Read This and Weep Al Gore

The great Web site known as Right Scoop linked me to this awesome video below:

Marc Morano runs a Web site called Climate Depot, which I definitely recommend you take a look at so you can arm yourself with facts to prove that this whole manmade climate change thing is a bunch of crap.

Now all this reminds me of a very detailed column I wrote years ago about this topic of climate change, right when the ClimateGate scandal had just happened. I wanted to share that today, as it still shares information relevant to today’s discussion of climate change and how climate change is an excuse to steal your liberty via cap-and-trade. Take a look at it below. Read it and weep Al Gore.

Published on CC Spin:

The environment is something that concerns everyone, and there are problems that certainly need to be addressed. But there is growing skepticism about whether or not global warming is a real environmental concern, and so it is disturbing that politicians are using it as an excuse to impose economic regulations like cap-and-trade.

Supporters of the man-made global warming theory have pointed to the rise of temperature within the past 15 years as evidence, but this evidence is clearly not credible.

According to a Washington Times article on Dec. 9, NASA had recalculated its data to determine that 1934, not 1998 as it originally said, was the hottest year in its records, weakening the evidence of a rise in temperature.

Further strengthening the argument of global warming skeptics, a Nov. 20 New York Times “Climate-Gate” article reported the uncovering of several e-mails from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia containing information indicating that the scientists don’t understand why there has been a lack of rising temperatures.

Recently, Dr. Phil Jones admitted that he may have lost the relevant data that shows warming since 1995 and resigned as the director of CRU because of the controversy over the Climate-Gate e-mails.

At a meeting of climate scientists on Feb. 22, the British weather office suggested the world’s climatologists should start over and produce new data open to public scrutiny and peer review.

In addition, politicians such as Al Gore and President Barack Obama who support the man-made climate change theory base their data on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Recently though, the IPCC’s claims about climate change have lost their legitimacy.

According to a Feb. 16 Wall Street Journal article, the IPCC has based climate change claims on the World Wildlife Fund’s data, such as climate change will destroy “40 percent of the Amazon rainforest” and “glacial lake outbursts causing mudflows and avalanches”.

The article describes the World Wildlife Fund as a “green lobby that believes in global warming, and its ‘research’ reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.”

Despite the illegitimate evidence, scientists like Princeton University Professor Michael Oppenheimer believe that climate change is caused by man-made carbon dioxide trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Oppenheimer points to the increase of total greenhouse emissions from 28.7 billion tons per year in 1970 to 49 billion tons in 2004, which has trapped heat and raised temperatures by nearly 1.5 degrees the past 100 years.
The science of carbon dioxide suggests that carbon dioxide is not harmful to the atmosphere.

According to a April 9 article from, carbon dioxide only makes up 4/1000 of the Earth’s atmosphere, and according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, only 3 percent of the carbon dioxide that makes up the atmosphere is man-made.

Furthermore, water vapor is a greenhouse gas that makes up 95 percent of the atmosphere, while the remaining 5 percent is made up of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Of these greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide are 21 times and 310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, respectively.
Therefore, carbon dioxide is a very small part of the atmosphere, and has little effect on global warming.

However, there are other ways to explain climate change.

According to climate scientists Dr. David Legates from the University of Delaware and Dr. Willie Soon from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center of Astrophysicists, climate change is a natural cycle caused by the sun.

Legates explains this is because 99.9 percent of the Earth’s energy that goes into the climate originates from the sun.

He also says that as temperature rises, carbon dioxide rises, leading to the misconception that carbon dioxide has caused global warming.
Since there is clearly skepticism on whether or not global warming is an environmental concern, why would politicians want to create “solutions” to global warming?

Their “solutions” are just another word for unnecessary economic regulation.

For example, one solution is cap-and-trade.

Cap-and-trade puts a limit on the amount of greenhouse gases that a company can emit, and if this limit is breached, then the company must pay fines or buy extra emissions credits from companies that have a surplus of emissions credits.

