Comments about ‘Crazy '08: The previous year leaves eight interesting lessons’

*** "At this point let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt. After all, his success will be our success." ***

Well that all depends on how you define success, don't it? Passing your sponsored legislation is success defined one way, passing successful legislation is success defined another way. The two are not necessarily one and the same.

The laws of nature, human nature, politics, and economics did not all change simply because The One wa selected. They are still in place, and if Barack Obama & Co. pass legislation that rewards non-producers for not producing then we will all pay the price. If Obama & Co. choose to decide for us how trillions of taxpayer money is most wisely invested (by giving it to their cronies) then we will also suffer.

How did this guy get a regular column? Maybe frequent contributors Ultra Bob, Redshirt and Roland Keyser should also be featured.

The author should know that the start of the recession according to economists dates to 4th quarter 2007. The press during the election was just reporting facts. To suggest the press caused the recession to aid Obama is ludicrous. And the reason newspaper subscriptions dropped has much more to do with technology shifts than content or media bias.

I enjoyed this. Nice subtle slap at T.A.C. I was wondering where Clark had been. I guess he was saving it up for this.
@8:05 am - Roland Kayser writes the exact same letter every 2 weeks - income inequality, Karl Marx was wonderful blah blah blah. Do you think we need 10 paragraphs of that?

"Lesson 3 Body Worlds: If you begin the Olympic year protesting in Tiananmen Square you may just finish it as an art object at The Leonardo in Salt Lake City."


There are different exhibits touring under different names.
Check the facts before you publish.

@anonymous 10:45 - some of you posters are in desperate need of a sense of humor. The Body Worlds joke was funny- lighten up

Entirely too cute by half. This is superficial, trivial, worthless and mostly fact free. It's not good satire, it's not good comedy and it's not good commentary. That's probably why it's in the DN.

Perhaps the author might spent a little more time paying attention, reading more than one source and actually thinking about the issues deeply before sitting down at the keyboard again soon.

Anonymous 12:53, you need to go easy on Anonymous 10:45...he or she doesn't know anything about China or their "preparations" for the Olympics.

I thought lesson 3 was clever, and if you don't get it, you deserve to sit off in the corner by yourself steaming about how you could write a better article yourself.

I hope you learn more from 2009 than you apparently did from 2008, but I'm not optimistic.

Dear Enlightenment? | 1:25 p.m.


Lesson #1,232: Lighten up.

I didn't realize Tibetan Buddhists were polygamous as the writer seems to claim. In fact, some Tibetan nomads practice polyandry, not polygamy.

Mr. Larsen sees the forest as well as the trees and has a sense of humor.

The respondent called "Englightenment?" apparently has the type of intellect that expects a fully researched and documented PhD paper for proof that a a four-legged dog runs faster than a three-legged dog.

Some events and their causes are still obvious to people who still have common sense.