YO, RAOUL! wrote on Jan 25, 2008 11:37 PM:Get a clue man! McCain is the Mexican pro-amnesty candidate, no wonder you love him! ... The giant Patriot Movement in America is backing Ron Paul and Mitt Romney and the la raza activists are getting very nervous. As they should, the gravy train is OVER!!! Time for some good old fashioned rule of law in this country!

Snowbird to Just Curious wrote on Jan 26, 2008 3:27 AM:
PART ONE: To Just Curious. You asked me what SMOG is at 2:17 PM yesterday, probably in response to my post at 1:18 PM Most relevant to Autos and California is "photochemical smog." In the late 1940’s there was something in the air around Los Angeles and near by towns that LOOKED LIKE FOG but it smarted the eyes, caused health problems to people and animals and considerable damage to citrus trees, caused some lawns to die, and many days one could not even see the nearby mountains. For several years it was not well known what caused it. It was figured out that it was "photochemical smog." The requirements for it to form are sunshine and relatively still air plus the existence of hydrocarbons (HC) and nitrogen oxides (written NO with x as the subscript for how many atoms of oxygen combined with each atom of Nitrogen. The NOX from cars was formed in the engine from the burning of gasoline at a high temperature. Both exist in various chemical forms and come from variety of sources. When they are present in the required ratios the action of the sunshine causes them to react chemically forming "photochemical smog". A lot of it was from automobiles, and a lot was from factories, power plants, and other sources. I will post another comment on things that were done to reduce it from cars so this post will not be too long.
Smoke coming from tailpipes is from burning oil that got into the cylinder, not gasoline. What looks like smoke on a cold morning until the engine is warmed up is the water vapor formed by the complete combustion of the gasoline, condensed by the cold air. (There can also be what looks like white smoke that comes when a head gasket cracked head leaks water and antifreeze into the cylinder).

Snowbird to Just Curious wrote on Jan 26, 2008 3:28 AM:PART TWO: You asked me what smog is at 2:17 PM yesterday, probably in response to my post at 1:18 PM the word smog is also used for another from of air pollution. This got so bad at times in England by mid 1900’s that nearly 4,000 persons died in London in December 1952. It was formed in industrial areas. Soot and smoke acted as condensation nuclei for sculpture dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide. (CO), Several years later they passed a Clean Air act and started the long process of cleaning up the sources. London was just an example. This was happening in many other locations too.

Snowbird to Just Curious wrote on Jan 26, 2008 3:51 AM:PART THREE: PARTICULATES: To Just Curious. You asked me what smog is at 2:17 PM yesterday, probably in response to my post at 1:18 PM about clean gasoline,etc. A mention of smog and tailpipe pollution would not be complete without mentioning particulates, especially a problem with older diesel engines. These are tiny particles of a granular substance or a powder. Since they are so small they stay in the air longer and travel further from their source. Basically these are particles so small they do not get filtered out in the nostrils and go on into the lungs where they stay and will cause damage if exposure is continued. I think they have improved or are trying to improve the diesel engines to not put out particulates. They are also produced from other sources.