Cap-and-trade would result in new energy taxes and companies passing on higher prices to the consumer.

Since cap-and-trade seems unlikely to pass, the government has circumvented it with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new “solution.”

The Clean Air Act was amended on Jan. 14 to give the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases, resulting in even higher costs than there would be under cap-and-trade.

And to even further burden taxpayers, the Obama administration plans to give $2.6 billion for global warming research.

Given the “Climate Gate” e-mails and the growing skepticism among scientists about man-made global warming, these economic regulations are unnecessary burdens for our already crippled economy.

There should be widely reviewed data based on sound scientific methods on the environment before politicians churn out environmental legislation.

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 2 Comments

Fun With Rush

Bored on a Saturday night with nothing better to do? Well here’s something you can check out for a good laugh- Rush Limbaugh!

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not making fun of Rush by any means.

I recently discovered that Rush used to have his own TV show. I’ve taken a look at some clips from the show on YouTube, and naturally I really like it.

This clip is one of my favorites. Here Rush makes fun of Ted Kennedy for speaking gibberish:

And this guy is considered to be the Democrats’ Ronald Reagan? Teddy couldn’t even speak in complete sentences! Also it’s ok to make fun of Ted here because this is before the brain tumor. And he killed a woman in his car

I think that if Marco Rubio runs for president in 2016 (which I think is very likely), he needs to shout: “Is this Rubio country? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” and then take a nice long sip of water.

Now here Rush makes fun of Bill Clinton. B.J. Bill Jefferson Clinton, our impeached, perverted former president who was impeached and lost his law license for eight years. As you will see, Clinton may have been a pathological liar, but even he can’t pull off a fake cry:

And here, well I never thought something so boring could be so funny, but nevertheless Rush somehow can.

Not to mention that Rush’s TV show also was very informative, as seen in this clip where he talks about the ignorance on high gas prices. (Which I think still holds true today)

Rush no longer has his TV show, and I understand that this is because he didn’t like doing TV as much.

I love Rush’s radio show, I listen to it every morning. Dittohead and proud of it! But I do wish he had kept his TV show.

I say that because one of the many disadvantages we conservatives face is that all of these late-night comedians are all liberals. Jay Leno, David Letterman (the buck-toothed moron), Bill Maher (BLAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. I can’t stand Bill Maher, the short stupid white guy. He makes me want to throw my laptop out the window), etc.

But especially, it’s Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert whom I feel we really have to combat. The youth especially love Jon Stewart. I remember in the college dorms last year hanging out in the common room and then seeing The Daily Show and The Colbert Report on the TV. I had to restrain myself from my throwing my shoes at the TV. But everyone watching was laughing, having a good time, and hence believed what Stewart and Colbert were saying.

Take a look at this from the liberal Buzzfeed. As you can see in the story, Stewart unfairly edited a clip of Mitt Romney. And of course he used foul language (bull f*cking shit) and basically bullied Romney over something that wasn’t even true. And yet, people believe that.

Let’s also not forget how Jon Stewart single handedly ended CNN’s Crossfire!

And then this of Colbert, where he says to the NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, “You, sir, are f—ked [bleeped] in the head.” Click on the link if you want and look at the full context- not much in the way of substance, however there is that lovable f-bomb. This is what’s poisoning the youth.

In my view, Colbert and Stewart seem to bully and use foul language (altho that as bad Bill Maher, but then again he has zero ratings) to drive home a liberal perspective. And it’s not even real news- it’s satire! But the youth get their news from them.

Rush, by contrast, most of the time has a clean mouth and he’s not satire, he actually gives his opinion using humor and facts. Rush’s TV show, I think, would have been the conservative answer to Colbert/Stewart if Rush had decided to stick with the TV program.

Rush’s radio show is still #1, but since it’s on during school and it’s on the radio, the youth are not as likely to go out of their way to listen to him.

That’s why I have always believed that in order to spread the message of conservatism to the youth, we conservatives need to find an answer to Stewart/Colbert, and it should follow Rush’s TV show model. And it would be based on actual facts, not satire.

