DD Wiz wrote on Jan 8, 2008 2:58 AM:The post from "Reardon" (1/8 - 8:54pm) shows he is back to reading from the old conservative playbook again: if you don't know something, just make something up. Just like "theWolf" (1/4 - 9:38am) who made assumptions about my war experience that were 180 degrees opposite from the truth, "Reardon" thinks he can fill in the blanks using his own creative imagination but, as usual, is wrong. Please note that while I am aware of the real-world identities of several regular participants ("Chris" and "3D") who I respect, I do not know the real identify of "SOLON..." though I do know with great certainty that it is not Mrs. Wiz who, by the way, has her own :::::gagging::::: Windows computer and, since I am a MAC person, we do not use each other's computers and have distinct IP addresses.
I will say that I do have great respect for "SOLON...'s" posts and obviously we share some common perspectives. [To "SOLON..." (1/8 - 6:17PM): thanks for the kind words. I rarely comment on your posts because I have nothing to add and if I put in all the deserving "attaboys" it would become overwhelmingly redundant -- same for "Chris" and "3D."]
The problem for conservatives is not only that they try to make up whatever they don't know, but both their intuition and insight is remarkably lacking and they are almost always WRONG. To "Reardon": Please apologize to the talented and intelligent "SOLON..." for insulting him/her by trying to pull this person down to my level.

DD Wiz wrote on Jan 8, 2008 3:26 AM:The published letter from Merrill Brown demonstrates colossal ignorance about the issue of global warming as well as about Al Gore personally. Brown accuses Gore of lack of familiarity with the science of this subject; obviously Brown is not familiar with Gore's decades of work on the subject. Gore's books "Earth in the Balance" and "An Inconvenient Truth" (both of which I have) are based extensively on science, with extensive supporting documentation. That said, Gore himself is not a scientist; he is a very effective communicator (Emmy, Oscar and Nobel Prize -- what has the envious Brown done lately?). Discussing Gore as if he were a primary source on any scientific subject is irrelevant. Brown himself goes on to throw out his own very simplistic "scientific" theories, with none of the documentation he demands of Gore, while failing to note that Gore does provide this. It is Brown who is out of step with the scientific consensus on the subject, which is virtually unanimous when considering peer-reviewed scientific journals, and shows himself to be as ignorant as the flat-earth majority, which rejected the scientific consensus of its time. ("Well, gee, it looks flat to me!") He talks about the natural fluctuations in the earth's temperature, but in his utter ignorance does not understand that the current fluctuations are outside of all known historical variations, and are extensively discussed in and documented Gore's popular, non-scientific books as well as in scientific literature. Yes, there are natural forces that contribute to temperature change. But it is extremely egocentric to assume that human beings can have billions of internal combustion engines distributed in every continent of the globe (including Antarctica), running 24 hours a day, plus industrial output, plus massive destruction of rainforests that remove CO2, and think there is not going to be some impact in addition to those natural forces. As for greed, Brown does not explain where all the wealthy opulence has gone for the virtually unanimous agreement among SCIENTISTS who live humble, modest lives of research rather than corporate wealth. And the few dissenters in public, popular media are primarily funded by oil companies, and so their work can hardly be trusted with this conflict of interest and the greed motive Brown ascribes to non-scientist Gore. And if Gore had the "materialistic, uncaring, maniacal desire for recognition and power" Brown accuses him of, he would not have shown such grace in refusing political recourse that many encouraged after the Supreme Court decision in December 2000, and he would have run for president this year when there was such a clamor for him to do so. Brown simply shows himself to be a petty, mean-spirited person who has no knowledge of anything about which he is running off at the keyboard. Brown warns us: "Don't be drawn in by the gabbling, gobbling gimmickry...." What does that mean? Is he suggesting we produce even MORE pollution? Even without the threat of climate change, there are plenty of other reasons not to want to befoul our air and natural environment. The only reasons anyone would support MORE pollution is because of a financial interest in the production or distribution of FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS and, unlike the absence of wealth or opulence among the consensus of scientists, yes, we can point out exactly the BILLIONS of dollars in polluted wealth that some very, very wealthy individuals own because of the need to convince you to disregard the plentiful alternatives NOW AVAILABLE for weaning yourself from the addiction to the FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS they are pushing.

aj51a wrote on Jan 8, 2008 6:52 AM:Merrill Brown: Another anti Gore letter from Merill Brown. It is always opinion and never any facts. He ... and I am LOL.

Chuck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 7:04 AM:>>>Yes those large destroyers were definatly in danger from those tiny speed boats. I wouldn't believe our military no matter what they said.>> Of course you wouldnt. Your type only believes ALQaeda, Al Jazzera, CNN, the public school union teachers, and Hillary

Chuck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 7:07 AM:Is Hillary done slobbering yet?? Is it safe for me to turn the news back on? Did CNN buy her a box of hankies??