Snowbird to Just Curious wrote on Jan 26, 2008 4:02 AM:Snowbird to Just Curious
PART FOUR: Cleaning up the smog producing NOX, and CO, and unburned HC from autos.
This is a response to your question about my statement that the product of complete combustion of gasoline is nothing but CO2 and water vapor. (H2O). That is true, but cars were nowhere near achieving complete combustion. Some of the things that were done were (1). Reduce HC from when you put gas into a car. It used to be that when you put 15 gallons of gasoline then 15 gallons of gaseous HC went into the air. Then they made all the filling stations in populated areas add hoses that capture the air and HC coming out of your gas tank into the hose on the gas pump and thence into the gasoline supply tank under the gas station. At first it was two hoses fastened together. Now it is a hose within an outer hose doing the same thing. (2.) Gas tanks on cars all used to breathe to the air, putting out HC into the air as temperature warmed in the tank causing air and gas to expand. They fixed that by making cars have pressure-holding caps on the tank.
When the expansion occurs now it goes through a small hose to a charcoal canister. When the car is started another hose sucks fresh air through the canister and burns it in the engine. (3). These were simple things, and there are several more. The larger things was to lower the temperature within the engine. This was done by dummying down the gasoline/air mix by letting the engine suck in a little of the exhaust gas when running normal speed. This reduced the power and gas mileage some. There was an automatic valve to not do this when accelerating or going up a hill, etc. Also changed the setting in the distributor causing the spark plug to fire at a slightly different time. Both of these actions reduced the temperature enough to greatly reduce the production the unwanted smog producing pollutant NOX. However these both further reduced the power and reduced gas mileage. Some nice cars did not run very well this way; so many home mechanics bypassed these. Many otherwise responsible adults would take their cars to their mechanic to have everything set right for the smog test. Then after the test would go back and have their car reset to run better with more power and better gas mileage. Of course this was illegal but was widely done in the 1970’s as these devices were added to the cars. Well if there is an interest I can tell more about the newer techniques that improved the power and the gas mileage while further reducing the emission of pollutants. Internal engine design achieved more complete combustion. The addition of catalytic converters further burnt the CO into CO2, and separately further reduced the amount and potency of the NOX by removing some of the oxygen from it. The biggest thing is probably more precisely controlling the amount of gasoline that is squirted under pressure into the cylinder and the time the spark is ignited. It is regulated by a computer with a dozen or so sensors, measuring: The RPM of the engine. The accelerator position, the crankshaft rotation position, the temperature and density of the air coming into the engine, the temperature of the exhaust manifold. A ping sensor, the water temperature, etc. In recent years the tail pipe emissions of hydrocarbons and NOX has been reduced so much that it takes a number of cars idling to make as much of those harmful pollutants as a simple gasoline lawn mower. Also more changes were made to gasoline so it is more thoroughly refined remove more foreign matter and add some oxidizers to help it get burned up more completely.
Therefore the product of burning the gasoline is perfect which would produce only CO2 and water vapor. There is no way to reduce CO2 without changing miles per gallon of gasoline. Note the algebra, you have to double the stated miles per gallon to achieve a 50% reduction of tailpipe CO2. If that is not clear to anyone ask me about it.
----------------------------------------------------
Try two
PART FOUR: TO Just Curious. You asked me yesterday about smog, etc. when I said perfect combustion of gasoline produces only CO2 and water vapor, but cars used to produce a lot of pollutants. Anyhow here are some things were done to reduce smog including tailpipe pollution from cars, the smog producing NOX, and CO, and unburned hydrocarbons. This is a response to your question about my statement that the product of complete combustion of gasoline is nothing but CO2 and water vapor. (H2O). That is true, but cars were nowhere near achieving complete combustion. Some of the things that were done were (1). Reduce HC from when you put gas into a car. It used to be that when you put 15 gallons of gasoline then 15 gallons of gaseous HC went into the air. Then they made all the filling stations in populated areas add hoses that capture the air and HC coming out of your gas tank into the hose on the gas pump and thence into the gasoline supply tank under the gas station. At first it was two hoses fastened together. Now it is a hose within an outer hose doing the same thing. (2.) Gas tanks on cars all used to breathe to the air, putting out HC into the air as temperature warmed in the tank causing air and gas to expand. They fixed that by making cars have pressure-holding caps on the tank.
When the expansion occurs now it goes through a small hose to a charcoal canister. When the car is started another hose sucks fresh air through the canister and burns it in the engine. (3). These were simple things, and there are several more. The larger things was to lower the temperature within the engine. This was done by dummying down the gasoline/air mix by letting the engine suck in a little of the exhaust gas when running normal speed. This reduced the power and gas mileage some. There was an automatic valve to not do this when accelerating or going up a hill, etc. Also changed the setting in the distributor causing the spark plug to fire at a slightly different time. Both of these actions reduced the temperature enough to greatly reduce the production the unwanted smog producing pollutant NOX. However these both further reduced the power and reduced gas mileage. Some nice cars did not run very well this way; so many home mechanics bypassed these. Many otherwise responsible adults would take their cars to their mechanic to have everything set right for the smog test. Then after the test would go back and have their car reset to run better with more power and better gas mileage. Of course this was illegal but was widely done in the 1970’s as these devices were added to the cars. Well if there is an interest I can tell more about the newer techniques that improved the power and the gas mileage while further reducing the emission of pollutants. Internal engine design achieved more complete combustion. The addition of catalytic converters further burnt the CO into CO2, and separately further reduced the amount and potency of the NOX by removing some of the oxygen from it. The biggest thing is probably more precisely controlling the amount of gasoline that is squirted under pressure into the cylinder and the time the spark is ignited. It is regulated by a computer with a dozen or so sensors, measuring: The RPM of the engine. The accelerator position, the crankshaft rotation position, the temperature and density of the air coming into the engine, the temperature of the exhaust manifold. A ping sensor, the water temperature, etc. In recent years the tail pipe emissions of hydrocarbons and NOX has been reduced so much that it takes a number of cars idling to make as much of those harmful pollutants as a simple gasoline lawn mower. Also more changes were made to gasoline so it is more thoroughly refined remove more foreign matter and add some oxidizers to help it get burned up more completely.
Therefore the product of burning the gasoline is perfect which would produce only CO2 and water vapor. There is no way to reduce CO2 without changing miles per gallon of gasoline. Note the algebra, you have to double the stated miles per gallon to achieve a 50% reduction of tailpipe CO2. If that is not clear to anyone ask me about it.