Anyway, enjoy the Rush videos.

Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama’s Views on Gay Marriage Were Never Evolving, They Were REVOLVING

What? President Barack Obama backs gay marriage? Oh my God! Now I have to support him! His disastrous economic record? Psssshhhhhh. His incoherent foreign policy? Who cares? EVERYONE OBAMA BACKS GAY MARRIAGE HE DESERVES RE-ELECTION!

This has basically been the reaction from the mainstream media and the reaction from Obama supporters everywhere. Truth be told, it’s annoying me.

Now let’s be clear- I do not intend to turn this into a discussion about gay marriage. What I do intend to talk about is Obama having a rather weak spine on this issue, something the mainstream media doesn’t seem to talk about.

In 1996, when he ran for the Illinois state senate, Obama said he favored “legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” Later that year he changed his position.

Flash forward to 2004, where Obama declared that marriage was not a “civil right” and should be between one man and one woman. Don’t take my word for it though, see it for yourself in the video below!

Three years later, when then Senate-candidate Obama reaffirmed this position in during a Democratic debate, in which he proposes civil unions. (which for the record is something a lot of conservatives believe in too)

And now today, Obama did a 180 and now supports same-sex marriage. Of course what’s buried in the article is:

As president in 2010, Obama told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that his feelings about gay marriage were “constantly evolving. I struggle with this.” A year later, the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, “I’m still working on it.”

So to recap, Obama went from being all for gay marriage only to be against it later that year. Then he went from being against gay marriage to saying he wasn’t sure on the issue and now is in favor of same-sex marriage.

Mitt Romney may be a serial flip-flopper, but I don’t think he has ever a flip-flopped on an issue as much as Obama has on gay marriage.

So the question is: Is this truly what Obama believes? Well, I’m not completely convinced that he has truly evolved on the issue:

Left-wing blogger Greg Sargent reported on Monday that “leading gay and progressive donors” were angry with Obama over his increasingly convoluted position on gay rights and same-sex marriage, and were refusing to donate any more money to Priorities USA, the pro-Obama Super PAC. Sargent cited Paul Yandura, a political adviser to prominent Democratic donor Jonathan Lewis, who emailed that:

A number of gay and progressive donors, unsolicited, have indicated to us that they aren’t considering requests to donate to the Obama SuperPac because of the president’s refusal to the sign the order. And those are high-dollar asks, some in the seven digits. We have heard from at least half a dozen major gay and progressive donors that they stand united with us.

The Washington Post noted on Tuesday that roughly 20 percent of Obama top campaign bundlers—who are responsible for arranging $500,000 and up—“publicly identified themselves as gay.”

So what happened after Obama announced his support for gay marriage?

The liberal Talking Points Memo reports that one Obama bundler, Jon Cooper, said the president’s announcement will make fundraising for the re-election campaign “immeasurably easier.”

Clearly then, Obama’s views were never actually evolving on gay marriage. They were revolving, round and round to whatever is politically beneficial for him. For this election cycle, he needed to do this excite his base and get the donations he needs.
Of course if you closely watch the video where Obama announces his support for same-sex marriage, Obama says that the issue of marriage is still left up to the states to decide.
Wait what his position up till now? That states should decide what the definition of marriage is.
So what actually changed is well………..nothing. Other than Obama’s personal preference.
The media salivating over this then was nothing more than yet another distraction from his disastrous record as president.
If you support same-sex marriage and you’re excited by Obama’s announcement in favor of same-sex marriage, good for you. Honestly.
But he’s using you. Obama is using you, the LGBT movement, and anyone else who supports same-sex marriage to get some sort of excitement for his campaign. Last night’s primaries were a wake-up call to him that he needed to do this. (that for another blog post)
Given his flip-flops on the issue, it’s just not clear that his conversion is sincere. Remember, if he is re-elected, there’s nothing to hold him accountable, so Obama can and will do whatever he wants.
Therefore, not knowing how he really feels on the issue is not exactly going to sit well with voters outside of his base, and will definitely be a factor in November.
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Opinion: Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, and Chris Matthews: A Fair and Balanced Look at MSNBC

The mainstream media has for weeks now pounced on the comments made by conservative talk show host (and one of my heroes) Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh a few weeks ago made the following statement:

What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We’re not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word. Okay, so she’s not a slut. She’s “round heeled”. I take it back.

