I would suggest a possible correlation between CEO visibility and employee satisfaction. Is there anyone in America who hasn't heard of Steve Jobs? And while Steve Ballmer is hardly a household name on the level of Bill Gates, he is quite well known within the tech industry. (Ditto John Chambers at Cisco, Jim Clark during his time at SGI, Scott McNeely at Sun, and so on.)

Perhaps if your CEO is out there talking to people, it's easier to like him or her. Of course, this could backfire, as the Carly Fiorinas and Jerry Saunders of the world have found out. Even so, do you know anyone who has even heard of Jim Balsille or Dick Komiyama or Greg Brown? I've been in the nerd industry for over 20 years, and I sure don't know those names.

Although I personally never used one of those wacky, no-interest, variable-interest, incomprehensible and unaffordable mortgages in the 20 years I was an adult in California, I can see having Californians take some responsibility for the current mess due to housing insanity, absolutely.

But with regard to Prop. 13, in all seriousness: how many people actually are there who voted for it and are a) still alive and b) still living in California? I mean, if you were 50 in 1978 when it passed, you're 81. Add that to the fact that the population of California has grown incredibly since 1978 to mortality rates, and what you've got with Prop. 13 is a wound inflicted by a tiny minority of current Californians. No, it's a lot like the economy in general now; the decisions made by a minority of a previous generation are causing a lot of pain to the current one.

Just a quibble, I admit, but as a 45 year-old, I'm just not willing to cop to the blame for a proposition that was passed when I was thirteen stinkin' years old.

Theodore Sturgeon once defined a "religious" belief as "absolute belief without proof." I would like to say today's G.O.P. has a "religious" (in the Sturgeon sense) belief in the viability of supply-side economics, because if that were the case, at least they would have a set of principles to adhere to, and one could explain and predict their behavior, even if we can't understand it.

Alas, it's worse than that.

The G.O.P. has absolute belief that supply-side stimulation and tax-cuts help the economy even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That's not a religious belief; that's delusionary. That hews closer to the textbook definition of "insanity." You know how it goes, don't you?

"Insanity is believing that you can continue to do the same thing, but expect a different result."

These people don't have a religious belief about supply-side economics; they're simply insane. And thus, their behavior is incomprehensible (e.g., fighting against a stimulus package when the country is in dire need) and unpredictable.

The scary part is, these people actually have power over the government. Thank God that we elected a Democrat as President; I get the shivers thinking what would happen if McCain had been elected (or worse, Bush were still in charge).

As suggested, I watched this video with the sound off (which is a good idea, since listening to FNC bobbleheads tends to enrage me, and I already have high blood pressure). Here are my notes:

0-0:36 -- lengthy question/lecture

0:37-1:26--answer

(At 1:08-1:22, the interviewer talks over the Mayor)

1:24-2:01--another lengthy question/lecture, with misinformation (in a graphic) about "$70/hour" figure.

2:01-3:04--answer

(2:45-2:54, interviewer talks over the Mayor)

2:55-3:31--question

3:32-4:47--answer

(at 4:43, interviewer interrupts Mayor--who stops talking a few seconds later--and tells him, clearly to "calm down")

4:43-end--condescending summation

So in sum, the Mayor--who was clearly demonstrative and adamant, but obviously never angry or "shrill"--never interrupted the interviewer, and always gave him the last word, while the interviewer (aside from rolling his eyes all the time) interrupted the Mayor every time. The Mayor was never allowed to finish his answers.

Not that interviewees read your letters column for my advice, but I would suggest that any public official foolish enough to go on Fox to talk about these issues should:

a) Ask the FNC bobblehead how much he or she makes per hour and, if they don't answer, impune their manhood/courage/honesty/integrity. (If they do, of course, their hourly rate will be so much higher than an auto-workers as to make their obvious condescension inoperative.)

b) Come prepared with the information on the hourly pay rates of the auto-executives (V.P. level and above), as well as the hourly pay rates for both executives and "regular workers" on Wall Street. A compare-and-contrast would make the FNC people look a little idiotic, one would think. (Not that that has stopped them up to now, of course.)

A combination of social Darwinism and the never-absent Victorian holdover idea that bad things happen to people because of moral failings. Swell.

Forgive me, but all I can say is "What a prick."

Can we bounce him out of office and remove him from the hall of fame.

My God, what a tool.