xtcian

Aww hell, here goes . .
I do not support Bush's position on global warming, but I am not sure what the President can do to stop it. The planet is a lot bigger than us. Plus, even the most passionate decriers of global warming question the amount of damage done by humans and the amount of difference humans can make to fix it. As for Kyoto, it is not fair to blame its failure on Bush. The OVERWHELMING majority of Democrats voted against it too! So, what is the answer for global warming? -- I do not know.

Iraq: Have things gone swimmingly in Iraq? NO. Did any fair-minded person think that the war was really over after our military dominated the country in a few days? Ian, I do not know where you conclude that the military is against the effort, but it is reported on all ends of the political spectrum that re-enlistment of military personnel is at an all-time high. Sure, both political sides can find a soldier here and there to appear on Nightline and spew one talking point or the other. But, I do find it telling the incredible numbers of re-enlistment.

Abu Ghraib. Not sure what Bush did there. But, all kidding aside, Abu Ghraib is an embarrassment to our fine military men and women and all such fine men and women will tell you so. To me, the folks from Abu Ghraib are the Joe Fortes of the military. Yes, Forte wore the UNC uniform, but we don't really claim him as one of our own, do we? And, to draw an analogy to Bush, do we blame Gutheridge for Forte's behavior?

Outing Valerie Plame. This subject is so ripe for non-reasoned political bickering that it really does not warrant inclusion in your otherwise well-written column. I will simply say that IF laws were broken, let there be punishment. The independent counsel's report does not state that ANY laws were broken in the actual leaking and the report also does NOT say that Plame was a covert agent when the shit hit the fan. And, before throwing the independent counsel under the bus, this is the guy who Schumer said was beyond reproach. Nonetheless, in order to remain consistent with my Clinton position . . . if Libby committed perjury, off with his head. By the way, are you being consistent with your Clinton/perjury position?

Lying about the war. This is a loaded subject. I tend to wince from the word "lie". I personally do not believe Bush lied, a word a define as purposefully told a statement he knew at the time to be false. Hell, maybe I am wrong, but EVERY leader of the ENTIRE FREE WORLD said the same thing. Oh, and let's not forget that EVERY LEADER of the past 15 years -- Bush, Bush II, Clinton, Gore, Blair, Thatcher, Annan, et al said the exact same thing. Was the intelligence (dating all the way back to Clinton and Bush I admin) inaccurate? Seems quite likely. Was this unfortunate? YES. Did Bush and all of the other leaders mentioned above KNOW that it was inaccurate? I do not think so and, as such, I can't buy the "lie" statement. If we are going to have a fair debate, we have to say that they ALL lied or that none of them lied.

Church and state. Frequent readers of this blog know that you have sensitive antennae to this subject and I have no qualms with this. I suppose that a person's sensitivity to this subject is inversely proportional to their religious convictions, but I could be wrong. Honestly, in situations where the topic is so subjective, I have great faith (no pun intended) in the whims of democracy. Do I hear any liberals in Washington decrying the separation or lack thereof? Nope. Hard for me to think this is a pressing issue to a lot of folks. Again, I respect that you have concerns here, Ian, but it does not seem to be high on most folks' lists.

So, come on, be honest . . . do I get a postcard?????

Good morning, Ian!

"how can you support this President when YOUR OWN KIDS are at stake?"

That's why I support what the President is doing in Iraq. So my (our) children might not have to deal with that mess when they grow up. One of the worst mistakes Bush 41 made was not finishing the job in '91. Almost everyone I served with at the time guessed that we'd be back over there within 10 years. Not of by much. I think you've heard the "neo-con" argument here (threat to national security due to Saddam's coziness with terrorist groups, beachhead of democracy theory, etc.) so I won't run through them here.

"I mean, even if there is a 50% chance global warming doesn't exist, WHY TAKE THAT CHANCE?"

I believe global warming exists, I just don't believe it is primarily man-made (most likely it is the Sun and natural Earth cycles). Quite a few climate scientists believe the same thing. I think we've had this argument here before. I'm not going to go live in a cave just because some people are hysterical.

"Bush said he didn't support Kyoto because it would hurt the American economy (a statement that makes me and every other progressive quake with rage)"

Kyoto was nixed during the Clinton Administration (95-0 in the Senate), too. What were their reasons? Have you asked the Kiwis what they think of it now?

