I had already submitted my previous column when I learned Ron Barnes's column would no longer be carried. My personal impression is that there were three reasons. One: this paper is predominantly conservative, and a large population of those with different views therefore don't subscribe. I suspect key people in the paper get their feedback primarily from their conservative circles and from current subscribers, so they continue to lean the paper that way, and it becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. Two: our culture worships youth at the expense of the considerable gifts the gray-hairs have to offer. Three: Ron was hitting on an idea many would many would just as soon not have brought up — a living wage.
Of the syndicated replacement columnists one has so far had two cutesy columns on topics such as hangover cures, and two about traveling with Howard Dean, but with nothing more to say than what he ate on the plane.
Whether you agreed with Ron's views or not, not having his voice in this forum is a considerable loss and diminishes this paper.
In my last column I pointed out that Bush wanted to invade
One of the things Schwarzenegger wants to do to fix the
* Speaking of selective economies, new unemployment figures were down even though the economy generated pitifully few new jobs, and even though just keeping up with population growth requires a lot of new jobs. It would seem the official unemployment figure is a totally meaningless number that shouldn't be given credence anymore.
You may have seen a report this week confirming my recent column on mass
extinction of species. If you only gave it a cursory look, though, it may have
been misleading. It started out discussing the possible extinction of merely
(merely?) hundreds of species. The report went on to clarify that this only
applied to the area of the study, and that if this is projected to a global
scale it could involve the loss of a million species, a quarter of all of them,
by 2050. The study from the