Re: DeeDee Dana's letter wrote on Jan 26, 2008 4:40 AM:As I said in a previous post, the Clinton 'marriage' is about convenience. It is the quintessential best argument for civil unions. It seems to be an alliance but based on love of power not spiritual love. From what I've read about the Clintons, personal(marital) infidelity is a far lesser issue than ideaological. I think that they were made for each other. We need only regard them as political allies joined by a marriage licence

Just sayin' wrote on Jan 26, 2008 5:40 AM: He might as well be saying he’s a uniter not a divider. Barak Obama’s biggest claim for his candidacy is that he can attract independents. It was the independent voter that gave us eight years of George W. Bush, so by all means let’s trust their judgment. Moderates and independents sit on their collective hands between elections and then come out of the woodwork to decide elections for everybody else. What they base their decision on is anybody’s guess. A week before the next presidential election the polls will show there’s still around 8% undecided. Undecided! More like uninformed. People castigate politicians who change their positions, calling them flip-floppers, a death knell for any candidate. But the independent voter changes 180 degrees on a whim and we call it democracy in action. The American people who really believe in something have no say in the outcome. Each side gets its 40%. And the lazy, ignorant, wishy-washy 20% in the middle rule. Every time they switch their vote from one party to the other they’re saying, “Sorry about that, I wasn’t thinking last time.” No kidding.

Just sayin' wrote on Jan 26, 2008 6:58 AM:Obama and his supporters talk about the politics of hope and change. The hope is that the Republicans in Congress will change their minds and start compromising on their principles. Yeah, good luck with that. How naïve can one be to assume that the drug, oil, and insurance companies will willingly give up all the gains they’ve made due to the Republican benefactors in their pockets. For all her flaws, at least Hillary knows this is a fight and she knows how to fight these people. Obama would be like a babe in the woods. After all these years of lying, arrogance, greed and incompetence, Republicans need and deserve to be beat down into submission, not negotiated with.

Jake wrote on Jan 26, 2008 7:05 AM:Thank you Dr. Brust. Recently I became aware of a metric utilized in study reports referred to as NNT (number needed to treat). I googled "Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?" and found a recent article in the Business Week, January 17, 2008 edition which fully explains the metric. The NNT data reveals how drug manufacturers don't really reveal the whole information when claiming, for instance, "reducing heart attack risk by 36%". Even a summary of the data would be too much volume to include in this forum. However, one highly advertised drug has an NNT of 100 which means 100 people would have to take it for only one person to benefit.

greeneyes wrote on Jan 26, 2008 7:24 AM:Response to Big Pharma cholesterol meds...I agree completely, the cholesterol and BP #'s have been getting lower and lower to put people on expensive meds. These meds are very toxic. I miss the old days when a physician was not so much about money.

JUST CURIOUS wrote on Jan 26, 2008 7:34 AM:Snowbird: Thanks for your posts informing me about SMOG. I appreciate your effort.

Karl wrote on Jan 26, 2008 7:45 AM:Wowsers, Snowbird just stomped all over Double D's record for verbosity. Call Guiness, that was impressive.

bibxs wrote on Jan 26, 2008 8:23 AM:A Christian nation? Revisited! It should not be assumed that people who pray including Abe Lincoln, pray to the Judeo Chritian God. I believe in the Creator or God. I also pray. Does that make me a Christian? I doubt it.