"but even a full-scale recession would be a tiny blip on the radar compared to the environmental catastrophe we could be facing in twenty years."

This is the hysteria talking.

"How can you still support his way of fighting the Iraq war? IT'S A DISASTER, and EVEN THE TROOPS SAY SO."

No, they don't. The Zogby poll to which you might be referring found that most troops wanted to leave Iraq within one year. Poll after poll has shown (I've linked them in the comments of this blog before) have shown that the troops on the ground believe in the mission and do not think it is a "disaster." In fact, the support is highest among combat veterans, lowest in the REFM types (I say that with all love).

"How can you stomach his idea of the separation of church and state?"

Not sure what you mean here.

"How can you stomach Abu Ghraib?"

No one does. Those responsible have been tried and sentenced to prison for their misconduct. If you have proof that President Bush is responsible, let's hear it. There is an Abu Ghraib court martial going on right now in Ft. Meade that my office is involved with.

"How can you stomach outing Valerie Plame?"

You mean the non-covert CIA employee? You're kidding, right?

"How can you stomach lying about the war?"

What lies? Seriously. Name one. WMDs? Please. The NYT this week wrote about how surprised Saddam's own commanders were when they learned they didn't have the gas they were hoping to use to defend Baghdad. Even the UN and the French believed Saddam was hiding WMDs. Were they lying?

"Step back from yourself, quit thinking tribally, stop thinking "well, this is my team and I'm sticking to it" and answer the question."

You too, my friend.

I'll check back later this afternoon. I have some puppies to kill, you know.

Matt, I do not know you, but it is obvious from your email that you have served our country for years. Thank you, sir, for everything! Whether some of the people on this blog agree with some of the military's positions, etc., it is not debatable that we all owe you and your colleagues a sincere debt of gratitude -- not to mention the folks in Iraq that never went to a rape room or a wood chipper due to your presence. Thank you!

"I do not support Bush's position on global warming, but I am not sure what the President can do to stop it."

For starters, he could A) start listening to the scientific mainstream, instead of cherry-picking research that supports his ideology. B) Aggressively pursue energy conservation, by, for example raising CAFE standards for autos. C) If he doesn't like Kyoto, pursue new treaty negotiations to come up with something better.

"To me, the folks from Abu Ghraib are the Joe Fortes of the military."

Not up on my UNC history, so I'm assuming that Forte somehow betrayed the UNC Way. The Abu Ghraib abuses didn't happen because of the cruelty of a few soldiers, and it wasn't just the night shift at Abu Ghraib. Torture was, and is, an official policy of the government from the President on down. Otherwise, why was Alberto Gonzales writing legal findings that tapdance around the Geneva Conventions?

"Valerie Plame"

WTF mate? The only way to make out the disclosure of her status as legal is to fall back on legalism. And even then, it ignores the main issue: the Bush Administration, when anyone challenges them politically, do not seek to rebut their critics with argument and facts. They ignore the substance of the criticisms, and make attacks on the character of the critic. The Plame case is egregious, because it involves outing an intelligence officer, but also because the argument that they were making -- that the involvement of Plame in Wilson's selection somehow comprimises his integrity -- is entirely specious, sexist, and beside the point.

"EVERY leader of the ENTIRE FREE WORLD said the same thing."

First off, it's one thing to say someone's a threat, and another thing entirely to invade his country without provocation. They invaded despite the lack of concrete evidence for WMD, not because of the conventional wisdom that they existed. I and many, many people watched Colin Powell's UN appearance and thought that he was at best, not convincing and at worst, lying through his teeth.

Any country with a couple hundred thousand soldiers could have invaded Iraq. Only the United States, and the 'coalition of the willing' did so.

No postcard for you Dean!

'"but even a full-scale recession would be a tiny blip on the radar compared to the environmental catastrophe we could be facing in twenty years."

This is the hysteria talking.'

When exactly will conservatives take global warming seriously? When most of Florida is underwater?

I live in Iowa and just the other night, we had an entirely unseasonable storm system roll through that spawned literally hundreds of Tornados. I've lived here 36 years, and it is literally the first time I've seen tornados in mid-March.

If you're trying to tell me that last year's tornado season, last week's tornados, the 60-degree weather in January in Iowa, are just 'normal fluctuations' well, then I have something to tell you: go fuck yourself. Use something rough and rusty.

