For the record, I'm writing from an un-airconditioned apartment in Chicago.

Certainly, there are those whose lives are not governed by modern conveniences. However, I think the main point of the article had less to do with AC specifically and more to do with the fact that AC has allowed a sort of artificial lifestyle. AC has encouraged a large number of Amreicans to seal themselves off from one another (like the shift from using public transit to driving individual cars) and it has created a new "need" with regard to energy that has subsequently spawned an affinity for a politics that promotes the idea that cheap energy is a birthright to maintain a "blessed lifestyle." Any talk of sensible energy use is derided as un-American. This plays right into the Republicans' strengths.

That graphic might be offensive to gnomes. Don't take the gnome vote for granted!

In this case is a code word directed at poor white trash who are afraid of people who have book-learnin' on 'em.

the majority of Americans know how many homes they own.

Did the Operation Chaos folks supply you with your comments or did you write them all by yourself?

If people really thought Hillary was the better choice, she would have won. Or, "I'm so open minded I'll vote for a woman!!!!"

What was the point of this artilce? Unless they wanted bare stage and scaffolding, they have to decorate it with something. As others have pointed out, columns evoke the White House and ancient Greece, the birthplace of democracy.

Although perhaps it would have been fun to put up a collage of all of McCains houses.

After reading one ignorant post after another from you, I feel like donating to Obama's campaign. People like you keep me from even considering voting Republican.

You're wasting your time here.

... because Obama isn't running against Bush.

Your thinking is so 20th Century.

Who/what exactly is the one single infallible source of information? Even the most informed sources only know what they know, which is to say that they don't know everything.

What's great about Wikipedia is that if YOU see an error or if YOU have something to add that isn't there, YOU can go ahead and make a correction/addition.

There was a book that came out about a year or so ago called "Wikinomics." I suggest you read it. The book talks about how the proliferation of information is changing business and culture, but among other things, it details how Wikipedia is actually as accurate or more accurate than traditional encyclopedias because so many people have editorial access. That might sound counterintuitive at first, but who better to define the minute details of the world we live in - the (6,000,000,000+) individuals with the most intimate knowledge of those details or a select panel of individuals tasked with being experts on everything?

Every information source will have its share of inaccuracies, but on average, inaccuracies on Wikipedia last about 5 minutes. Why? - Because so many people have the ability to make corrections.

"We can't ascertain the factual reality of anything. All opinions are equally valid, it's all just deconstructivism, so why bother trying anyhow."

What's the difference between reality and perceived reality? How do we "know" anything?

What is a stated fact, but that which is supported by evidence and peer review?

True, one can spew out misinformation and simply declare it to be factual (see FOX News), so please go ahead with your entry on gay NAZI Democrats for Christ. The power of Wikipedia is in that given the sheer number of peers who review your work any errors or omissions are likely to be corrected over time. This is in contrast to traditional hard copy where once something is in print, it cannot be updated. There's no way to experience everything first-hand, so for better or worse we are at the mercy of the accounts that others have to offer.

You seem to think that you know a lot more than anybody else, living or dead. I'm curious as to how you achieved such an elightened state. Please share.

You might be better off posting the gay NAZI Dems for Christ thing over at the Conservapedia. Theirs is a unique reality, to say the least.

Conservapedia - "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

give a speech once. Let me tell you, Barack Obama is no Dan Quayle.

but I must admit that the spats on MSNBC were more fun to watch than the more staid coverage on CNN. It wouldn't surprise me if the talking heads were told by the producers to mix it up a bit on the air. People love to watch others fight.

Is the governorship of AK a full-time job? How about the mayorship of Wasilla? Does anybody know - I've been searching and I haven't found those answers yet.

Does being a beauty queen (runner-up) or hottie or a MILF qulaify one to be (V)/POTUS? If so, I nominate Christy Canyon, even if her tits might be sagging a bit these days.

Palin is pro-drilling alright - she has 5 kids....

then how is she gonna handle somebody like Bin Laden?

"...despite having little money and little establishment backing. (Unlike Obama)"

Obama got where he is despite the Democratic machine politics in Chicago/Illinois. You clearly know nothing about Obama. If you want to be taken seriously, at least know what the hell you're talking about.

I think it was closer to 38 million who watch Obama's acceptance speech. I heard that from a number of sources.

T. Suarez is a radical fact-challenged right-wing troll, probably one of those Operation Chaos types. I don't trust one single word of what Suarez says.