Alf wrote on Jan 26, 2008 8:29 AM:In the interest of clarity and because you want to know, "esteban" who wrote on Jan 25, 2008 9:01 AM "I don't know about y'all, but I can't distinguish the difference between the letter O and zero and the letter L and number 1 in those stupid image verification thingees. Sup wit dat!??!?!!". The letter "o" is almost always a lower case "o" and the zero "0" is, therefore taller. The letter "l" has the "pigtail" almost straight out and the number "1" has the "pigtail" at about a 45 degree angle down. Both trial and error and common sense play a part here. Paga attencion! Regards, Alf. (dlh55 versus d1h55)

Jake wrote on Jan 26, 2008 8:44 AM:To Just Curious 5:40. You are vilifying an entire group of people who refuse to like sheep vote a party line. Just because we do not belong to any of the parties does not mean we are uninformed. I would think that most of us have lost our naivete regarding the workings of the two most prevalent political parties. We hear from the Democrats about the evils of big business and from the Republicans the evils of big government. Neither business nor government is innocent of utilizing unrighteous power. Big business contributes to politicians but the politician accept the money. Both guilty. The final straw and the most revealing aspect to me about too powerful individuals in government was the Clinton impeachment vote. Whether or not he should have been impeached was overshadowed to me by the votes being strictly along party lines. I couldn't believe that all individuals of each party felt the same way. That certainly fostered a lack of confidence in the system. Both parties seem to be too influenced by their respective fanatics.

Earth to Snowbird, wrote on Jan 26, 2008 8:47 AM:Few are going to read a diatribe that long. I though the NCT's had some limits, can we start copying some of Webster’s work?

theWolf wrote on Jan 26, 2008 8:54 AM:Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne writes in his column today that

the Clintons’ assault on Obama is so depressing. In many ways, Obama is running the 2008 version of the 1992 Clinton campaign. You have the feeling that if Bill Clinton did not have another candidate in this contest, he’d be advising Obama and cheering him on… Doesn’t calling in Bill Clinton as the lead attacker merely underscore Obama’s central theme, that it’s time to “turn the page” on our Bush-Clinton-Bush political past? And with both Clintons on record saying kind things about Reagan, why go after Obama on the point? Honestly: If Obama is a Reaganite, then I am a salamander. Yet there was Hillary Clinton’s campaign, unveiling a radio ad on Wednesday implying that Obama bought into such ideas as “refusing to raise the minimum wage.” Come on, guys. The worst thing about all this is what both Clintons are doing to their own legacy as pioneers of an approach that rejected, as Bill Clinton said in a 1991 speech, “the stale orthodoxies of left and right.” The great asset shared by both Clintons is their willingness to bring fresh thinking to old problems. “Our new choice plainly rejects the old categories and false alternatives they impose,” Bill Clinton added in that 1991 address in which he offered a long list of new ideas. “Is what I just said to you liberal or conservative? The truth is, it is both, and it is different. It rejects the Republicans’ attacks and the Democrats’ previous unwillingness to consider new alternatives.” Pretty good stuff, still. Why should either Clinton attack Obama for facing some of the same truths that both of them taught their party so long ago?

DD Wiz wrote on Jan 26, 2008 9:12 AM: The posts from "Snowbird" (3:27am, 3:28am, 3:51am, and 4:02am) are, on one hand, so ridiculous they don't merit a response, but on the other hand, so clever and creative that I just can't resist.
These responses, which try to explain why the toxic chemical and particulate pollution from FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS which throws off the appropriate, healthy, natural balance of the chemicals that make up our atmosphere, is really such a beautiful thing, evoke the same kind of awe-inspiring wonder one feels when listening to a precocious 8-year-old explaining why there really is a Santa Claus (because that's what she really, really, really wants to believe), expounding with convoluted distortions of wishful fantasy on her own invented laws of physics to justify how Santa can be in twelve places at the same time and cover a few billion children in a matter of hours {time zones and fairy dust!), evidence of Santa's sleigh tracks on the roof, eyewitness accounts of elves and even the big guy himself.
But here are a few things that "Snowbird" leaves out:
1. Any citation from reputable peer-reviewed scientific sources to support his crackpot theories;
2. Any explanation of why he knows more than all the experts who are in virtual unanimity (at least in objective, peer-reviewed science) in disagreeing with him; and
3. He still has not explained the motivation behind his bizarre infatuation with FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS -- and I would assert that his "petrophilia" (love of all things petrol-based) ...
What is his interest? Does he have something to gain from pushing the addiction to FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS? It is bad enough for those who are the victims of transportation and marketing systems designed to foster dependence on FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS and dependence on imports from DICTATORS AND TERRORISTS, but people like "Snowbird" go way beyond that. What is his motivation? I don't know him personally, but here are a few possibilities:
a) Does he own/operate a gas station?
b) Is he involved in the transport of FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS?
c) Does he work for a refinery or directly for a Big Oil corporate master?
d) Does he have significant direct investments (stock/bond/note portfolio, 401k, IRA, mutual funds) heavily loaded toward Big Oil?
e) Some combination of the above?
What is this unnatural "petrophilia" all about?
I have asked this question before. It is a legitimate question. There are a number of people who earn BILLIONS off our dependency on DICTATORS AND TERRORISTS to sell us FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS, and it is much of this tainted money that funds (bribes) legislators and turncoat scientists who can't resist the temptation of big bucks and produce anti-science propaganda. "Snowbird" continues to evade, avoid and stick his head under an oil well (in the Snowbound ANWAR natural preserve, of course).
Points for creativity, though.