You won't admit that climate change is real, even if there's 100 Katrinas. That's not just wrong, it's intellectually dishonest.

question for Ian: i notice that sometimes you refer to yourself as a "liberal", and sometimes as a "progressive". are these entirely synonymous, or is there nuance to the two labels? No sarcasm here, I am actually curious, as someone who is curious about language. thanks.

Well let's be honest here for a minute. President Bush really is the President of million-/billionaires, industry, and oil-producing nations. He does more to feed our fear then he does to keep Americans safe. He does more to help line the pockets of big businesses - specifically foreign business - then he does to encourage American business to stay in this country and create jobs, and wealth, for Americans. He cares not one bit about everyday working people, and this is clearly obvious by his Medicare plan, tax cuts, education grant funding, response to Katrina, etc etc etc.

I have no problem whatsoever saying that the President lied. Now, I doubt that he took much interest in, or knew all that much about, terrorism, the middle east, nuclear proliferation, or even the difference between Arabs and Persians. He did nothing when warned about 9/11, he did nothing when told that the country was under attack, he did very little to capture or kill the man responsible for the planning of 9/11, or the countries responsible for funding those terrorists (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al). In fact, he and his group of thugs immediately wanted to link Saddam to 9/11, and he succeeded in fooling most Americans, for a long time, that that was the case. He was just doing what he was told by those in his Administration who are really in charge. He is uninterested, unengaged, and generally ambivilent to any and everyone not already in his crooked little family's circle. He probably didn't/doesn't even realize that almost every word out of his mouth is false, and he certainly doesn't care if anyone notices.

How my poor heart aches, Matt.

"No, they don't. The Zogby poll to which you might be referring found that most troops wanted to leave Iraq within one year"

You are framing this to sound like that question was do the troops themselves want to go home within the year. Not surprising, since that is what the right-wing radio jocks are saying, but it ain't true.

The question was do the troops think the US Military should pull out within one year. That's very different.

And Dean, Matt was a lawyer for the agribusiness industry, if I recall correctly, until recently. So, if that's serving your country, then you're right.

Speaking of which, I'd love to hear his take on the deformed migrant worker babies from illegal spraying in NC by Agmart, a Florida company.

http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/402173.html

(By the way, Matt, that is a serious question. I'm not trying to set you up the bomb or imply that the case has anything to do with you.)

Just to jump back in my pet topic... Matt and I butted heads on this last time the topic came up. And he's right that "quite a few" climate scientists believe that it's not primarily anthropogenic. But the VAST majority, and the concensus, and the official opinion of every legimitate scientific body is that it IS anthropogenic, and that proceeding on our current path is inviting real and honest disaster. Now, you can quibble over whether it's a 3 degree or a 10 degree warming over the next 20 or 100 years (note that we're currently 4 degrees warmer than the last ice age, so don't belittle that 3 degree projection), and whether increased sea-surface temperatures strengthen or weaken the thermohaline circulation, and whether aerosols are a net warming agent or a net cooling agent, and whether there's a mechanism for feedback that accelerates or decelerates the process... but is that really the point?

Even the folks who think that we've seen up to now is natural agree that more CO2 = bad. Now let's fix it.

Sting, I think those deformed migrant worker babies should stop whining and take responsibility for their own lives. I once heard of a kid born with no arms and legs who went on to win the Heisman trophy *and* become CEO of a Fortune 500 company, so don't tell me they need the government to support them. You act like healthy bodies are some kind of entitlement! If they didn't want to be sprayed in utero by Republicans, they should have picked different parents!

Oh yes, and "The Deformed Migrant Worker Babies" would be a terrific band name.

No thanks Ian. No cheap entertainment from me. As long as you get all your information from Kos, the NYT and Salon, while I get mine from M. Yon, Ralph Peters, WashTimes and actual soldiers, sailors and Marines, there can be no dialogue. Our Venn diagrams don't meet son, when it comes to our slice o'reality.

Therefore, I will no longer beat my head against the wall for nothing. I see ole Matt is still trying though. Good on ya Matt.

Ask yourself this Ian. What would Jack Aubrey do? Would he slink away? HA, HA.

B2

O,BTW- did you notice my 'mater UCONN and your beloved Heels are in the same bracket? Let the fur fly Red!

