In the long term, I think lower housing prices would be good for everyone. Sure, there's short term pain. And the idea that you are going to get rich just by owning a home is an attractive idea that's hard to shake. But housing should be about putting people and families into homes not making speculators rich. Home prices in the US dropped for 30 years beginning about 1925. I think this time, they might drop for 60 years, and that's a very good thing. If you want to make money, get a job. If you want a place to live, buy a house. Don't confuse the two.

This person is a total drama queen. Nobody cares whether the writer is atheist, gay, Communist or a masterbater. Really, the school, your parents, your friends, nobody cares. Tell them or don't tell them, I'm sure they will say "whatever."

Colleges are interested in several things -- did your tuition check clear? Are alumni contributions increasing? Are we being sued by anyone? They really don't care whether some sophmore is an atheist or is jerking off in the rest room (as long as you clean up afterwards).

Your parents are interested in several things -- are you going to be financially independent or will you be a drain on them forever? Are you going to be some help in their old age? Are you doing at least one thing that we can brag about to other people our age? Since you are graduating college, you really have answered all their concerns. They really don't care whether you are an atheist or jerking off in the shower when you visit (as long as you clean up afterwards).

Your friends are interested in several things -- are you fun to party with? Can we network with you to get employment later? If gender appropriate, do you put out? They really don't care whether your an atheist or whether you jerk off. They don't even care if you clean up afterwards.

Funny that Bill Maher can see that Islamic terrorism is exagerated b.s. but he can't see that Global Warming and melting polar ice caps are exagerated b.s. Really, they are different forms on the same b.s. Vote for me or the sky will fall. Regarding the polar ice caps, the earth has been around for billions and billions of years. It's warmed and cooled. Glaciers have come and gone. Bill Maher is going to be dead in 20 years anyway and has no children, what does he care?

The water level is rising but Bill Maher will be dead before Global Warming makes much difference. Without children he doesn't have a dog in the hunt. Whether he dresses as the dead Steve Irvin or as the shinking polar ice cap doesn't make much difference. He has a few years left in which he can visit the Playboy Mansion, but not many years left in which he can achieve an erection.

He has a very dry sense of humor. He even did a commercial for a product that helped dry eyes. He's also fairly intelligent. The hedge fund comment was sort of like suggesting that the government give its money to the guy who picked the winner in both the Kentucky Derby and Preakness. Just a joke. My favorite Ben Stein column was the one where he explained why his dowdy father bought a super fancy sports car.

A private room, a double bed, free flowing champagne and hours of boredom. Singapore Girl, you're a great way to fly.

People often accuse me of being an idiot, but after reading all these posts, I realize I'm the only one who understood this article. Tomorrow (Sunday) is the New York City Marathon. This article advertises that fact, plus offers some background about how the sport has changed over the past 40 years. The Oprah comment in the headline is what's known in journalism as a hook. The cranky pants attitude that things were better in the old days is what's known as a point of view. If you read the article, you'll learn enough to chat with somebody about the New York City Marathon, which is generally all Salon is -- fodder for the chatting classes.

I graudated from UC Berkeley 30 years ago and solar was all the rage then. Everybody was talking about the potential for solar power. Solar cells were invented in the 1950s -- more than half a century ago -- but in the 1970s during the oil crisis there was huge enthusiasm for solar. Many of the demonstration projects were set up. The government provided tax credits. Some real estate developers built entire solar projects. And yet, 30 years later, even in progressive places like Berkeley, solar is still the new thing. Solar produces less than one half of one percent of the electricty in California. I'm sure this time it will be different compared to all the other solar initiatives over the last half century. I just can't figure out why.

For 50 years, Popular Science has been running stories about how solar is the next big thing. Every decade or so, there's a huge flurry of activity and calls for massive government subsidies and tax credits. And the nothing happens. If it weren't for the success of solar in spot applications like roadside telephones far from the power grid, I wonder if we would have any solar. You keep reading these stories about how somebody installed a solar system and the logic is always the same. Given massive government subsidies, tax credits, tax deductions, incentives that PG&E collects from everybody but targets to solar applications etc., the thing pays for itself over 20 years (ignoring the need for maintenance and upkeep).