A peculiar editorial policy wrote on Jan 26, 2008 9:24 AM:So lemme get this straight. The editor of this space carefully erases objectionable words sometimes, though s/he leaves in all the hurlings of "filth", "moronic", "idiotic", etc. Then, as snowbird makes two tries to post something by writing the long post twice, the editor posts both identical tracts in full. Then we have a policy of anonymity, but the editor allows a poster to "out" another. If there is a logic to all this, I'd love to know what it is!

to Re: Dee Dee wrote on Jan 26, 2008 9:34 AM:There's something unsavory about sitting in judgment of the most intimate aspects of others' lives. Your post is no different from the endless, and endlessly boring and trivial, moonings over Britney, Lohan, Brad/Anjelina. But for you it has all kinds of implications politically. Don't tell me: the Bush's marriage is a spiritually intimate wonderland! The Romneys are SO in love! Rudy is...well, nevermind. Please, can we talk about things that matter? The fact is we don't know diddly about any of these people's real relationships. And I have some more news for you: just about every single person that has ever run seriously to become President of the United States is very, very likely to be ambitious and to want power. Can we put that one to rest now?

Independent Voter wrote on Jan 26, 2008 9:41 AM:This election my vote is for the candidate who has the toughest stance on illegal immigration. Since independents cannot vote in the primary, I will need to wait until November to make that decision. Based on Raoul's support for McCain, McCain will not get my support in November.

sdraoul wrote on Jan 26, 2008 10:03 AM:Yo Raoul, there is no giant Patriot Movement. Ask South Carolineans, Floridians and Californians. Ron Paul is nothing, spouting nothing and is nothing more than an anti-everything modern throwback to his race for President when he ran as a Libertarian, a Loserarian. As for Romney, how can you tell what he stands on and for, he changes every other day; he hires illegal alien employers because they are fellow Mormons. Christian organizations are stating that his faith is not Christian. Romney is a candidate for Secretary of Commerce. He is not qualified to be President. Question for Romney and his supporters: Exactly what were you doing while John McCain was in a communist prison being tortured every day? Romney was getting Tom Tancredo like draft deferments so he could work as a Mormon missionary in FRANCE. Another question for that great patriotic Romney family: Exactly how, Mr. Romney, is it possible that each and everyone of your five sons has never served the United States of America in the military while John McCain's two kids are serving right now, one in Iraq?

Alf wrote on Jan 26, 2008 10:25 AM:"Karl" at 7:45AM, Dean Koontz, eat your heart out! Regards, Alf.

Chris wrote on Jan 26, 2008 11:02 AM:Who's going to be there tonight?

esteban wrote on Jan 26, 2008 11:59 AM:Alf...I am amazed at you vast knowledge of all things trivial...but I can't help but to admire you. Some of your beliefs are crazy, but MAN you stick to them! Anyway, do you people REALLY believe what these politicians tell you in these debates!?!??! Don't be dumb. I hope I get an easy image verification code today.