"the Bush Administration, when anyone challenges them politically, do not seek to rebut their critics with argument and facts. They ignore the substance of the criticisms..."

On the contrary, the administration was countering Joe Wilson's lies (that his wife didn't recommend him, it was by order of the VP, what he found in Niger, etc.). They were directly rebutting substance. Strange how some people forget that.

"The Plame case is egregious, because it involves outing an intelligence officer..."

You concede that she wasn't covert, as Prosecutor Fitzgerald has? Then she might as well have worked in the Cafeteria for all the harm "outing" her did to national security.

"because the argument that they were making -- that the involvement of Plame in Wilson's selection somehow comprimises his integrity -- is entirely specious, sexist, and beside the point."

No, it was that Wilson said his wife had "absolutely nothing" to do with his selection and that it was actually the VP's office who sent him. It wasn't of course.

"First off, it's one thing to say someone's a threat, and another thing entirely to invade his country without provocation."

Iraq was in continuous violation of the '91 ceasefire, 17 UN resolutions, was firing SAMs at our pilots protecting the no-fly zones on a near daily basis, attempted to assassinate a former POTUS, was funding international terrorism, training terrorists in country, etc. No provocation indeed.

"When exactly will conservatives take global warming seriously? When most of Florida is underwater?"

When that happens, Kent, I'll admit that the doomsayers were right.

Kevin:

"He did nothing when warned about 9/11,"

You mean the memo that warned al Qaeda might hijack an airplane somewhere at some future point in time in order to win the release of captured al Qaeda members? What was he to do with that, ban Arab Muslims from flying? (Recall also that the memo was a repeat warning from two years earlier.) The ironic thing is that the 9/11 hijackers made over 200 international phone calls to the ME before they committed their crime and the NSA wiretap program of eavesdropping on international phone calls to suspected terrorists may very well have prevented 9/11 from ever happening.

"In fact, he and his group of thugs immediately wanted to link Saddam to 9/11, and he succeeded in fooling most Americans, for a long time, that that was the case."

Not true. President Bush repeatedly said that there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Repeatedly. Not that it was an impossibility from the start, before more was known, considering Saddam's history.

"The question was do the troops think the US Military should pull out within one year. That's very different."

How so? They are the military. There's a reason that 70% of servicemembers vote Republican every election.

"And Dean, Matt was a lawyer for the agribusiness industry, if I recall correctly, until recently. So, if that's serving your country, then you're right."

True, but I was also prior service (3 yrs Army and 4 yrs Navy). Not that that gives my opinions any more weight than anyone else's, of course. And thanks for the kind words, Dean.

"Speaking of which, I'd love to hear his take on the deformed migrant worker babies from illegal spraying in NC by Agmart, a Florida company."

I'll read it later and get back to you. But just to let you know, I merely managed the company's IP portfolio. I had no role in litigation aside from the occasional infringement action.

I think we can all agree that the best measure of whether the troops who are serving in Iraq believe in the mission is their rate of re-enlistment because it not only means remaining in the military, it often means remaining or returning to Iraq. The re-enlistment rate among those military personnel who have served in Iraq has been, and remains, high.

Feel free to try to prove me wrong by citing the the re-enlistment numbers. And if you want to characterize those numbers as low, make sure you compare them to other re-enlistment statistics, for example, for those who served in Afghanistan or Bosnia, because saying they are low in a vacuum is meaningless. Anyone who wants to find the numbers can do so thanks to the internets. And no cherry picking.

The attacks on Sept. 11th were part of a larger war that is being waged between Islamic extremists and the Western world. This is either the fourth world war, with the cold war (between opposing economic ideals) being the third, or the third world war, depending on how you look at it.

It's important for the West to fight against the Arab world, with extreme force, but also with a measured hand. An attack on Saudi Arabia, for instance, would unite the entire Muslim world. An attack on Iraq, which was not a theocracy and was roundly hated by most of the Arab world, and the establishment of a western style democracy there was the most intelligent option.

Following this logic, it doesn't really matter if the American people are dead-set against this war, or even if the soldiers are against it. The majority has been wrong in the past, consider the inquisition, slavery, etc... This war has to be fought, it has to be fought in a way that no war before this has ever been fought, and a majority of Americans are not likely to understand it.