Personally, I think Limbaugh was just calling a spade a spade. A prostitute and a slut after all is defined as being paid to have sex, which is essentially is what Fluke was arguing for in defended the ObamaCare mandate that all health insurance plans must cover contraception. However, I understand that the language was questionable, and thus Limbaugh apologized for it. Despite the apology, the mainstream media continues to bash Limbaugh for his comments, not accept his apology, and even call to boycott his show. Not only is this ridiculous, it’s hypocritical. Those on the Left make worse comments than Limbaugh everyday, and it’s about time they’re called out on it. So we’re going to look at the disgusting, far-left, moronic propagandist TV station known as MSNBC. Every single one of MSNBC’s hosts are embarrassments to the field of journalism, but today’s post will feature three of the hosts: Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, and Chris Matthews. Ed Schultz Ed “the Red” Schultz believe it or not used to be a conservative. Then one day he wanted to make money and became a liberal, thus transforming into a vile, filthy politcal commentator. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center recently wrote a letter to MSNBC president Phil Griffin in which he calls on Griffin to fire Schultz for the following reasons:

Ed Schultz, the man who called Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut.” The man who claimed that “The Republicans want to see you dead! They’d rather make money off your dead corpse! They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don’t have anything for her.” Or consider his comments on the former Vice President: “You’re damn right, Dick Cheney’s heart’s a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him.” Schultz has compared the Tea Party to Nazi Brown Shirts, asked if the term “whore” applied to Joe Lieberman’s wife, and claimed publicly on his show that conservative broadcasters want Obama shot. And that is but the tip of the iceberg. The list of vile, repugnant venom coming out of Schultz’s mouth is extensive:

So where was the mainstream media when Schultz called Ingraham a slut, the same thing Limbaugh called Fluke? Nowhere. I listen to Rush’s show every morning, and he has never said anything remotely as bad as anything up there Schultz has said. Schultz has a sewer for a brain, and frankly I agree with Bozell: he deserves to get thrown off radio and TV. He deserves a boycott much more than Limbaugh. Al Sharpton The Reverend Al Sharpton, or as my hero Mark Levin likes to call him Al Not-so-Sharpton, has a rather hypocritical career. Sharpton’s career is built off of race. Funny given the racist remarks he has made, which can you listen to below thanks to Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator:

And to top it, you can see footage of Sharpton calling somebody a “punk f*ggot”:

If Limbaugh ever said anything close to what Sharpton said right there, the media would be calling for his head.

Chris Matthews

Chris Matthews is of course known for his show “Hardball.” I prefer to think of him as Mark Levin’s name for him- Chris “I’ll Have Another Drink Please” Matthews.

Matthews has said some pretty outrageous things, from saying that President Barack Obama gave him a thrill up his leg to saying Obama had a smile worth a million bucks. But he has said more serious, sexist remarks than that.

I am no fan of Hilary Clinton, but Matthews has said some pretty appalling things about her, as Jezebel illustrates:

Some of the names Matthews has called Ms. Clinton? “She Devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” “Madame Defarge.” (You know, the haggy, knitting, plotting character in A Tale Of Two Cities noted for being a ruthless villain?) It doesn’t end there, though. Matthews has also spouted that Clinton is “witchy,” “anti-male” and “uppity.” And he was one of the first to mock Ms. Clinton’s laugh, saying “what do you make of the cackle?” In his eyes, she’s Maleficent, a full-on Disney witch. Matthews has questioned whether a woman can lead: “[L]et’s talk about the troops… Will they take the orders?” and on another occasion, wondered, “Is she hemmed in by the fact that she’s a woman and can’t admit a mistake, or else the Republicans will say, ‘Oh, that’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind,’ or ‘another fickle woman’? Is her gender a problem in her ability to change her mind?” Because obviously, women can’t make up their minds. Ever! Clinton’s personal life isn’t even off-limits; Matthews has mused, “Is she a convincing mom?” Has Mr. Matthews ever asked if any of the male candidates look like convincing dads?