Chuxk wrote on Jan 8, 2008 7:10 AM:>>I worked in a prison for 30 years, please believe me, most of these inmates will do exactly what you ask them to do. Most of these cats are grateful to earn any amount of money>> Thats fine, but how many ACLU lawyers and trial lawyers will hovering around them when the chains go on. Jerry Brown will be very careful about labor done by prisoners, but says he will ignore illegal aliens voting in the next election

Chuck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 7:19 AM:Hey DD, tell us why warming on Mars greatly exceeds warming on earth?? Is it the green martians?? or the Mars Rovers that NASA has landed on Mars or orbit variances?. The global warming money grubbers are so desperate to keep their free grant money coming their way, they'll say anything. So as your type praise the Russian, Arabs, Mexican and Venezuelans from draining our economy, while your type prevents the US from developing our resources, don't be blasting Bush for the coming inflation and recession, and lower pay and benefits

Vista Granny wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:06 AM:A note to Ron regarding a "single payer" health care system. The original Medicare program was just that. What's left of that grand idea, since the idea of "managed care" became popular, is still grand. Those of us on original Medicare are able to choose our own doctors and hospitals. We can get surgery or other necessary treatment with no "strings" attached, etc. The limits placed on patients are those placed by greedy, elitist physicians who refuse to take Medicare patients. Fortunately, these are few and far between... (mostly because most doctors need to eat) Of course, some doctors and hospitals cater only to the very wealthy with very expensive insurance. As for "managed care" -- this has crept into all health care including Medicare. Patients must wait for approval from some clerk somewhere before they can get surgery or other expensive treatment. All patients are put on "generic" drugs if possible and some patients are simply treated with palatives and left to degenerate and die. The doctors and institutions accepting "managed care" receive a small stipend each month for each patient whether they need care or not, plus whatever co-pay they collect. The big winners are the insurance companies, who collect big bucks from Uncle Sam for whatever it is they do. Single payer health care is the only sensible and safe plan guaranteeing responsible health care for all. The challenge is eliminating health insurance companies!!

DD Wiz wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:07 AM:The post from "Chuck" (7:19am) shows the new conservative playbook: talk about ... MARS! Talk about Martians! Don't cite any scientific sources. Sorry, "Chuck." I am not talking about Mars or Venus. I don't live there and, in fact, I don't want Earth to become like either of them. Gee, this post is much too short for me. Was trying to think of more to say, but "Chuck" never gives much to work with, does he? Is he for real, or a put-on?

Book recommendation wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:11 AM:Heard an interview with David Johnston, author of "Free Lunch". Sounds like a must-read for the bloggers here. I know many of us believe in good old American entrepreneurship and the free market. Johnston will cure us of that. Example: let's say you own a small business that competes for some of the nearby Walmart customers. All customers pay sales tax, right? Where does the sales tax that you collect go? To the government, of course. Where does the sales tax that Walmart collects go? To Walmart! Thanks to a deal Walmart made with the government, who was anxious to have the store there, they get to keep the sales tax to help offset their costs. The book is full of such examples. Seems like the kind of information that would separate two kinds of conservatives: those who believe in the market and honest competition from those who believe that anything that makes me richer is good.

Green Goddess wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:15 AM:Methinks Merrill Brown is the one going GREEN (with envy).
Get a life.
Learn some real science.
Stop promoting pollution.

More on healthcare wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:27 AM:From Reuters QUOTE France, Japan and Australia rated best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations, researchers said on Tuesday. If the U.S. health care system performed as well as those of those top three countries, there would be 101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs. ENDQUOTE I know we have many here who defend our healthcare system as the very best. I just don't see how you can say so. Remember, no one is arguing that for those who can afford the best, they often can get the best in the US. But the rest of us? I don't think you should measure a nation's healthcare system on how the very wealthiest get treatment, do you?

Editor: let's try a no-straw policy wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:31 AM:Can you imagine what would happen to the letters page and this comment space if all the attacks of straw men were eliminated? Merrill Brown? Bye bye. Chuck? See ya! Ron? Spend more time on the boat! It is SO tiring to read post after post describing something that no one believes and then attacking it. Or attacking "what liberals think" despite the fact that no actual liberals do think these things. I wish the editor would snip the real nonsense so that actual interesting conversations could take place here.

dennis wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:33 AM:There goes DD Wiz again...blah, blah, blah.....yadda ,yaddda, yadda...this guy never knows when to be quiet and not write so much nonsense...guess he thinks we really give a hoot ...

