So you're a Foucault fan, are ye? But which type of parrhesia do you adhere to? To quote the Frenchman: "There are two types of parrhesia which we must distinguish. First,there is a pejorative sense of the word not very far from "chattering" and which consists in saying any or everything one has in mind without qualification. This pejorative sense occurs in Plato, for example, as a characterization of the bad democratic constitution where everyone has the right to address himself to his fellow citizens and to tell them anything – even the most stupid or dangerous things for the city. This pejorative meaning is also found more frequently in Christian literature where such "bad" parrhesia is opposed to silence as a discipline or as the requisite condition for the contemplation of God. As a verbal activity which reflects every movement of the heart and mind, parrhesia in this negative sense is obviously an obstacle to the contemplation of God. Most of the time, however, parrhesia does not have this pejorative meaning in the classical texts, but rather a positive one. "parrhesiazesthai" means "to tell the truth." But does the parrhesiastes say what he thinks is true, or does he say what is really true? To my mind, the parrhesiastes says what is true because he knows that it is true; and he knows that it is true because it is really true. The parrhesiastes is not only sincere and says what is his opinion, but his opinion is also the truth. He says what he knows to be true. The second characteristic of parrhesia, then, is that there is always an exact coincidence between belief and truth."

"If this is the future of journalism, I'm truly sad." I agree. This is a scandal. Who ever heard of a newspaper or magazine publishing a humorous first-person essay?

I like this article. More of its kind, please. How would one pigeonhole it? Business reporting?Science writing? "Look what new frontiers are opening up in your backyard" type stuff? Let's say all of the above. Kudos.

Hey libs, remember how great our "socialist utopia" was? Eight years of Bush, the Younger. Eight years of Bill "The era of Big Government is dead" Clinton. Four years of Bush, the Elder. Eight Years of Reagan. Gee, I wish we could have that back again.

A lot of the current problems stem from the partial closure of the County's mental health crisis center. I'll pass along a rumor I heard. I got it second-hand, but my source got it from a couple of doctors who run the mental health system in Sac. The County has already decided to re-open the crisis center, but they are waiting for a while so that they don't look like complete fools for closing it down in the first place. This won't solve every problem, of course, but at least when people are dumped they are dumped at the crisis center, not the streets.

"If the bleeding hearts care so deeply about the plight of the Mexican, or any other poor South American country, they have the option of moving to those countries to volunteer their time and money." FYI, Dicentras have lots of time but no money, and our family, the Fumariaceae, never travel, not to South America or anywhere else. We're firmly rooted. In fact, I'd bet both of my cotyledons that most Dicentras don't even care about politics.

"The ruling classes of Mexico." I wish more of the nativist ire was directed at these people rather than the weak and powerless braceros and fast food workers. I know that is not an easy request. The ruling classes of Mexico are invisible whereas the worker in WalMart who is frustrating you because you can't understand his broken English is palpably real. But justice would be better served if people directed their animosity towards people who have the power to change things.

I'm not sure Mexico would want California back with all of our fiscal problems of late. But seriously, disisM, you sound like an idiot. Mexico has a lot of poverty relative to the U.S., but I think Mexicans would take exception to you describing their country as "a place full of nothing but poverty." And you Reconquista fantasies are also ridiculous. It's just an inversion of white paranoia about demographic shifts in the U.S.

Honestly, I'd rather have a boss than a leader, though having neither would be best. I'm not a cub scout after all, and as far as I can tell Mayor Johnson is not spearheading some important social movement for which makes political sense for me to fall in line behind him. He's just the executive of a city government. I'm deeply allergic to idea that politicians should be charismatic, visionary heroes who lead "the people" to the promised land. There is just too much incentive for them to mythologize themselves into corruption and sleaze. I support the notion that Johnson should prove himself as a mundane mayor before he is given the power to become a "strong" one.

For clarification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax

Union member have a "massive sense of entitlement" What's your warrant for this claim? Can you see into the minds of thousands of people? If you were really interested in making an argument against the efficacy of unions, you can do better than spreading lazy memes. With the internet, the research is fairly easy, and since you're so opinionated you might as well learn a few things about what you're talking about. "This is exactly why public emplyee unions should be outlawed in California. " Jim, that's refreshingly plain and forthright. We, of course, would fight you tooth and nail on this one. "Our government will always grow." Raise taxes! We've made government cheap, so people want more of it. Speaking of which, I know you conservatives are pretty skeptical of Pelosi, but she did propose a VAT. Isn't that something that could grease the wheels of bi-partisanship?

I'll bet you all the surplus value of every Wal-mart greeter that you won't be able to produce a single concrete example of this so-called "conventional leftist thinking."

Trying to think of a witty quip to add to this, but damn there just ain't no surplus value here. Burg, you've done appropriated the appropriator.

QUOTE: TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2009 North Korea has refused to accept food aid from the United States despite facing chronic food shortages, a US state department spokesman has said. The decision came amid mounting tensions over a planned rocket launch by North Korea, as also its speed of nuclear disablement. "North Korea has informed the United States that it does not wish to receive additional US food assistance at this time," Robert Wood, a US state department spokesman, said on Tuesday. ENDQUOTE (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2009/03/20093171803819161.html) Oh snap! The <s>capitalist</s> Obama socialist are foiled again! I'm going to have to call up Sigmund to explain that slip.

Comrades, He's on to us.