If you accept this, than the wiretapping and the Plame incident are extremely minor offenses in this larger war, so minor as to be virtually inconsequential. If the entire muslim world is at war with the west, then a little protective maneuvering that might mildly infringe on some personal rights is justifiable.

When you consider that the uniting force behind The Enemy is religious, then you have to accept that a division of church and state is archaic. We are the target of a holy war, religion cannot be removed from politics. And once you've embraced a higher power, it's difficult to see how this planet could possibly be affected by a group of mortal actions. God will see us through to victory, and his earth isn't so delicate that an extra gallon per mile or so is gonna hurt anything.

And even if global warming exists, global terror is a much larger issue, and one that my children will be dealing with. Sure, Florida might be under water with global warming, but I didn't witness Florida sinking on TV. I'm more worried about Lex Bin Al Sahan Luthor blowing up a nuke in the San Andreas fault and sending California into the drink.

Do I get a postcard if I think everything I just explained is wrong?

I don't know about all that stuff, but I do know this. . .

Osama's niece is getting her own reality TV show!

http://sify.com/movies/hollywood/fullstory.php?id=14161103

I say Dean and Matt deserve postcards.

You asked them to explain their views well. They both did so honestly and articulately. Kudos to you for that, Dean and Matt.

Fortunately, you didn't ask them to explain themselves in such a way that we'd agree with them. I used to believe that was possible -- hell, I used to believe that I could make some sort of difference with e-mails, phone calls and letters to my elected representives -- but I've grown cynical.

I've come to believe that the differences in core beliefs between the "left" and "right" are too great, the tunnel vision borne of reliance on "home team" sources too stifling, and the unwillingness of *anyone* to compromise too utterly deadly for me to retain hope of finding any middle ground or broad consensus through debate.

I believe we *will* reach consensus, but only once we're in major crisis. Even then, I don't think folks will freely admit they were wrong about anything.

It just won't matter anymore.

I agree with Warrior -- I deserve a friggin' postcard. You never asked me to convince you that conservatives are right and I am not sure I could do so anyway. You merely asked for me to explain my position. Now, send me a postcard!

If I do not get a postcard, I will become the paperboy from Better Off Dead: I want my two dollars. An American classic. I recently told a neighbor's kid that I'd contribute $20 to one of her school's fundraisers, but I had left my checkbook at work. A couple of days later, my wife yelled at me b/c the little girl had knocked on the door demanding her money -- made us both recall the movie.

Sting, I read the article you cited above. Ag-Mart may be liable for civil and criminal penalties. Throw the book at 'em, I say. My defense of agribusiness in the past pertained to intellectual property rights and the safety of GMOs, not unethical or criminal behavior.

Hey Ian. I'm Nate, a friend of Sean and Jordana's from UNC, a frequent reader, and an occasional admirer. Had to post my two cents about some Iraq stuff. Hope you find it level-headed.

Re-enlistment is a tricky stat to rely upon. The decision to re-enlist is complicated and is influenced by lots of factors. Thrill-seekers re-enlist because they like the thrill of combat. To them, being in harm’s way makes military life more desirable, not less. Lifers re-enlist because they’ve always intended to serve out long enough tours to qualify for pensions. Pessimists about the job market at home re-enlist because they think their prospects of gainful post-service employment are grim. Microeconomics 101 alone says that raising re-enlistment bonuses will boost re-enlistment, which is precisely what the Penatagon, smartly, did. The point is that using re-enlistment rates as an indication of whether troops believe in the mission in Iraq is a dicey proposition. Maybe it indicates support, maybe it doesn't.

That isn’t to say that we should side with the liberals and rely on Zogby’s poll, either. Zogby’s poll is interesting and useful, but what it asked is when troops thought we should withdraw from Iraq. Most troops said that we should withdraw within the next two years, but that doesn’t mean they think the war effort a failure. Two years may be the troops’ own best estimate of how long it will take them to finish WINNING.

In general, though, I doubt the assumptions underlying the entire question. It’s hard to claim that what the troops think is a good indication of whether we are winning the war, any more than asking plant workers about their attitudes is a good indication of the health of the Ford Motor Company. Whether we are winning is a matter of whether we are achieving our strategic objective of creating a stable, pro-Western democracy in Iraq. Our successes or failures on that front aren’t necessarily visible to the grunt on the ground who is mainly concerned with the accomplishment of this or that smaller tactical objective - escorting this convoy, securing that supply route. We measure our strategic success by looking at the big picture: the number of insurgency attacks now as compared to several months or a year ago, the number of U.S. troops required to maintain order, the ability of the political parties in Iraq to resolve differences and respond to crises without resorting to violence, the ability of the new Iraqi government to claim a legitimate monopoly on the use of force.