Karl wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:33 AM:DD, Chuck is a whizzer at pulling your strings.

Reardon wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:46 AM:DD: Your sense of humor is as lacking as your common sense. Now if your sense of humor was as large as your posts, that would be an entirely different animal.

nw56a wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:51 AM:dennis wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:33 AM We do appreciate the Wiz. This would be a boring blog without him. Dennis is entitled to his opinion. But, I want Wiz to keep em coming and don't give a hoot about Dennis.

to Karl @ 8:33 wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:54 AM:Try to imagine, if you can, the maturity level of someone who posts as often as Chuck does, if his goal is to push liberals' buttons. It boggles the mind. What elementary school (public or private) grade level would you say is where this kind of behavior is seen most typically? When there are children who carry on and on endlessly annoying others and doing little else, what happens to them? Would you call them academic or social success stories? Me either.

Reardon wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:07 AM:Editor: Please limit blogs to 100 words, so that we can get through each post in a single-sitting sans bathroom break. Columnists are limited to their "news hole" as much to force writers into concise writing as to protect the reader from being pecked to death by ducks.

Ron wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:07 AM:http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/08/news/top_stories/1_02_261_7_08.txt

Have you seen this yet?
"California utilities would control the temperature of new homes and commercial buildings in emergencies with a radio-controlled thermostat, under a proposed state update to building energy efficiency standards.
Customers could not override the thermostats during "emergency events," according to the proposal, part of a 236-page revision to building standards. The document is scheduled to be considered by the California Energy Commission, a state agency, on Jan. 30."

Ah, I see the Stalinists in Sacramento, in the name of good public policy for the General Welfare of the people have decided your not smart enough to adjust your own thermostat. Let me see if I get this now... Hmmmm they'll tell me what kind of car I'll drive, becuase they tell the auto maker what they want it to do, what kind of lightbulb will go into my home, cause they have banned other versions, they'll put fluoride in my drinking, the drinking water I can scavenge away from a Delta smelt, even though no study exists in more than 30 years on the effects of this poison on the human body, but in less time they have determined second hand smoke kills millions, even though not one documented case of second hand smoke as a cause of death can be demonstrated, and in even less time have determined, that my lifestyle is killing the planet?
Do I have that about right? And lastly, is this not a service I pay for? Meaning.. that if I want more of it, I can and will pay more for it? If I want to?

Karl wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:09 AM:"Editor: let's try a no-straw policy wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:31 AM" you had better restate in simpler terms. I don't get it. It kinda' sounds like you want to silence people that you don't agree with. Am I right or did I miss the point?

"nw56a wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:51 AM:dennis wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:33 AM". Did I miss something? The 8"33 AM post was from me and not Dennis. It says nothing about the Whiz not keeping them coming. He entertains me also if my attention span allows for it.

Ron wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:14 AM:Merrill Brown reminds me of an article I just read that scientists are reconsidering their previous statements about how the dinosaurs vanished from the planet. They used to believe that an astroid struck the earth, a cataclysmic event, and thus no more dinosaurs. Well, they now have a new theory, replacing the old theory that insects, more precisely, an insect infestation covered the earth, depleting vegetation, and that is now how they died. Let's all check back in with them again, in say... another 15 years?

Chuck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:18 AM:>> I wish the editor would snip the real nonsense so that actual interesting conversations could take place here.>> Naturally, your type wants everyone who doesnt drink the liberal Kool-Aid, censored

Chuck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:20 AM: >>>often as Chuck does, if his goal is to push liberals' buttons>>> My object is not to let liberals get away their propaganda

Ron wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:21 AM:>>>VID will be considering a tiered water-rate structure according to water usage.>>>
Well thank you for fessing up,
Roy Coox, general manager,
Vista Irrigation District.
Can you imagine? You buy a house, and your water bill for the same amount of water is different? Simply because you bought later? Are the newer buyers going to be subsidzing the older home owners? Well, floks.. that's just good public policy aimed at creating a beneficial society for all under the General Welfare clause, eh? comrade?

Alf wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:39 AM:Well, "Reardon" at 8:46AM, humor is a valuable thing. My wife will be getting a "major overhaul" of her 106 year old Steinway upright, the estimate is less than my newest camera. We need humor, more than that, we need music (not the head-banging stuff that calls itself music), more Mozart, more Beethoven, more mathematical precision and more sprightly stuff that is the claim to fame of Mozart, Vivaldi and Bach. I wax philosophic here. GWB is mathematically incorrect, an "abomb-in-ation", dissonent and incapable of rational thought on a good day! Regards, Alf.

