I have no interest in them whatsoever and certainly do NOT need to spend a lot of time with them to realize this.

Class assignment wrote on Jun 19, 2007 6:46 AM:Dude: that's exactly what I did

Alf wrote on Jun 19, 2007 6:13 PM:To "Class assignment". If you are trying to ask if the United Stated responded to direct attack Dec, 7, 1941, the answer is yes. A careful comparison shows that the U.S. responded directly only to an attack from the Japanese. Our involvement in Europe was at the behest ofseveral countries who were declared allies of the U.S. It is the U.S. invaded Iraq. Still an unabashed Libertareian, Alf.

to Alf wrote on Jun 20, 2007 12:46 PM:Class assignment is asking if the US attack on Baghdad reminds anyone of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Was our immense military presence in the Pacific an iminent threat to the Japanese, from their perspective? More than Saddam was an imminent threat to us? I assume most of the world, and all of the Muslim world, sees us that way. Are they right?