Looking at these indicators, I think it’s hard to be optimistic about our progress. Troops levels have remained constant; insurgent attacks are up some months, down others, but do not seem to be on any sort of recognizably long-term downward trajectory; there has been seemingly no attempt to disarm the militias of non-government officials like Moktada Al-Sadr; the political parties are already in violation of the Iraqi constitution, which calls for the government to have been formed by now, but which is stalled because political leaders cannot agree on a coalition government. It doesn’t speak well for the new constitution or the rule of law that the political parties are already in breach of the constitution.

And let’s remember, that a stable, democratic Iraq is not the ultimate goal of the Iraq War. The Iraq War was a means to an end in the war on terror, to stopping or slowing the conditions that lead to anti-U.S. terrorism. It’s difficult to argue that the Arab world is noticeably less anti-American now than it was five years ago, though I’m not sure the case could be made that it is more hostile now either. At best it seems a wash, and for the price we’ve paid in blood and treasure, it’s hard to say a wash is getting our money’s worth.

Nate - thanks for posting. THAT was an intelligent response and should earn you a postcard (regardless of your political affiliation).

"Re-enlistment is a tricky stat to rely upon. The decision to re-enlist is complicated and is influenced by lots of factors. Thrill-seekers re-enlist because they like the thrill of combat. To them, being in harm’s way makes military life more desirable, not less. Lifers re-enlist because they’ve always intended to serve out long enough tours to qualify for pensions. Pessimists about the job market at home re-enlist because they think their prospects of gainful post-service employment are grim. Microeconomics 101 alone says that raising re-enlistment bonuses will boost re-enlistment, which is precisely what the Penatagon, smartly, did. The point is that using re-enlistment rates as an indication of whether troops believe in the mission in Iraq is a dicey proposition. Maybe it indicates support, maybe it doesn't."

I challenged whoever would address the issue to present actual Iraq re-enlist numbers and COMPARE them to the numbers for other times, places, and conflicts because that is the only way you can meaningfully analyze them. It is only the failure to do this work that makes re-enlistement numbers "tricky."

Did you review the re-enlist numbers for Iraq? Did you compare those numbers to those from people serving in Bosnia or Afghanistan or other conflicts? Did you compare them to the non-conflict soldiers' numbers from before Iraq? Before 9/11? Apparently not.

Despite the fact that one doesn't know the data and thus what it explains or does not explain: first, ignore the subject of your ignorance, and the entire question of why one who is so ignorant can nonetheless opine about the "stats"; next, purport to educate others about the difficulties of the never-reviewed data and share your conclusion that using the unknown-to-you re-enlist data to indicate the level of troop support for the Iraq mission is "dicey."

Note: At all other times and places besides the present action Iraq, pool of potential U.S. military re-enlistees were also HUMAN BEINGS with complicated lives subject all kinds of internal and external influences.

I say the re-enlist data utterly destroys the assertion that troop morale in Iraq is anything but high and the troops are very supportive of the mission. Someone prove me wrong.

Is the not-terribly-widely-reported shrinking of Mars's polar ice caps related to human-induced global warming too? Jes' askin'.

Let's see your bracket, Ian! I am SO curious!!

Okay, Dean and Matt, send me your addresses. Bud's right, I can't find the place where we'll agree, but you deserve the promised incentive. I'll even send a postcard to Chris M, too, even though the "troop re-enlistment" seems unbelievably wobbly as a talking point, but it would be fun to actually send some stuff in the mail. Hope you all like beach postcards!

Yaaay! Go left coast!!

My wife and I recently visited Cali and stayed at The Venice Beach House (30th & Speedway) and liked it a lot. Venice is very much the NYers part of L.A. with its dense, low housing and people walking around in public. So we liked Venice. We also hit some of the 'Sideways' spots in northern Santa Barbara County where my teeth turned purple and then Pismo Beach where we did not visit the local Denny's. And this NYer foodie says Cali cuisine totally rocks.