6j5fp wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:43 AM:Chuck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 7:19 AM:H The Russians are not draining our economy. In fact on one is. It is just the free market in play for a commodity based on supply and demand. That is what all you conservatives just love. Bye the way, you have to pay for what you want or need. The oil has nothing to do with the recession. It is the housing market and the American people being unable to pay their credit card debts.

I'm With Merrill Brown wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:53 AM:Destruction is inevitable. Let's all do nothing and hope that homo sapiens will be spared once again. If not, oh well, there was nothing we could do about it anyways.

Ron wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:54 AM:You know.. there was a time in this country, and the world for that matter, when the idea of Eugenics was considered the science De jure. From its inception, eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H.G.Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Margaret Sanger. Margaret Sanger is particularly interesting, in that, she promoted the idea of "race hygiene" through "negative eugenics," in an attempt to reduce the fertility of "dysgenic" groups. Dysgenics is a term describing the progressive evolutionary "weakening" or genetic deterioration. In short, you can't let stupid people, or certain types of people breed. She said: "The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind." It should be said, that the terms "feeble-minded" and "unfit" are totally subjective terms, arbitrarily left to the supposed "superior" minds of the social elite, like her. In her 1932 book: "A Plan for Peace" {Now, that's quite a title, eh?}, she advocated methods of selective breeding, sterilization, and euthanasia, as social intervention targeted at those seen as "genetically unfit." So, I'm guessing, but at the time.. if I disagreed with the Eugenists, I'd be a flat-earther? By the way, Hitler wasn't a flat earther, he was also an eugenist.

Karl wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:55 AM:"to Karl @ 8:33 wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:54 AM"

Lighten up Francis. Don't count me in your "me either"

We have enough to worry about in this world to go it without humor interjected daily. Your annoyance is obviously someone elses humor. I don't do a count on the blogs but there are several others here who post as much as Chuck does and even though I disagree with some I do enjoy them. Heck, Double D's (who I would say posts as much as Chuck) annoys me all the time but he also makes me laugh. Are you nominating yourself for the blog police? Let me know when you take over, I will move on.

Again, lighten up Francis

Judy Judy Judy wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:57 AM:I don't know why you pick on Chuck, he just tells it like it is! Your type (America-haters) just don't like to hear the truth! Blow those Iranian tug boats out of the water and show them who's boss! Next think you know they will be in San Diego Harbor looking for the nearest mall to blow up! Cheers for Chuck, too bad he's not running for President.

Green Goddess wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:13 AM:To NCT:
Methinks Mr. Reardon has a warped understanding of "sense of humor."
To conservatives, "humor" only means silly slapstick insults, juvenile name-calling and tearing down others.
Mean-spirited conservatives have no concept of humor.
Mean-spirited conservatives think "humor" means find new names to call.
Has anyone ever seen a cheerful conservative who wasn't an actor?
Methinks nw56a gets it - long live the Whiz!

The Nerve wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:16 AM:"Editor: let's try a no-straw policy wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:31 AM:"
Why do you want to supress other's right to free speech? Just because they don't agree with you, you want to delete and deny their rights to post? Why can't you just provide a professional, adult, and persuasive argument to convince others to your causes?
Maybe we are losing our constitutional rights, because people like YOU want to take them away from us.

Reardon wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:18 AM:Alf: We share musical interests (I am a Bach-o-phile), and even a dislike for President Bush, although mine is not so pathological as to cause stomach ulcers. To bring the discussion around to more political and general interest, have you heard of any efforts on the part of the “separation of church and state” crowd to ban Bach music from public school recitals (it is primarily “church music”), or paintings of the Madonna and Child or The Last Supper from art classes? Every crowd has its purists, and I wonder how pure that group is?

Chuck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:27 AM:>>The oil has nothing to do with the recession.>> It blows the mind what the public schools have done to education in this nation

Ron wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:36 AM:Oh Granny @8:06 AM, Do you honestly believe that the limits placed on you are because of greedy, elitist physicians? Granny, are you saying these men and women who spent years in school do not deserve a better living for working harder than most? As to greedy insurance companies, of course, all companies are greedy. Aren't you, or weren't you greedy when you worked? Didn't you expect to make a profit? An ever increasing standard of living each and every year enabling you to then buy a home, cars, vacations, and basically improve your life? I simply do not get this idea that "companies" are more greedy than an individual American. Heck, were all greedy. And if your not, that just might be the reason why your in the lower income brackets. If you want wealth, then earn it. If find this idea that a service he provides is somehow subject to your demands that he live in poverty, so you can afford it. If I build houses for a living, and you can't afford it, are you then going to say I need to take half the price, just so you can afford it? Step lightly my friend. This reminds me of what Pastor Martin Niemöller's poem "First they came…" In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Rewritten for today by me:
In America, they came first for the doctors, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a doctor;
And then they came for Big Oil exec's, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Big Oil exec;
And then they came for the home builders, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a builder;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up." You catching my drift here? Cause once they are in, you'll never get them out. Look at the Brit's, still waiting some 60 years to get down to an 18 week waiting time.