And as the Daily Caller notes, Matthews has referred to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as a “balloonhead” numerous times as well as constantly referred to her as “this woman”.

Of course we can’t leave out Matthews calling Sarah Palin a “cuckoo clock” and a “mail ordered bride”.

Imagine Limbaugh saying any of those things about Michelle Obama. We would never hear the end of it!

Whatever your political ideology, the hypocrisy of the mainstream can clearly be seen it how it treats Limbaugh’s comments vs. those of Schultz, Sharpton and Matthews. My guess is that if you’re reading this, this is the first time you’ve seen the filthy comments made by these buffoons at MSNBC but yet you’ve heard the Limbaugh comment numerous times.

If you don’t like Rush Limbaugh, fine. If you think his comments regarding Fluke were terrible, fine. But be aware that what he has said pales in comparison to those made by hosts of MSNBC, and if Limbaugh deserves to be boycotted, then so does MSNBC.

Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Capps Gets Fire Department a Federal Grant for Equipment

San Luis Obispo Congresswoman Lois Capps (CA-23) said today that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program gave the SLO City Fire Department a $49,000 grant. The grant will be used for the Fire Department to buy thermal imaging cameras that make it easier for firefighters to find and rescue fire victims.

Congresswoman Lois Capps (CA-23)

Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Student Success Fee Video Project

Below is my video where I interviewed four random Cal Poly students about the newly implemented Student Success Fee.


Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Self-Evaluation #2

So far, I have accomplished being able to consistently update a blog related to my desired profession once a week, and getting a small audience. The amount of views I get when I make a post has been steadily increasing- my last post on Ann Coulter received 54 views- the highest I’ve gotten so far. People are able to follow my posts on  Facebook and Twitter.

I’ve learned how to make my posts more searchable with better titles, and I hope to continue that trend with posts in the future. I plan on changing my blog to politics in general rather than just local politics, so that way it’ll achieve more of an audience. And I plan on updating my blog more than once a week- the more I post, the more searches I will get as well.

It would also be better for me to add more pictures to my posts to make it more appealing to the eyes. Creating a Facebook page for my blog would also be a good one to help grow my audience and continually link to it on other pages and columns.

Overall, I’m happy with how my blog has turned out so far, and it has a lot of potential to live on.


Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Opinion: Ann Coulter Rocks Cal Poly

Ann Coulter signs books at Chumash Auditorium

As a stage guard, observing the 500-600 crowd of students and San Luis Obispo community members in Chumash Auditorium who came to see the famous, witty and bombastic conservative pundit Ann Coulter tonight (brought by the Cal Poly College Republicans) was an incredulous sight to see.

When Cal Poly College Republicans President Brendan Pringle introduced her by saying “Even she doesn’t call herself controversial, everybody welcome Ann Coulter” Coulter came onstage to a standing ovation.

“This is not my typical audience,” Coulter said. “Welcome to Occupy San Luis Obispo! There will be no lice, no rapes.”

Coulter was clearly on her game tonight, her sarcastic, witty swipes and quips on full display for everyone to see. She covered subjects involving her new book, Demonic, in which she talks about the mob mentality of today’s liberals.

Copies of Demonic were available for purchase

“One of the mob attributes is their use of slogans,” Coulter said. “They say nothing when you think about it. It’s like an Obama speech.”

She used Obama’s Hope and Change slogans as examples, and then said that a third slogan they never used was “I’m going to raise the debt by $5 trillion and not create a single job.”

Coulter went on full attack mode on the Obama administration, talking about everything from the stimulus bill to ObamaCare to the unemployment rate.