Marine problem to raoul wrote on Jan 26, 2008 12:02 PM:This is my second try to express this sentiment; I suppose the editor, while allowing people to call others "filth" and "morons" find mine more objectionable. Your last post yesterday makes clear what your position is. It's rather simple: might makes right, and people should take whatever they want whenever they have the opportunity. On the level of the state or nation, this is unapologetic imperialism. You all but say this directly: we should have "taken" Baghdad, and should "take" anyplace that we want. On the smaller social level, this same philosophy might be called gang-banging, each group, through violence and intimidation, and without attention to any laws or morality, capturing as much territory and economic interest as possible. In other words, it's amoral anarchy that you favor. I can see now, for the first time this clearly, why you also defend the people crossing the border. It's simple: because they can, they should if they want to. If there are jobs and money here, go for it. I find your worldview completely repugnant from a moral point of view. You don't believe in any principles of right and wrong, so what is there to admire? Your weapons and willingness to use them? Maybe others want to debate things with you, but I don't. I feel that you have finally expressed yourself directly and truthfully. g'bye, raoul.

jim wrote on Jan 26, 2008 12:09 PM:Where is it?

getting clearer, isn't it? wrote on Jan 26, 2008 12:11 PM:As the public and the media seem to have written off everyone but Obama, Hillary, McCain, and Mitt, and since Obama is sinking fast, we Americans can settle in knowing we're in for more of the same. I wouldn't say "the exact same" since Bush has been such a unique disaster in almost every way. But it will be the same in terms of ideas, of who is served, of the people largely being ignored by our government. I'm inching, day by day, towards not voting. In a peculiar way, I almost envy the democratic efforts of places like Kenya. I hate the corruption and violence, of course, but in places like that, outcomes seem to actually matter! Candidates seem to the people to represent very different philosophies of government. Here? Yawn. Welcome to the shining city on the hill. Will that be a latte or a cup o' joe? That's about the depth of our choices. No, no coffee for me. Zzzzz.

RobertM wrote on Jan 26, 2008 12:19 PM:To sdraoul: Why is it a Tom Tancredo like tax deferment and not a Bill Clinton like tax deferment?

Just Curious wrote on Jan 26, 2008 12:31 PM:Jake: I have not made any political comment about anybody today.

Reardon wrote on Jan 26, 2008 12:33 PM:Congratulations on your HUGE post, which demonstrates to F Cubed (the person) that it is possible to be verbose without the inclusion of demeaning insults! F Cubed (The person) assumes that you, and the remainder of us who actually use F Cubed (fuel) must have a financial stake in the production and distribution of F Cubed (fuel), and that further we LOVE Middle East dictators. (Someone must break through the torrent and tell F Cubed that most of our F Cubed fuel comes from Canada and Mexico, not from the Middle East, but that might interrupt his rhythm.) Keep up the good work, without the insults. Eventually even his ardent supporters will tire of his flaming everyone with whom he disagrees.

Are there two snowbirds? wrote on Jan 26, 2008 12:36 PM:One person blogs as "snowbird" in long, sophisticated explanations of the chemistry of combustion. Another blogs as "snowbird" and says simply that a cold snap in Timbuktu disproves the global warming idea. What are the odds that two people from opposite ends of the IQ bell curve use the same moniker? LOL

more on abortion wrote on Jan 26, 2008 12:58 PM:Interesting editorial in the NY Times today. A new study finds that again, the abortion rate and numbers are down...to their lowest levels since 1974. The article goes on to examine why. Two-thirds of the decrease is accounted for by decreases in 8 areas of the country (yes, the liberal ones) that offer a lot of sex ed, and that make contraception freely available. When people learn how to avoid pregnancy, the abortion rate goes down. In places where it's "abstinence only", more abortions. But there's more. "Plan B" is taking the place of many abortions. Doctors/clinics that perform abortions say that the decrease in their operations is balanced by a large increase in Plan B use. The data, of course, cannot consider Plan B an abortion, since there's no way to know how often its use is by a pregnant person. So non-plan B abortions are down, but perhaps abortions themselves, if Plan B terminations are counted (if they could be), are up. It's possible that if this trend continues, as is very likely, the abortion question will become less of a lightning rod. Good sex education and available contraception will prevent many, many pregnancies. Plan B will be widely used in cases where contraception was not used, and many more pregnancies will be avoided. This is the future. The losing approach is "abstinence only". Where this is enforced, the last arguments about abortion will continue full force, because these will be the main places where abortions are even considered.