6euth wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:37 AM:Nick wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:25 AM: Speaking of slinging it, where is your documentation that even a simple majority of professors are liberals? You are the one who is making the allegation and assumption of the origin of the opinion's of other bloggers. So, here is the ball. You gonna run with it or slink off the court?

8kbnf wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:43 AM:Judy Judy Judy wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:57 AM: Chuck is always insisting about foreign terrorists who are going to blow up a mall. Is it is possible as terrorists can enter this country easily. The observation is, however, the latest terrorist acts were done by Americans on Americans per the Omaha mall shooting and the VPI student slaughter. Chuck is good for a laugh. LOL.

Judy Judy Judy wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:44 AM:>>The oil has nothing to do with the recession.>> Where do you get your silly ideas?

yvwgp wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:46 AM:Chuck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:27 AM: Oil has gone up and done regardless of the economy. We keep on chugging along because
because we keep on buying it. So, you just blogging stupidity or do you have any facts?

DD Wiz wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:46 AM:The post from "Reardon" (9:07am) begs the Editor to limit blogs to 100 words. Note the conservative hypocrisy. While usually complaining about government regulation of private business, when HE can't keep up with others, HE wants to dictate to private businesses how their operations should be micromanaged. What a hypocrite.
He WHINES about not being able to "get through each post in a single-sitting sans bathroom break." He wants the Nanny Editor to handle details he can't manage for himself.
Solutions for "Reardon":
1. Take a speed-reading course.
2. Skip the posts you don't want to read.
3. Understand that no one is forcing you to do or read anything.
Ooops. This is more than 100 words. It exceeds "Reardon's" attention span.
Let's follow "Reardon's" suggestions and we will only have sandbox players like "Chuck" left.
Oh yeah, it's just a joke, huh? That "Reardon" -- what a "sense of humor"!

DD Wiz wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:48 AM:The post from "Ron" (9:07am) highlights a point of rare agreement. Although the measure only applies to energy emergencies as an alternative to a blackout where you lose all your power completely, we agree that it gives too much power to local utilities and is the wrong approach. A far more effective approach would be to aim for a proactive strategy: take all the money being proposed for the Sunrise Powerlink and use it to greatly increase the incentives for rooftop solar (don't even need to make it retroactive, so I'd have nothing to gain). If you increase local and on-site production, you reduce the need for such draconian measures and you preempt the likelihood of such "emergencies" in the first place. If just half the homes and other buildings in San Diego County would be outfitted with rooftop solar, there would be no such thing as "power emergencies" in this County, especially on summer afternoons when peak demand is highest (air conditioning) but solar energy (causing the need for said A/C) is also strongest; ergo: supply meets demand. But of course, the energy corporations don't suggest this. Their greatest fear is the revolution of massive energy independence that will occur when more people power the homes and cars from sun, wind and other clean, renewable energy sources instead of relying on these pushers of FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS to sate our addiction.

Chris to NIck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:54 AM:Just spare us all your concern for innocent civilians being killed because you only care about those killed by other people who won't drink the Bush kool aid. Your calous disreguard for those killed by us and our minions is definitely reeks of the hypocrisy that you concervatives are know for.

Alf wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:05 AM:Well, "Reardon" at 10:18AM. I hadn't heard of the "Bach Proscription", but in the "sense" that church music must be eliminated, almost all the masters must be forbidden. They were, after all, funded by the church, an anathema to the "PC" crowd. The problem is that the greatest composers of our last 500 years,or more, were also funded by various churches. Newer composer/musicians and arguably the best guitar-pickers of our times, The Immortal Chet Atkins and Leo Kottke (whose renditions of Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" are the essence of purity) have no ties to churches and have, at the same time, the most reverence to and for religious music. I was fortunate enough to shake hands with Leo Kottke, he trusted that I wouldn't screw up his picking hand, I absolutely didn't. Regards, Alf.

nyypr wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:16 AM:Judy Judy Judy wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:44 AM: Prove that your assertion that it is a silly idea is correct before you ask its origin? Its really common sense. The economy was a major success story per the Conservatives when oil was fluctuating. it was not until the housing market slumped and credit card payments decreased that the word, recession, was mentioned. Go and compare the quarterly stats for the last three years with a graph for fluctuating oil prices. The only one silly is you.

