Bad news, scout wrote on Feb 13, 2008 8:39 PM:Our 12 year old boy scout is appalled by the negative political advertising. Good for him. Sadly, it's time for him to look at his elders, the adults of our society. These ads exist for one reason and one reason only: they work. Yammer as we might about how we hate them, fact is, they work on us. Yes, scout, look at your elders, your heroes and know that they, not the politicians, need to come down a notch or three in your eyes. We love slime and hatred more than truth. I don't think they have a merit badge for that. Be prepared.

Pluto wrote on Feb 13, 2008 8:55 PM: I like Clifford Brown's letter and agree with his important point that the rest of the world has good reason to hate us. We must stop being the latest imperial bully. But I fear Mr. Brown's otherwise excellent letter will be attacked because of a factual inaccuracy. I believe there are 737 U.S. military bases outside the U.S., not 6,000. 737 is bad enough and makes his point. Sustaining them is making our empire bankrupt and making everyone hate us. England had the same problem and finally decided to give up the empire in order to save the country. We must do the same.

Pluto wrote on Feb 13, 2008 9:09 PM: Joanne Godwin's letter is excellent. Mitt Romney's withdrawal speech was a sickening, low-life attack. And Godwin's point is well illustrated by Ernest Sparks, whose partisanship reeks of dishonesty. Yes, Mr. Sparks, Bush & Co let 9-11 happen (read the latest book on the 9-11 Commission report) and has let bin Laden get away for 6+ years. How can our country move forward and solve any problems with such divisive dishonesty?

Pluto wrote on Feb 13, 2008 9:20 PM: Happy Valentine's Day to all you Earthlings! May you each find love to warm the coldest hearts.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 13, 2008 10:41 PM: The published letter from Ernest Sparks has got to win the best prize for humorous parody this year! They guy should be writing for Leno or Letterman! Or better yet, the Daily Show or Colbert Rapport since they specialize in wildly funny FAKE NEWS!
Imagine! Blaming trying to shift the blame for Enron from fellow oil company crony Bush, who let Ken Lay act as host of his Houston Republican Convention and sit next to him during the energy hearings of 2001, to Bill Clinton who was ridiculed, lampooned and belittled by Lay at every possible opportunity.
Hilarious! Accusing Clinton of letting Bin Laden escape, after his National Security Advisor led the efforts that actually blocked the Y2K planned terror strikes in Los Angeles and caught the suspects, getting insufficient publicity in that pre 9/11 era and who gave a huge file on Osama Bin Laden to incoming NSA Condoleezza (Oil Tanker) Rice with the warning that it would be her biggest single time-consumer (she promptly put it on a shelf until after 9/11), while :::::::laughing uncontrollably::::::: exonerating Bush who actually HAD Bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora, outsourced the operation to local warlords, and diverted the troops to Iraq so fellow Oil King Bin Laden could safety scamper off to a new hiding place in the mountains of Pakistan.
Incredible! One of the largest multi-state natural disasters in history strikes on a national, not local or regional scale, and Sparks wants to blame local officials just because they are Democrats, even though they had put in requests to mobilize aid resources which were rejected by the bumbler-in-chief at the White House, who said no one could have predicted such an occurrence, though the National Geographic had a major article predicting exactly what happened less than a year before (October 2004, p. 92) and there were numerous Army Corps of Engineering reports long in advance, as well as several much more specific event-related predictions in the several days immediately preceding the tragedy. Sparks further shows his tremendous sense of humor by noting buses sitting idle -- when all the roads were flooded and bridges washed out! Heckuva job, Bushie!
Who says conservatives don't have a sense of humor?
I'm laughing so hard I'm crying. I mean, really, I'm crying!

Snowbird-2 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:16 AM:The International Energy Agency scaled back its forecast of precious black gold demand (oil) for CY 2008 due to the projected financial recession in several key countries. It will be partially offset by increases in oil consumption in the Middle East and China. The original forecast was 87,800,000 BARRELS PER DAY and the forecast is now 87,600,000 barrels per day. Actual production during CY 2007 was about 85,500,000 barrels per day. Oil products are essential to maintain our standard of living, our health care, our education system, our national defense, our air travel, our cruise lines, our countries food production and distribution, our asphalt roofing material, our asphalt roads, our plastics, even our synthetic rugs and clothes. No problem, there is a lot more oil in the ground. Go for the black gold!

Another voice wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:43 AM:The comedy award of the century goes to DDWiz who tries to attack Ernest Sparks clear letter with an obfuscation of words and personal attack. That is the big laugh. You can not tell the writer's strike is over by his letter.

