Boy! President Bush can cause severe Hurricanes and warm weather for seven years? No wonder why we're all so mad about Iraq. He could have just summoned his climatological powers and blown away the Iraqi regime with a Mummy-movie-like windstorm. He could have done a Mr. Freeze on Osama in the mountains of Afghanistan.

It kind of makes you wonder why he didn't cause a freak snow storm on election day. You know how unpleasant weather makes the public transit and bike riding comrades stay away. Oh -- I know why. Because he'd have to listen to even more bellyaching about the outcome of the election. I can see it now: MoveOn.org v. Old Man Winter.

Now I'm really ticked off at Mr. Bush. I just remembered that my Fourth of July barbeque was rained out! He couldn't have just held off for another day? Come to think of it, Columbus day was a bust too.

But pondering further, this sure blows a hole in Mr. Gore's global warming theories. I hope he won't have to return that Nobel prize.

Maybe the evil Mr. Bush can be rehabilitated so that after his term he will use his weather-manipulations for the good. I wonder if Mr. Cheney controls the earth's ocean currents? That would explain why he and the President need to be partners. I think I remember reading that when Cheney was in hiding there were noticeable anomalies in the tidal patterns.

Well, it's a theory. At least as good as the ones that turn up on these pages on a regular basis.

I just realized that the referenced article is posted as News. While I was chuckling through it, I realized that it's not on the Opinion pages. I cannot imagine what confusion of thoughts might actually be there.

I think I'll take a look. But I'll keep a sick bag handy.

The fact is, an election with such a narrow percentage margin is a tie. A snowstorm in Minn. would have lost it for Stuart Smallie. You know how those public-transit and bike riding progressives can't bother to vote lest they get chilly.

In baseball the tie goes to the runner. I say give it to the funnyman. With the stupid things he will say, having him on Obama's side will only help to highlight the idiocy of the views of so called progressives. It's amazing that it having Reid, Frank, and Pelosi isn't enough to sink the left.

Included in your great achievements are county courthouses, an ivory tower for a university, and a photo essay. What strong arguments! No county courthouses were ever built with county money. Universities have never built ivory towers using bonds and endowments. And aspiring photographers have never been able to snap a few interesting shots of down-and-out folks in a group of down-and-out folks.

What was mostly missing from your slideshow was a discussion of the costs, the benefits (number of jobs and resulting economic improvement), and a comparison to the foregone alternatives. That is what the current stimulus debate is about.

There is no doubt that the Soviets created some really nice buildings and dams, not to mention nuclear plants, from their socialist depravity. I suppose that the fact they were able to get anything done is something. But at what cost to human freedoms and happiness is the real question.

The Egyptians built some really nice pyramids and other monuments with slave labor. Socialism, by forcing people to part with the fruits of their labor under threat of law, is just another form of slavery. Slavery just cuts out the middle man.

1. The reason why this is a big deal is not that a ghostwriter was used, but that the fact has been consistently denied. Supposedly, two of Pres. Obama's great attributes is that he is so honest and personally articulate.

2. It appears that the secret is finally out of the bag. However, the odd way in which it has come out will continue to help them dismiss any discussion of the fact to that of conspiracy theorists. And, when solid proof is given, they can say that they never lied about it in the first place. Can anyone say "blue dress"?

3. Pres. Obama is transparent. The problem is that it doesn't matter how transparent he is when viewed by blind people.

1. It is plausible that Ayers would admit the authoriship of Obama's book in a manner which involves the same type of deception that he recommends in "Rules for Radicals". But it could be a joke.

2. As analysis has shown, it is incredibly unlikely that Obama wrote the book on his own. There is not a single other example of Obama writing which has the same style or quality. Such examples of Obama writing are at least as rare as great Obama oratory without the benefit of a teleprompter.

3. There would be no better way to hedge the truth than to eek out a half-assed admission.

4. On transparency, you tell me: does Obama support universal health care or not? If so, why doesn't he say it now (like he did before)? If he believes that it is ethical to pretend he doesn't want to take over health care when he really wants to, but is willing simply settle on an incremental approach, why wouldn't he believe that obfuscation regarding the authorship of a book which helped catapult him to a position for which he is totally unqualified is justified?

5. Do you have trouble seeing through invisible things right in front of you? If so, you might not be an imbecile, but you might just be blind.