Ron wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:27 AM:Heck Reardon, why not just throw in a few Robert Mapplethorpe portraits? Posthumously, of course, but many "enlightening" examples of National Endowment for the Arts funding. We could display the self-portrait, including bullwhip in orfice, as you walk in, then down the hall to the right, Marty and Veronica, and opposing it on the left wall, perhaps the crucifix in urine? For the purists, of course.

Reardon wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:28 AM:DD: Your usual nonsense. The Voice of San Diego on-line newspaper limits posts to 100 words each -- but of course a writer can make multiple posts sequentially. (I have done so.) What it does is impose some cranial discipline by alerting the writer to the length of their multiple posts, while not limiting the messenger in any way. (That was 59 words.)

Nick wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:42 AM:Geez "Chris", apparently you can read but absorbtion seems to be a problem with you. I have no love for GWB and have stated so many times in the past, so save the tired and played out kool-aid line. Because I'm a Republican, you assume I am some crazy conservative. I might be a Republican, but I have never voted the Party line. On some issues I lean one way and on other issues I lean another. It's called free will to think for ones self. No candidate will ever be 100% with you on all the issues, so we are forced to chose the better of the lousy choices we have before us, simple as that....as for calling me a hypocrite, you can do better than that. All you ever do is rant and rave about all the people killed by Americans, but when anyone points out the thousands of Americans killed by terrorists, you just put the blame on America and it's policies. Talk about being a hypocrite, you want Americans to take responsibility for all the deaths of people by our military, but REFUSE the same for terrorist killing of Americans. I have said it before "Chris", you have absolutely NO lOVE for this Country whatsoever, so why are you still hear? I'm pretty sure America can get along just fine without. I have a feeling your relatives won't miss your drivel either!

just wondering wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:55 AM:FINALLY-- to Book recommendation- a smart person knows what's up with Wall-Mart. Every city that has a Wall-Mart gives back tax credits so they can build their box stores to sell junk made in China by slave labors. Check out how much Vista, Oceanside and now soon in Carlsbad have given this giant company to bring a ugly store to your neighborhood. Just Wondering?

Liberal professors wrote on Jan 8, 2008 12:00 PM:I am in the middle of a search for this, but I do believe there is decent research showing that the majority of college professors tend towards being liberal or Democrats (not at all the same thing). As I recall the research, this trend was even stronger among professors in the math and science departments, where their political beliefs would be hidden during the hiring process and equally so in the classroom. So it seems, as I recall, that conspiracy theories of why faculties are liberal are wrong. Even in departments that would be immune to such conspiracies, there is the strong liberal bias. The interesting question is why this is so, since it ain't a conspiracy. I believe that the profession itself would tend to produce this trend. Professors work hard (most studies show that faculty have a 50-60 hour workweek), spend all their time in intellectual pursuits, and are not paid fabulously well. These are not the things that draw a lot of conservative applicants. The other question about this is: so what? People who attend colleges are adults, not children. They should, as college students, be capable of forming their own opinions. They should not be afraid of the dreaded "feeling uncomfortable" if their views differ from the professors...actually, such differences are good things in the classroom. Why are these conservative students, who are so wedded to a philosophy of individual responsibility, so quick to play the poor victim role in this area?

Straw wrote on Jan 8, 2008 12:06 PM:Strawman arguments are not arguments with which one disagrees. They are phony arguments that waste time and are not pertinent to the topic at hand. Big difference. If we are discussing, say, whether Bush is a liar, talking about what a liar Teddy Roosevelt was has absolutely nothing to do with anything, so when Teddy's lying is used as some kind of talking point in the discussion of Bush's lying, that's not about disagreement, it's about the poster's lack of intellectual honesty or integrity. I'd have no objection if that person instead wanted to propose a new topic: Teddy Roosevelt's lying. Similarly, when posters begin some insulting diatribe with "liberals think such and such" (that terrorists should win; that government should do everything for us; that communism is the goal) this is also dishonest because the premise (what liberals supposedly think) is utterly false (and I think the poster knows it). All the post is is an attempt to subtly assert, as if unarguable, that liberals believe these things. Again, it's dishonest. The editor already screens posts for certain kinds of "bad" postings, that are perhaps insulting to posters. I think this kind of dishonesty should be among the "bad" posts that deserve screening. Again, not for their opinions but for their deliberate dishonesty. IMHO

Karl wrote on Jan 8, 2008 12:16 PM:
"6euth", my son is currently enrolled at San Jose State. He says that all but one of his professors are liberal and preach liberalism on the dais. His major is political science.