Snowbird-2 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:31 AM:I commend the published letter by Ernest Sparks above. Every sentence is right on!
The rebuttal by DD Wiz at 10:41 PM in today’s list is sentence after sentence of stupid nonsense.
He probably knows it too. He just wants to confuse the issues by tossing out phony leftie claims to hurt Bush that make no sense at all. Maybe he just wants to taunt those of us with common sense to get a reaction. He surly knows that dozens of trucks bringing aid ice, and bottled water to New Orleans were turned back by the state patrol acting under orders from the governor. He surely knows that 1000 or 1500 unused school buses could have been used to evacuate the people with no cars. The orders to evacuate were given by the mayor while the roads were still open and thousands of people with cars were leaving. The mayor’s lame excuse was he did not know where to send the buses. If they just went up the highway until they ran out of gas, they would have survived. As to aid for rebuilding, two billion $ were given to state and local officials to oversee the rebuilding very quickly, and months later almost NONE of it was spent or obligated. Some of us suspect these local officials were holding back use until they could figure out how to get big kickbacks from the contractors. An other problem was FEMA did sent a lot of trailers down there to house the people, but local officials would not allow “trailer parks” to be set up. Another problem against swift rebuilding is laws passed by congress against use of Federal Money to rebuild in areas subject to flooding. As far as the levees go they had been built higher and higher for three hundred year on SOFT SILT deposited by the Mississippi River. Bush was told the expected height of the water was not likely to be above a certain level. Some of the levee failure was water under greater pressure because of its height seeped UNDER the levees wall and quickly washed out streams of mud from underneath the steel and concrete walls allowing them to TOPPLE. Not that the flood water level was high enough to flow over causing the tragic flooding. In other places there was some splash over by waves from floodwater that was NOT higher than the wall. This splash-over washed out some of the silt from the outside bases of these other steel and concrete walls allowing them to topple. It is incomprehensible that an educated intelligent person would blame president Bush for the faults of building on silt for the past three hundred years, and for decades of congress of both parties refusing to upgrade the levees to withstand a level five hurricane.
Mr. DD Wiz is ALSO far off base on his often-repeated ridicules account of Bin Laden being cornered at Tora Bora and Bush let him go. This is an utterly stupid comment. We did not have sufficient troops there to go in at that time and place, and few if any knew there way around there among the hundreds of armed and defended caves built during decades of fighting the Soviets. If we had sent our available troops in at that time they would have all been slaughtered and Bin Laden would still have escaped to Pakistan. I suppose DD thinks if we could have sent his hero, John Kerry, over to lead them into battle they would have won. Well, I do not think so! There are several more wrong assertions in DD’s 10:41 PM comments, but it is past my bedtime. If no one else has corrected when I check in tomorrow I will make mention of them.
DD Wiz is wrong again!

Thank you Jim Horn wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:08 AM:I will place the phone number that you provided, first on my list. We will get to the bottom of this yet. The Primary is behind us but the controversy is far from it.

Illumination wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:20 AM:Ah, so Mike America does write letters to the editor! Interesting.

Colbert Report and The Daily Show wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:28 AM:Actually, they are political pundits, and while they are funny, they do use REAL NEWS, because truth is stranger than fiction and art imitates life.

Yokozuna to Pluto wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:56 AM:Thanks for the Valentine greeting. There is actually a waiting list for my heart when I die since its never been used.

Yokozuna to DD @10:41 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:37 AM:Be sure and cover your keyboard when crying. We would hate for you to short it out and not be able to post today. On the other hand you usually seem well organized and prepared so you probably have a backup.

Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:44 AM:Sherry Robeson reminds me, speaking of our national debt exceeding $9 trillion.
Some are quick to blame Bush & the Iraq War for our great indebtedness. They are wrong, it is a bunch of “half-truths, distortions and fairy tales” that have erroneously been embraced by the left in order to achieve a political victory, at the cost of American citizens, and taxpayers.
Today, the goverment reported that for the first time senior health care and nursing homes cost the government more than Social Security payments for seniors age 65 and older. The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, that's a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. Medical costs are the biggest reason. It goes to what I was saying yesterday about People in the Medical Industry being expensive. Healthcare is a service industry, People are the single greatest cost, just like in public schools. Average breakdown of labor to to all other costs is about 85-90% being spent on labor/wages, and the rest spent on facilities, electric, water, etc. Of all three major senior programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the federal government spent $952 billion in 2007 on elderly benefits alone, up from $601 billion in 2000. As I've said, entitlements are the biggest function of the federal government. And we have not hit the crushing that will come soon, the portion of the U.S. population age 65 and older has been constant at 12% since 2000. The real senior {baby} boom(ers), will start big time in 2011 when the first baby boomers — 79 million people born between 1946 and 1964 — turn 65 and qualify for Medicare health insurance. The oldest baby boomers turn 62 this year and qualify for Social Security at reduced benefits. And just to drive home what we actually spend each & every year in these entitlements, about 35% of the entire federal budget is spent on senior benefits alone, up from 32% in 2004. Think about that last point for one second... We spend 35% of our whole budget on just 40 million of our citizens, out of 300 million. Keep in mind, these are government controled programs were we already tell doctors & hospitals they will only be paid half their normal fees. And finally, nationally we spend about 2.1 trillion every year on our healthcare, both public & private combined. .44 cents of every dollar is government money, that's $1.27 trillion each & every year, of a $2.9 trillion budget. At $3.1, that's $1.36 trillion. Now, please tell me again about how the Iraq War is our biggest financial problem.

Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:47 AM:The news is reporting that authorities have uncovered an AlQaeda plot to assassinate Philippine president. Chris must in a total state of depression

Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:49 AM:>>Our 12 year old boy scout is appalled by the negative political advertising.>> Hopefully, his union public school teachers havent forced him to sign his SB777 paper turning him into a girl scout

Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:51 AM:>>>Happy Valentine's Day>>> My exact sentiments-- Happy VD.

Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:58 AM:>>>Shortsighted, tax-adverse people in San Diego County need to prepare>>> Gee, another bureaucrat whinig for more money. Just like the teachers, they trick you into thinking the money will be used in the classroom, or on fire equipment. The fact is, it will all go to massively increase salaries, pensions and benefits. We all know the scam-- A year or two before retirement, you hoard all of your sick pay, personal days and vacation days. Then just months before retirement, you are given that big promotion and pay raise. So, your final paycheck is at the next grade, plus all the accrued sick and vacation pay, and that is what your retirement is based on. In other words, you make $10K more in retirement than you made sitting in the fire station 3 months earlier. I can see why you need more money, that scam, when pulled off 5 times a year can get very costly

Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:04 AM:>>As a Democrat who lost two brothers in WWII, I resent and am outraged with this kind of talk>> of course you're engaged sir, but step back and tell up what deomocrats have done to help fight the war on terror. They opposed the Patriot Act, they refuse to close the border, They refuse to allow monitoring and discovery of sleeper cells, they wont Bush harshly interrogae prisoners, they disclose to the terrorists all the new methods Bush is using to monitor the terrorists, and they oppose all of Bush's data-mining and and electronic spying on terrorists. So be outraged all you want, your buddies are of no use in the war on terror, in fact, they are nothing more than obstructionists

Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:04 AM:I think Clifford Brown as veered into something here. Since the decade of Clinton & the so-called "Peace Dividend", we are down nearly 500,000 troops. Want to know where Clinton had his theoretical surplus? Look at his budgets. He cut the military spending to balance his budgets. Now, Yes, I know.. the Republican Congress at that time thought we had beaten the Soviets, peace was everywhere, and Yes, we could and should cut down the cost of military spending in order to achieve a balanced budget. Great thinking, right?
No longer would we be required to fight a two-front war at two different places in the world, we could rely on a smaller, lighter, faster, quick reaction force. That was Rumsfeld's job when he took over the Pentagon. Fine and dandy, right? Wrong! We quickly began to close military bases inside the US, combine them where possible, cut back on buying of technical assets like air tankers, etc. What we didn't do, was cut back on defending other countries, like Germany, & Japan.
Where are the regular troops? They are overseas defending those countries who could & SHOULD defend themselves.
Some have been there for over 58 years.
What has this allowed them to do? Well... they have universal healthcare, and other massive entitlement schemes. We are supplimenting their way of life!
By them not having to deploy a siz of military to protect and defend themselves, we have created their welfare states. Whether [Some of] these countries see us as a warmongering country and want us out, is besides the point. Like all welfare recipients, they don't even bother with even a faint thought of the cost, cause they don't pay it. WE DO! It's like a kid living at home with Mommy & Daddy. He get's his first job, and all of his money is sent on his car, while Mommy washes his clothes, and Daddy brings home milk everyday. The leftists love to talk about "Our Friend's." Yes, they are the best friends money can buy.

DD's not wrong wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:21 AM:We saw the method during the campaigns of 2000 & 2004. Bush, with his military record, got his devotees to believe that it was Gore and Kerry who were the military slackers. Then he got his devotees to believe that even though Clinton's report about Bin Laden had been sitting on Bush's desk, 9-11 was all and only about Clinton. It became a standard way of doing business, all made possible by the hungers and low IQs of the devotees. Now, 8 years later, with Pakistan/Afghanistan deteriorating, al Qaeda at full strength, and our forces bogged down for decades to come in the irrelevant Iraq, the Bush devotees insist their guy has made us safe and that we'd be even safer were it not for the liberals. Go figure.

Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:22 AM:While I somewhat agree with Dennis Schwander, he is wearing his liberalism on his sleeve. And it's showing.
He says: "It can, and will, happen here." I agree completely, and who ya gonna call? Nobody, that's who. At least for the first 7-15 days, according to the Southern California Regional Response Plan. It is incumbent upon each & every citizen to plan, and prepare for disasters. The left loves to poke at Bush for what happened at Katrina, as if they could and would have done a better job. Hardly. That is a fallacy you really need to NOT buy into, that someone will come and save you when the Big One hits. They won't for some period of time, and you need to prepare to survive on your own, until these first responders can begin to operate. They won't be bringing food or water in to you, they'll be putting out fires, and evacuating people from dangerous areas. You gotta think about what will happen, what will I do when my water don't come out of the faucet? No lights. No heat. How much food & water do I have on hand? I would encourage you to think about buying a weapon of some sort. No telling what will happen after several days of unprepared people, mostly urbanites, who will not be ready, and might just want some of yours.
As to being shortsighted, & tax-adverse, I don't really have a problem in paying more in taxes if I can be assured it will actually be spend on first responders, and preparation. In the last Proposition Vista passed, they played up the fact that part of that funding would go to build & man additional fire departments, but the other 2/3 were going to build a new city hall, and improve the Moonlight Bowl. Those last two, are hardly priorities. And they did it with a sales tax, not a general property tax. A very bad funding idea. When the time comes to reset the tax back down to 7.75%, they will then come out with the scare tactics about losing fire fighters as the means to keep the extortion going.

Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:39 AM:If they came in legally, like all good want-to-be Americans should, then I suspect we would not see what Fredi Avalos describes as the: "...tide of hatred toward Latinos." He's more wrong than he knows about most Americans, they just want people to do the right thing, and obey the laws. Nothing wrong with asking people to obey the laws, nothing racist about that. Yeah, I know.. we have pockets of lunatics who will suspect their own neighbor for whatever reason, but they are not the norm. Most law abiding Americans don't care where you came from, what color your skin is, or whether you got here by train, boat, plane or walked. We just don't care. What we care about is obeying the law. We are all required to obey the laws, and so should all immigrants who want to be Americans, or at least work here. And please don't give me this pap about our system being broken. It works every time it's tried. Try it. It is slow, I'll grant you that. But slow does not mean broken, it means it takes time. God knows how many hours I have wasted at other government offices. It's the American way to wait in government lines to be served. Get with the program. And finally, how can you ever say that you
deserve to be an American when you won't follow the rules by which we all have to live? Unless you consider the idea that good Americans, are also identity thiefs. The issue is obeying the law, not what some nut case thinks.

Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:47 AM:Ah... don't worry about that Jeff Lassle. So, I-15 is a racetrack.. for now. The lib's have a plan to fix it, ok? So, Listen up... shhhhhhhh it's a secret.
They plan to bring back the Yugo.
If the car does work, it won't go fast.
Feel better now?

Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:51 AM:>>> If current childbirth rates continue to soar, Mother Earth will have to fight back in the form of weather-related catastrophes & disease brought on by these conditions.>>>> That commercial brought to you especially by Planned Patenthood, in particular, their abortion & stem cell division

Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:53 AM:Man! You must not get out too much, eh?
Harry Titus?
Why are you only blaming President Bush and his Environmental Protection Agency?
That's the exact same plan the Dem's have in mind, in addition to carbon trading schemes, carbon taxes, and oh yes.. before I forget.. another gas tax. In fact, if you actually did just a little investigation, you would find Al Gore is already selling them. To himself, of course, but that is THE Plan. They won't actually reduce pollution, they'll just charge more for it. By the way, any word yet on that new national Forest building planted by Al Gore?

El Guero wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:02 AM: I'm in complete agreement with Clifford Brown about U.S. military bases overseas. Brown exhorts us to "Vote for someone who promises to do this (bring our troops and jobs home and reunite families), to restore the U.S. image and stay out of other countries' affairs!" (Ron Paul) I can't think of anyone among the current crop of presidential candidates who would advocate doing such a thing. (Ron Paul). Sadly, voters will select either Clinton or McCain, neither of whom even hints at doing any such thing, and I don't think Obama, if elected, has the huevos to try it either. That leaves someone whom the American electorate would never vote for because "he can't win." Any guesses?

El Guero wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:04 AM: By the way, I would like to compliment Mr. Brown on all his many wonderful albums for Blue Note. "Brownie Eyes" has always been one of my favorites!

esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:10 AM:Conservatives shouldn't get all worked up when the libs blast us for being the cause of all the world's ills. Every sane person knows deep down that the libs have wreaked havoc in our country and overseas. If it makes them feel better to call us names, so be it. When they lay their heads down at night, they know THEY are the problem. I know some libs actually believe the filth they spew, and they are the insane ones.

Vista Granny wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:11 AM:Ron's rant about health care and other costs of keeping seniors alive leaves out an important fact when citing the percentage of our budget spent on these folks. The truth is that social security and medicare are indeed thrown into the general budget -- but so is all that mmoney collected from working folk in the form of FICA taxes. So, if you remove one, you must remove the other, and doing so would probably NOT leave enough to pay for all that military spending. But then, Ron loves half truths. Oh, fooey!! Why did I read what Ron wrote anyway? I planned not to do so. Big mistake.

Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:15 AM:The news is reporting that doctors are perform a new procedure: 'earlobe rejuvenation. Now that a certain group has convinced the judges that sex chanes operations are a constitutional right and must be covered in all San Francisco and Sacramento healthcare plans, can earlobe rejuvenation recovery be far behind (as experimental cancer therapies remain uncovered by HMO's)

Pretending wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:19 AM: Kudos to Snowbird-2 @2:31am for pretending that DD's 10:41 post makes no sense. That's a good way to deal with such a barrage of facts. And what about Chuck @6:47am, pretending that Chris would like AQ to assassinate the Philippine President? Where is that coming from? Aren't there enough real differences to discuss without making up such rubbish?

A revelation! wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:19 AM:Thanks for telling us that "good Americans" never break the law, Ron. So let's see. All of you who had a drink prior to age 21, bad Americans. Speeders or stop sign runners? undeserving Americans. Fudgers on your income taxes? Unpatriotic slime. Ever inhale from a bong? You oughta be deported! So the commander in chief who wiretaps without warrants and tortures people...just one of the crowd. So why DO we single out the immigrants?

Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:19 AM:>>A friend called me on Tuesday reporting that he and his wife, registered Republicans for 20 years were not allowed to vote in the primary>> What do you expect. The Attorney General and Secretary of State and Ahnulds chief of staff are all flaming liberals. Their entire goal is be sure the hoards of illegals continue to vote and that republicans are not allowed to vote.

To Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:27 AM:NICE THEORY!!! Unfortunately for Latino citizens, those Latinos who are here "legally" this is not the case. I agree with Fredi Avalos there is a tide of hatred being directed at all Latinos. Legal status makes no difference to Ron and his icky friends. Ron constantly defends the Minutemen and he and they do prejudge the brown folks without knowing if they are here legally. They are of the shoot first ask questions later. They shoot their mouth off with racial epithets and slurs without knowing if these folks are here "legally or illegally." He and his friends verbally attack anyone who opposes them without considering the fact that those people have the right to free speech and free expression just as much as they do, but once again Ron has to attempt to defend his own prejudice mindset. Thank you Ms. Avalos for a great letter.

esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:46 AM:Yesterday the anti American Democratic controlled Congress just said waterboarding is torture and cannot be used. Can you feel it coming? Which city will get it first? NYC? LA? Chicago? Your home town? Good job Al Queda...er, I mean Democrats. Is your hatred of Bush so intense that you will sacrifice national security just to "show him"?

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:19 AM: The post from "Snowbird-2" (2:31am) shows he is trying his best to also audition for most outrageous comedy routine. Sadly, though, he cannot be considered a serious contender since the competition can only consider original material and his entry is plagiarized directly from the talking points of Big Oil Bullies' propaganda, history truth deniers who invent their own alternative realities (such as denying that Bush's CUT AND RUN diversion of resources from Al Qaeda to Iraq and outsourcing the Tora Bora operations aren't what allowed long-time Bush family oil ally Osama to escape) and more inventions of alternative physics and engineering with his postulating of alternative theories about rebuilding New Orleans which have nothing to do with preventive engineering that had been recommended for years BEFORE the event (you know, that ol' LIBERAL philosophy of proactive efforts to PREVENT problems which are cheaper and more effective than REACTIVE measures after disasters occur).
Nothing new or original here. It does get points for creativity, imagination, raw chutzpah (expecting anyone to actually believe it) and audacious nerve, however those points must be awarded to the Neocons who actually concocted them, not to desperate puppets who parrot them, like "Snowbird-2" who proves he is just another poor, pathetic IGNORANT victim of the DUMBING DOWN of science education in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE by the Big Oil Bullies and pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators.
And, by the way, "Snowbird-2" continues his ongoing evasion of a simple answer to a simple question: why is he so invested in defending the propaganda of Big Oil Bully pushers of FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS? What is his direct involvement with these pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators?

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:20 AM: The post from "Ron" (7:53am) continues his efforts to emulate the Bush / Neocon talking points of character assassination, making up phone allegations that they refuse to back up, and throwing as much mud as they can wallow in. Yet again, he repeats the accusation that Al Gore is "selling" "carbon trading schemes" etc., but offers no specifics.
Al Gore has shown that there are excellent opportunities for green entrepreneurship (that going green doesn't have to mean living poorly or giving up excellent opportunities for sharing the American dream), while winning an Emmy, an Oscar, a Nobel Peace Prize, successfully producing books, an award-winning cable TV series and an award-winning documentary, as well as helping establish a non-profit foundation for environmental advocacy.
"Ron" tries to look at this and extrapolate some kind of nefarious dishonesty, though even in his creative invention of his own alternative universe of facts, never offers anything specific. Hmmm. Wonder why. I suppose if anything specific actually existed, "Ron" would be the first to jump all over it, but all he has are these vague inventions of character assassination.
Oh well, just "Ron" being "Ron" -- no impostor.
If he's trying out for that most outrageous comedy award, he's not even close. His effort is neither convincing nor funny, plus the old "make up your own facts" is routine and everyone is onto it.

Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:20 AM:It's a political campaign MAN! Geez, I wish some people would spend just a little time and read some of the speeches, or even the newspapers from our country's history. You think we tear each other up today? Relax, it's hyperbole, rhetoric, and hype. What is far more interesting to me, personally, are the Democrat venom directed at Democrats. You know... these are the people who have said they pride themselves on intelligent conversations on the issues, and yet... what we are witnessing is a free for all. A no holds barred fight, mud slinging, lies, rumors, and yes.. just a hint of racism.
From the Party who says they don't see color?! Yet, every time I turnon my TV set, I hear about the Black vote, the Older White Women vote, the Single Mom vote, and yes... the Latino vote. Talk about separating Americans. It's part of the strategy. And it's OK?!!
That's why Obamaman has taken off in the Democrat polls, and at the ballot box. He's trying to not talk about it, he's attempting to bring people together, at least rhetorically. Behind the scenes might be different, I'm sure it is by campaign managers and pollsters. But his message is about unity, unlike the Clinton message in which their front man - Bill, took several liberties with the truth, shall we say... and she is plummenting like a rock.
Now...
As to what McCain has said: “Democrats will surrender to the enemy, wave the white flag. The terrorists will win.” Or what Romney has charged that “a Democratic victory in the presidential race will turn America over to the terrorists.”
Are you in some kind of denial or something. I know what these Democrats are saying NOW, but look at what they have said. Both Barack & Hillary intend to stay in Iraq until 2013. I know, and you should know they are playing to the liberal base to win the Party nomination NOW, but never forget what they have said about staying, at least until 2013. Further, if you as a leader intend to withdraw from a battle, you will reap the perceived weakness that withdraw produces. Terrorists don't believe in compromise, they believe in winning, they believe in killing the enemy, which is us. If they have to leave their own homelands to achieve the victory, they will do it. As shown by 9/11. Never forget, that for the entire time Bill Clinton was our President, we literally had our own teeth kicked in by attacks. We took it, and we took it, and we took it. Launched a couple of missiles, a boxer's jab if you will, only to have these freaks come at us again directly.
Bush came in, unwilling to continue to "swat at flies", he saw the absolute futility of continuing to hunt & peck. A massing movement of Islamic hatred had to be met head-on. Talking to them wasn't gonna do it, cause if it could have, Clinton would have secured the peace by diplomatic means. Clinton spent his time trying to maintain the status quo, and that is exactly what the Baker report wanted, to secure the status quo.
I find it truly amazing that Democrats are willing to throw away a tried and true Democratic President method of securing a Democracy as we have done in Germany & Japan, by FDR & Truman. Followed on by occupations which have lasted for some 58 years. The Japanese Parliment didn't even meet for the first 5 years after their defeat. We helped to rebuild those countries, and they are today successful. McCain is simplying stating the obvious, if we have been in both Germany & Japan for more than 58 years, Iraq might take a bit longer because of who surrounds it.
If we elect someone who does make the withdraw, and leaves Iraq to fend for themselves, I say: Hunker down. Cause they are still gunning for us.

Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:28 AM:Can I use that line, Mike Kania? ..."Otherwise, you'll find yourself in the minor leagues with the Crews brothers, Parish and Pulse."...
I like that.. Minor Leagues.
Remember, letters we admire. LOL

To Revelation!!!! wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:32 AM:So True, so True. It alarms me that people like Ron want to criminalize people that they don't know by pointing out their crime, and covering up for crimes committed by Americans as okay because after they are legal. What is going on here!!! Look out American's sometimes the hand is quicker than the eye. Don't get caught up in their lie.

Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:36 AM:You are so funny!!! Why were your friends not allowed to vote? Has that right be taken away from them because they committed a crime? I think their is more to the story than you are saying, Chuck but that is what you seem to do best....you knowly spread lies and half truths. Illegals can't vote. Perhaps you saw lots of Mexicans at the voting polls so of course in your way of thinking they were all illegals voting. These must be the same illegals you see in the waiting rooms at OUR hospitals, right. You are so ridiculous.

To Avalos wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:39 AM:I feel for you. You compare people being upset about the effects of illegal immigration and you broaden it to people "attacking" Latinos. What a joke! Go back to brainwashing kids because your rhetoric doesn't work with adults!!