The stimlus bill, Coulter claimed, mainly stimulated the government. ObamaCare will cause our health care system to run like the DMV.

Her best line of the night though was when Coulter was talking about the unemployment rate. She mentioned that the lowest it ever was when Obama first came into office, at 7.8%. Now it’s at 8.3% and what she dubbed as the “Non-Fox Media” were cheering about it.

“It’s like you have a fever, of 103, then it goes up to 104 and then back to 103 and then saying that’s a good doctor,” Coulter said

She then moved  on to how this was the most important election in our lifetime. Coulter compared it to Reagan/Carter election, and she said that Reagan won because he was able to attract Independents by not using incendiary language. For instance, he never called Carter a socialist.

Unfortunately Coulter must not remember speeches Reagan made like this. (and Carter wasn’t a socialist, he was an idiot).

What was particularly memorable though, was the 45-minute Question-and-Answer session.

Coulter had numerous hecklers throughout the session, and she swatted them down like gnats.

For instance, someone loudly shouted BOO!!! when she talked about the strength of the traditional family, and she put him in place by saying that these were the kinds of snobs produced by a single-mother household.

Coulter also handled hostile questions well.

One unidentified girl said to her in a huff, “Calling Obama a jugular head is rude!” Coulter retorted back that she call Obama whatever she wanted.

Her only sign of being tripped up during questioning was a question by yours truly. Coulter’s pro-Mitt Romny rhetoric and slams at Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were starting to get sickening, thus producing this question:

Aaron Bandler- “You mentioned that Santorum voted against E-Verify. I know what you’re referring to- the McCain/Kennedy bill. That bill did have E-Verify in it, but it also had amnesty in it. Amnesty is not a conservative position. So isn’t it misleading to say that Santorum was voting against E-Verify when he was actually voting against amnesty?”

Coulter- “Yeah……….I don’t know about that. I just know Santorum hasn’t talked about it much.”

Aaron Bandler- “He has.”

Coulter: “Yeah like ten minutes ago!”

Despite the Romney rhetoric, it was truly an awesome experience to hear Ann Coulter speak. Community members afterward, like Jeannie Nix (Ed Waage’s wife) and Matt Kokkonen said Coulter’s presentation was wonderful.

“For months I eagerly awaited the arrival of Ann Coulter,” Nix said. “Her quick wit and insightful commentary last night were all that I hoped for and more. Ms. Coulter fielded both friendly and hostile questions with good humor while expelling misunderstanding of her positions.”
It will be awhile before Cal Poly ever again has the privilege of hosting a guest with the great humor and brains that Coulter has.
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Getting Paid Assignment

I believe that the field of journalism would be better off if everyone adopted the plans of judging journalists based on popularity.

This is the best way to judge a journalist because it’s a good way to judge competition. In today’s media, there are numerous news sources to choose from. One can go to mainstream news outlets like the Washington Post, ABC or the New York Times, or check out some of the alternate media blogs like Andrew Breitbart’s, Ed Morrisey’s or the Drudge Report.

While many people have lives and don’t have time to be too involved in what’s going on in the world, those that choose to make time to get informed or do have the time can decide for themselves what news sources they like or don’t like. If a news site truly is a good site, then more people will go to it, as people will spread it by word of mouth and/or link to it on social sites like Facebook or Twitter.

I feel that this is the best way to judge competition. Methods like subscriptions, pay walls, and what not are the kind of ways that drive consumers away, because they’d rather look at the news for free. Pew Research Center showed that 82% of people would find a new site to go to if their favorite Web site used a pay wall.

Some will say that it’s not a good method because anyone can just look at the site over and over again and that would skew the numbers.

While that is true, there is a measurement called unique visits which excludes repeats of people who visit the Web site. It is the unique visit measurement that should be used to judge Web site.

In a truly capitalistic free market, competition brings out the best producers in any market. The same can be applied to the media market, and is best judged by unique visits to a Web site.





Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mobile Assignmet

It gets dark way too early at this time of year, even here in SLO


Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at