To Ron @ 9:54 wrote on Jan 8, 2008 12:32 PM:Hmmm, I wonder whatever could be Ron's point in posting this information about eugenics. Can anyone guess? Mine would be that it has something to do with global warming. If so, it's a perfect example of the dishonest strawman argument. We all know that the history books are full of popular, or even consensus, theories in science that later turned out to be wrong. No news there. Does this mean ANYTHING whatsoever about global warming? Of course not, other than, like all theories, it might turn out to be wrong. Purely bogus, a waste of time, dishonest. There are college students who write on an essay exam, "I don't know a darn thing about this question, but I do know about this other stuff..." and then tell the prof all about the other stuff. Ron is exactly like this student, except unlike the student, Ron thinks he deserves an A for the answer.

Alf wrote on Jan 8, 2008 12:37 PM:Well, "Ron" at 10:36AM, it's surprising to hear you use and then paraphrase something I've said with less eloquence than the good minister. You have taken an exact opposite stance, when it served your purposes. You refer to the gradual destruction of Personal Liberties that must transpire for a tyranny to achieve his own goals, for someone to attain the gradual acquisition of power that GWB has done, like so many tyrants before him. You finally, absolutety and totally hoisted yourself up on your own pittard. This is what I have been telling you; the first step is to create a false enemy. the second step is to make sure that personal liberties "come seconsd to National Security, the third step (the jugular-slicing step) is to make certain that the populace has no defense, no guns, no alliance except that of BIG BROTHER. Do we have a horrible enemy? Are we willing to give up our Constitutionally guaranteed rights to get more???????? security? If we give uo certain rights - ARE YOU CERTAIN THAT THOSE LOSSES are things that will help Regasrds, Alf.everyonezzzz? No and in thr long=

Chris to Nick wrote on Jan 8, 2008 12:41 PM:Your blogs give you away. I don't know why you are not a Bush supporter because you seem to support everything he does, killing Arabs, supporting Israel, social darwenism etc. Anyhow the USS Cole was at port and the small boat sneaked up on the Cole whereas the U.S. ships were in the open ocean and the small boats approced them in daylight. If they wanted to sink a ship it would be foolish to openly chanlenge them. But I guess that with all your education you couldn't figure that out.I think you got your so-called college degree thru the diploma mill. Now as far as these liberal professors. Just think that if we got rid of them them we wouldn"t have to have such silly courses in Archeology, astronomy, genetics because we all know that the earth is only 6000 years old and if you get sick it is because you have sinned and if you get right with god then you will get well and if you don't get well then it was his will and we don't want to question god, do we. You concervtives with your blind adherence to all this despotic dogma just shows how "we the people" need protection from these conservatives who just love the dark ages.

Ron wrote on Jan 8, 2008 12:41 PM:With one caveat, "Straw" @12:06 PM.
If you can point to examples.
"liberals think such and such"...
that terrorists should win; by default by withdrawal from the battle(s).
that government should do everything for us; not everything this year, but years down the road. It was retirement i.e. social insecurity, now it's healthcare, tommorrow..?
that communism is the goal, either knowingly, or blindly following because of all the freebie's... Marx said: Captialism is along the road to Communism, via Socialism.

Chris to Nick wrote on Jan 8, 2008 12:51 PM:Well all you do is talk about the killing by other people but excuse all those done by us. We have killed far more people than all the terrorist combined. I just love how you and the other conservatives talk about how the Mexicans should stay in their country and make it better but when someone like me tries to educate people in order to try to get people to wake up in order to make this country better then you say I should leave. Does hypocrite fit this situation?

What Alf and Ron forget wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:00 PM:I don't know where you guys get your image of a tyranny. In most real ones the takeover is gradual, as Alf says, but civilian gun ownership is not too important because most of the civilians support the tyrant, especially in the beginning. In our country, the tyrant is something like corporate hegemony and the entire nation is gradually being turned into a machine that runs for corporate benefits, here and internationally. It's the opposite of communism, in case you haven't noticed. And most conservatives have been thoroughly taken in by the rhetoric. So much so that the powers that be don't fear their weapons at all...knowing they'd be used to uphold that very tyrrany. I remember reading how Karl Rove referred to evangelical Christians as Wackos. An important lesson there.

Chuck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:05 PM:I see Ahnuld is pretending to be a Republican again. He just announced spenign cuts and freezes without anothr round of massive tax increases. It has the Sacramento liberals screaming. Screaming liberals is music to my ears.

to Karl wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:11 PM:Re: your son. Question: so what? Professors are called professors, and not "teachers", because their doctorates have earned them the right and ability to have a serious opinion about complicated things, and their job is to "profess" this knowledge, opinions included. Your son is an adult. Hopefully he can handle such opinions, even if he doesn't like them. I worry that by saying that his professors "preach", you and he are majorly copping out. If you decide that the prof is like some preacher, some ideologue, then neither you nor your son has to bother to take the prof and his opinions on seriously. You can dismiss them all. In fact, I'd bet that it's an avoidance of facing the fact that you guys can't win the arguments. So instead of trying, instead of doing the hard work that the prof did to get where he is, you just dismiss him personally...this way you don't have to actually deal with any of his ideas at all. I don't know if this is what you and your son do, but if so, it's the opposite of getting an education.