DD Wiz wrote on Jan 26, 2008 1:03 PM: The post from "A peculiar editorial policy" (9:24am) seems to indicate a person who has either not read the posts here or hasn't read the posted rules of this forum.
"peculiar..." objects to use of the word "filthy" although it is the perfectly appropriate word to use when referring to something that is FILTHY.
"peculiar..." makes reference to allowing "a poster to 'out' another." I can think of a couple of possible instances (that both involve me) that he/she could be referring to, but I'm not sure they actually violate the rules.
In the first, a regular participant here, who uses a screen name that includes an actual name he often links himself to, and who frequently has referred to published letters as being his (using a 1st person possessive pronoun) and on a couple of occasions (1/5 at 4:20pm and 1/23 at 8:24pm), depsite the policy of anonymity, gave the title and subject of a book he claims to have authored, so by allowing him to provide so much specific information, the NCT blogeditors allowed him to out himself and, when I made reference to it, I did not make a specific claim of a link, only mentioned the possibility.
The next day, another participant (not myself) made a connection between my screen name and a published letter. Unlike the first guy, I have never linked myself to any specific letter I have written, or provided (or confirmed) any specific identifying information about myself or names of companies or other works.
That is merely my effort to conform to NCT rules. Since I do not object if someone else fills in the blanks, no harm no foul.
Now, what exactly was your problem?

Reardon wrote on Jan 26, 2008 1:12 PM:
Sorry Chris, but the 24 Hours of Daytona is on all day and night, running on FILTHY FOSSIL FUEL -- at speeds up to 190 MPH, and the sights and sounds are terrific, particularly on my huge HD screen and Bose speakers, powered by SDG&E! Not a Prius in the field! Wish I could be in Daytona to smell the oil on hot exhaust manifolds, and see the array of private jets -- including the one used by Jimmy Johnson of El Cajon. He flies in private jets just like Al Gore, and the Hollywood enviro-crowd! Love it!

To Raoul: wrote on Jan 26, 2008 1:17 PM:Have you ever actually WORKED in the medical field, particularly in OB-GYN? Have you ever done medical billing for hospitals or for OB-GYNs? I believe that you need to think before you speak because we folks who have been directly involved with illegals' OB care know first-hand the costs that are billed to Medi-Cal. Did you think that these illegals have their babies at home in the comfort of their living rooms? Do you think they don't know that their kids born here are automatically U.S. citizens ('citizens' who will be taught to 'think Mexico' as they grow up)? Who do you think pays for this? Do the words 'American taxpayer' ring any bells? Quit insulting the people who work in the medical field who see everyday what the costs are. What we bill to Medi-Cal isn't just a figment of our imaginations.

to RobertM wrote on Jan 26, 2008 1:23 PM:I think the reference was to draft deferments, not tax deferments. Not that it matters, though, since we all live and die anyway.

Karl wrote on Jan 26, 2008 1:44 PM:"Chris wrote on Jan 26, 2008 11:02 AM:" Who's going to be there? I won't be there but my little birds will be. Respectfully the Pugnacious perpetrator of predatory propaganda and Double D's favorite Conservative pet. Have fun guys. I can't wait for the results of your limited thinking forum. Peace, Karl

Jack_D wrote on Jan 26, 2008 1:51 PM:I'm not sure why John McClurkin is so preoccupied with the religious beliefs of Washington and Jefferson. Maybe they were Christians; maybe they weren't. Who cares. The important thing is that they did not want their religious beliefs imposed on others. Jefferson resolutely called for a separation of Church and State. Whether he admired Jesus personally is utterly irrelevant. There's no reason to think that they would support the religious conservatives of today, who want evolution banned from the classroom and prayer put back in schools.

Karl wrote on Jan 26, 2008 1:52 PM:Double D's, you are one classic individual. Your passion is unsurpassed. With all the posters here I have got to rank you right up there with Alf. If one day you can express your points in less than 50 words you may surpass Alf in my book. Until that point Alf is the King of this post. Peace to all.

Karl wrote on Jan 26, 2008 1:57 PM:North County Forum. Thanks for the invite. Karl. Oh thats right, North County Forum stands for, "Not Considering Frivolity" Huh? Figure it out.

DD Wiz wrote on Jan 26, 2008 2:21 PM: The post from "Karl" (1:52pm) notes that if I can ever keep a post under 50 words I can become "king of this post." I guess "Alf" gets to keep his throne. Wait, this is only 43 words! Bring out the purple robes!

j9bby wrote on Jan 26, 2008 2:29 PM:Jack_D wrote on Jan 26, 2008 1:51 PM:I
You are correct. Their purpose is to persuade the American people that this should be a Christian dominated society and government as the founding fathers were Christians. There are groups dedicated to this mission. You can see them on TV and see their web sites. The radical Christians realize that their religion is losing ground in influence and control of American society just as it has in Europe.