Chuck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:14 PM:>>yvwgp wrote Chuck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:27 AM: Oil has gone up and done regardless of the economy. So, you just blogging stupidity or do you have any facts?>>> You need to have taken a first grade class in economics before you understand how supply/demand works in the oil markets. Since public schools and CNN don't recognize supply/demand as laws of economics, you'll have to become familar in some other manner ...

Chuck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:20 PM:>>my son is currently enrolled at San Jose State>> I attended my nephews graduation at Sac State Business School in December. It's clear from the ceremony and the speakers, and sadly, my nephew, that Sac State is totally infested with liberalism, that will need to be expunged before he has a chance to become successful.

Alf wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:20 PM:I love the way I ended my 12:37PM post. I drifted off into sleep while able to recognize and type the "Image Verification" and press enter. Amazing. Long sleepless nights work wonders, ja? Regards, Alf.

vvi5n wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:22 PM:Karl wrote on Jan 8, 2008 12:16 PM: That is because he is in Political Science. What about all the other courses he has taken? What about his minor?

1umd4 wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:30 PM:Karl wrote on Jan 8, 2008 12:16 PM: Thank you for your post. The conservative ideologues blame the liberals for everything despite the fact that they can not document their allegations. I am surprised that they do not blame the liberals when it rains when the conservative was planning a nice day at the beach. My professors even in history and political science did not teach liberalism, conservatism or any type of ism. They taught the course content. All they do is whine. If the conservatives want to change the alleged liberal atmospheres at universities, they need to become professors

Chuck wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:32 PM:>>This is what I have been telling you; the first step is to create a false enemy>> I'm glad you liberals think terrorism is a false enemy. But, I believe the people in NYCity, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Darfur, Somalia, The Sudan, Niger, Kenya, Congo, Nigeria, Chechnya, Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, etc where bombs have been going off and in certain cases, mass killings, might disagree with you. I believe I read in the Wall St. Journal that Bush is monitoring open terrorism in 92 countries. I'm sure he'd like to do a better job with terrorism, but every measure he takes is met with liberal bashing, in the name of destroying Bush and politics. As they say at the DNC, "Any success Bush has in the war on terror is detrimental to the causes of the democratic party"

zcmee wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:34 PM:Nick wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:42 AM: Please name one Iraqi who killed any American outside the borders of Iraq?

Alf wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:35 PM:Although a common ploy, "strawman arguments", (those that set up a false premise and then proceed to tear it down) serve to show how limited and how ignorant a person is, for if all they can do is emoploy such a weak and fruitless tactic, "they ain't got nothing betwixt their ears but air". Give me a heart-felt "wrong" argument any day of the week, at least that shows that the person has some character. Wrong as they may be, they have the courage of their convictions and will stand by them without deceit. Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:35 PM:Alf @12:37 PM, I respectfully disagree. Look at history, at Lincoln, at FDR.
We are seeing the pattern return. Yes, everyone's excited by Bush, Yes, he's pushing to the limits of the Constitution, as did Lincoln, and FDR after him. It is war, we were attacked.
If you study what Lincoln did, or even FDR, it would stand the hair on the back of your neck, quite frankly. But, also look at the actions of the Courts against the power of the presidentcy, to the Congress, and to the People. This Old Republic has suffered many, many times during her life, and it anit gonna end cause of one man. He'll retire, we'll get another president, with other ideas, and a new tact.. as in sailboating. If you look at the overall history of this country, you'll notice trends, first of tacking to the right, then to the left, and then the swing begins again. Ultimately, if charted, it becomes a more-or-less straight line course down the middle. That is the beauty of our system. Relax, Bush will be gone soon, and then you can start complaining about the next one, when he disappoints you. K?
As to my post at 10:36am, that was specifically for the Stalinists now in control of Sacramento. Except for a brief period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election. In my opinion, it's high time we start tacking to the right. Just so we "even out."

A Question for Nick wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:35 PM:As a Native American, I am curious as to your position on the Casino Expansion props and why?

72noe wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:36 PM:Ron wrote on Jan 8, 2008 12:41 PM Ron just read the blogs for the past three months. In particular, read Ron's and Chuck's blogs.

What Nick Doesn't Get wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:43 PM:Is that it is because of Chris's deep love of America that he speaks out against our wrongdoings. There are many of us just like Chris. You are allowed to have your own opinion of how American's should act Ni