Jake to Just Curious wrote on Jan 26, 2008 2:34 PM:Sorry, that was meant for "Just Sayin" @ 5:40.

To Reardon wrote on Jan 26, 2008 2:44 PM:"and the sights and sounds are terrific, particularly on my huge HD screen and Bose speakers, powered by SDG&E! Not a Prius in the field"
Sorry to see that you have lowered yourself to the level of the Chucks and Rons with this flippant immature post. You should be most proud.

Visual Imaging wrote on Jan 26, 2008 2:45 PM:A peculiar editorial policy wrote on Jan 26, 2008 9:24 AM: Editor is probably a Republican.

Chris to Karl wrote on Jan 26, 2008 2:56 PM:Shame on you for all that sarcasm. But then you are a conservative.

Chris to Jim wrote on Jan 26, 2008 2:57 PM:Bengal terrace park.

Chris wrote on Jan 26, 2008 3:05 PM:So now we have John McCain comming out with his fear doctrin. No we can't leave Iraq because of all the terrible things that will happen. He says there would be caos, genecide and the cost of American blood and treasure would be much higher. McCain is a son of some admiral and as far as I am concerned he is still fighting the Vietname war. I would vote for anybody but McCain. This war monger would be bad for America. Now you will notice that these conservatives still love their warmongers. If we are gone why would the cost of American blood and treasure be higher?

Alf wrote on Jan 26, 2008 3:15 PM:Well, "esteban" at 11:59AM, I'll take that as a compliment. I usually think of it as semi-OCD. I did not build my house by failing to pay attention to detail. Being the co-designer and the only carpenter, plumber, electrician and roofer (I called myself The One Man Crew for a darned good reason) forced me to think about what some might consider to be either trivial or trivia, but when you do it all, you must think long and hard about it all. I know every good and every not perfect thing about my house because I put them there. Regards, Alf.

to DD wrote on Jan 26, 2008 3:23 PM:Regarding the peculiar editorial policy, my problems were, I thought, clear. I see that posts are edited, that some get words or phrases erased, while others that are pure insults do not; I see that some posts are not posted while some of the most inane stuff is. My problem is that I can't figure out if there is any consistency here, or what it is that does or doesn't offend the editor. As for your "outing", the blog is anonymous. It's fine (and sheer luck) that you didn't mind being identified, but someone else certainly might. I don't see why the editor, with all the snipping that s/he does, allowed the post that outed you to be printed. You really don't see the cause of my confusion or problem? I don't believe you. I'm pretty sure my points are very simple and very clear. What's YOUR problem?

if only wrote on Jan 26, 2008 3:27 PM:The Christians astound me in their dogmatism and desire for control. You ask Americans if they believe in God and they say "yes" by a higher majority than any other country. You ask about belief in Jesus, about having personal relationships with the Lord, all get huge majority. But that is not enough. Nothing is enough but total domination. Until they have complete control of the government and all its powers, they will continue to present themselves as a poor, oppressed minority, whose Christian nation was stolen from them by the people who have the audacity to not agree with them and who read the Constitution as it is. Make no mistake: the group that pushes this wants one thing only: a theocracy. They want a revolution in which the Constitutional US is overthrown. It's that simple, though they'd never admit it, of course. They hide behind patriotic language to make people think that THEY are the REAL Americans. Pure propaganda. From a Constitutional perspective, it's evil.

Alf wrote on Jan 26, 2008 3:33 PM:Well, "DD Wiz" at 2:21PM, purple robes are nice, but you are the one with solar and the resultant lower utility bill! Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Jan 26, 2008 3:37 PM:Dah duh, Dah duh, Dah duh, Dah duh, Dah duh, Dah duh, Dah duh, I give you King of this post Double D's, SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D's you and Alf kill me. Alf is still the King in my book. You have to come closer to the middle. By the way I drive an electric golf cart 5 days a week (actually have been busted and ticketed for driving outside the cart zone). I think I have you beat on the FFF deal. Peace Brother

Karl wrote on Jan 26, 2008 3:42 PM:"Chris to Karl wrote on Jan 26, 2008 2:56 PM:'. I love you to Chris. I am hoping to get the "most lovable" conservative award tonight. Please forward my trophy to either Ron or Chuck.

Chris to moderator wrote