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:44 AM: The published letter from Dennis Schwander, a retired Fire Captain, is noteworthy in how it reflects the LIBERAL strategy of practively PREVENTING problems, when they are small and manageable and cheaper and can be completely eliminated, instead of the CONSERVATIVE approach, which is waiting until tragedy occurs, when the problem is drastic and terrible and GINORMOUS and it costs a lot more to try to clean up and can't be completely eradicated anyway.
I guess the conservatives never heard about "a stitch in time saves nine" or little things like that.
No matter what the issue, conservatives are short-sighted and want to cut upfront costs when they are small, and end up getting stuck with huge bills for cleanup later. Examples:
Liberals support expanding free universal education, short-sighted conservatives want to cut education, and instead get stuck paying for more prisons, law enforcement, courts, jails and the drag on the economy of a less educated and less educated workforce.
Liberals support universal health care, where dollars go directly from public funding to private, entrepreneurial health care providers (doctors, clinics, hospitals) without the exorbitant costs for underswriting and profiteering of insurance company middlemen that drive up health care costs and provide profit-driven incentives to provide LESS health care, while short-sighted conservatives support profiteering by underwriters and insurance stockholders and forcing people to use emergency rooms for routine medical care.
Liberals support investing in adequate infrastructure and emergency resources in advance (as Captain Scwander writes to support), while short-sighted conservatives try to clean up disasters after they occur using incompetent crony bureaucrats.
Liberals support adequate investigation and attention to actual valid intelligence and successfully prevent terror attacks while short-sighted conservatives ignore relevant information in advance, respond after tragedy hits, then divert those belated and inadequate resources to irrelevant alternative targets.
Liberals support anticipating and preventing environmental disaster, short-sighted conservatives accuse scientists with sold information of being "fear mongering chicken littles" just as they did in New Orleans before the hurricanes hit.
Liberals anticipate and prevent problems; short-sighted conservatives wait until easily solved small annoyances fester and escalate into horrible tragedies, then wonder why Liberals can do so much and still run surplus budgets, while short-sighted conservatives do so little and run enormous deficits (in addition to the greed and outright pocketing of government funds for profiteering cronies).

hr7o7 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:50 AM:Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:19 AM: Its a Republican primary. The people in question need to address their problem to them. You did not have a problem voting did you Chuckie? I am sure that if you did, you would have made sure that it did not happen a second time. Liberals are not responsible for lack of intelligence of Republicans. They are.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:57 AM: The published letter from Harry Titus asks for help in explaining carbon-offset credits.
I'm not sure if he reads these web comments, but I'll try my best.
Let's say a company produces pollution at their plant that exceeds legal levels. It would cost a million dollars to bring their plant in compliance. However, the same amount of environmental clean up could be produced by spending only a hundred thousand to get the same effect at a different location, so to encourage compliance they can do the equivalent amount of cleanup for a fraction of the cost, or ten times the cleanup for the same cost.
And yes, if there are more leaves in front of your neighbor's house and, for whatever reason he is unable to do it himself (absent, disabled, whatever; and for argument's sake let's say his leaves are more visible to the neighborhood than yours), if you clean up more leaves at his house and don't clean up yours because you ran out of time (or just got tired), then the net gain is still better than having done less with more effort (or expense). Yes, it would be better if all the leaves got raked (or if all the pollution got cleaned up), but cleaning up more leaves that are more visible is still preferable to cleaning up less.
That is the concept behind using carbon offsets as incentives for legitimate alternative pollution cleanup. Of course, as with any program, there has to be oversight (regulation!) to ensure that companies or individuals are doing what they actually say they are doing, and there should be vigorous penalties for fraud when they don't. But if someone (such as "Ron" at 7:53am) is going to make allegations that any specific program is fraudulent, he needs to show two things:
1 - that the program is actually a carbon offset program
2 - that it is not actually delivering what it promises to.

esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:00 AM:DDWIZ, can you please shorten your rants?

To: To Avalos wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:01 AM:Why do you have to be so rude!! You proved what those people who say you verbally attack anyone who opposes your point of view. Of course you want to shush Fredi Avalos and squelch her right to free speech because she makes some good points and you just can't handle it. Is she brainwashing kids? I hope she is so we can have more free thinkers as our future leaders. I must say you say her "rhetoric does not work on adults" obviously it worked on you. She made you take time out of your busy day to comment. Good job Fredi Avalos.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:08 AM: The published letter from Mike Kania shows his blend of utter ignorance and confusion.
He is self-contradictory and sees the issue backwards, typical of a conservative.
First, he admits that he attacks people's ideologies rather than their parties, lumping liberals together with socialists, confirming his inability to distinguish between these economic opposites (one favors free markets with sufficient oversight to prevent harm to others, such as workers, consumers and the shared environment and infrastructure, and the other favoring centrally-managed and government owned productive resources without the built-in incentives of entrepreneurial capitalism).
Then he says that this does not work; that we should attack parties, not ideologies.
But that is backward. AS KANIA HIMSELF ADMITS, parties are associations or affiliations. While they often reflect a core ideological base (Democrats being more liberal, Republicans more conservative) there are indeed differing undercurrents within parties, such that some more liberal Republicans might be more liberal than some conservative Democrats).
Actual public policy develops out of ideology, with the party being the mechanism for organizing those who tend to have allied ideological interests. The point of ideology and public policy is what politics is all about, and the level at which issues should be engaged. In typical conservative fashion, this is actually what Kania admits he tries to do, even though he tells others to do as he says, not as he does.
On a side note, I have personal acquaintance with many of the liberals who write letters for publication and/or participate in this forum. I do not know Garth Gregory Hansen (though his letter says he lives in the same town), but I have often read and enjoyed his letters and find him intelligent and articulate.

Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:08 AM:Just couldn't help yourself? Could ya Vista Granny @8:11 AM? I know, my posts are literally filled with facts, it's actually hard NOT to read them.
And I see you just couldn't help yourself again with this little goodie: "...costs of keeping seniors alive..."
That's right, another scare tactic. Oh my god, if the government won't take care of me, how will I ever make it! Does not sound to me like were are throwing old people out into the streets, does it you? Granny?!
Do you disagree with the Controller General David Walker when he says that we spend nearly 60% of our entire budget on entitlements? And by the end of the next President's term we will be spending almost 70%? I think today's news brings what I have been saying into better light. Take, for example, the cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, that's a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. A 24% increase while all other groups wages are stagnant. And we spent spent $952 billion in 2007 on elderly benefits alone. Our elderly population has not grown, it's about 12%, or some 40 million. They are sucking the life out of the Federal government, while at the same time, everyone else's costs are going up. College, healthcare, fuel, power, water. And yet, this one group gets 35% of the entire budget, out of 300 million people? Come on...
It's way, way out of balance. What about your grandkids? Where are your priorites? Mine first, them second? As to the cost of the War in Iraq, up til now, we have spent $456 billion directly in Iraq, should the President's budget be approved, the total will be $611 billion. That's hardly a comparision to $952 for only 40 million Americans. Now, wouldn't ya say?

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:14 AM: The published letter from John Matthews gets mixed reviews.
On the one hand, I commend his recognition of the harm to the planet caused by the Big Oil Bullies and pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators.
On the other hand, he shows lack of understand of basic economics, parroting a typical counter-productive, failed ideology of conservative "trickle down" economics -- it is OK to rape the planet, exploit workers and consumers, if a little of the elephant pork filters through the massive elephantine body and is excreted down for the mice to get the rejected leftovers.
Hello! Rewarding a few elite executives and investors with BILLIONS while consumers are left to pay outrageous costs and future generations are saddled with the deferred costs of economic devastation from drilling methods and climate change, is not "inarguably good for the overall economy."
His suggestion to "partake ... by buying stock" is like observing a gang rape and deciding to join in instead of trying to stop it.

Floyd The Flat Earth Martian Scientist wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:16 AM:A happy valentine's day to all from an outlying planet that is experiencing global warming!

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:18 AM: The post from "esteban" (10:00am) asks: "DDWIZ, can you please shorten your rants?"
Answer: No.
I am not writing for you or "Chuck" (if you are different people).
I am writing to literate adults.
Anyone else can use their down arrow.

Floyd wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:20 AM:Conservatives are not agitating to cut "education", they are demanding a cut of "overhead" and "bureaucracy". Only 48% of per-pupil funding actually makes it to the classroom, which means there is plenty of money available -- it's just not being used to teach the students. A 25% funding reduction in administrative costs would not be a cut to education.

Chris to Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:22 AM:What have the Republicans done to fight this so-called terror. They have destroyed the lives of millions of innocent Iraqis, constantly tried to terrorize us by constantly dumping their fear rhetoric on us, and do everything they can to get the sheep to forgo what rights they are supposed to have according to the constitution. Have they cought Ben Laden yet?

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:22 AM: The post from "Ron" (10:08am) tells "Vista Granny":
"I know, my posts are literally filled with facts" -- Omigosh -- NOW you are in the running for that most outrageous comedy award. This statement has gotta be a real contender.
P.S.: Filling a post with "facts" doesn't count if you made 'em up yourself.

TO: TO AVALOS wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:27 AM: "Is she brainwashing kids? I hope she is so we can have more free thinkers as our future leaders."

What? You make absolutely no sense. Brainwashing so we can have free thinkers? Your logic escapes me!

Karl wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:44 AM:To "DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:14 AM:" Is your new title "reviewer"?

James at 18 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 10:56 AM:It's getting colder all over the world. This is weather. This cold weather everywhere is caused by global warming. This is climate. The record cold weather being experienced all over the world is global warming. Why can't people understand this?

to DD @ 10:22 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:07 AM:What? Ron said that? I didn't know because as I said before, I skip Ron's posts because too many have been proven to be fabrications. And he's claiming to be fact-man? Figures: that's just another lie. Par for the course. Like I said, why would anyone bother to read him? People! He's making it up! It's not debate, it's fabrication! Spend your time more usefully, arguing over points of view based on actual truths! LOL

to esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:15 AM:Sorry, must've missed it. You were going to tell us about your source of the truth since all the major media, you claim, suppress the truth. All you came up with that you've spoken to a few vets. Is that it? Is that the basis of all you say you know about US foreign policy? I don't know, esteban, you ask DD to shorten his posts...I think maybe you should do the same. BTW, your love of Bush's anti-terror, keep-America-safe record boggles me even more in the face of his accomplishments sealing the southern border. esteban, are you for real?

Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:22 AM:The absolute blather from Wiz @9:44 AM, is just beyond all other posts he has ever written. This guy must live in some kind of alternate universe.
Cutting to the chase, this so-called “LIBERAL strategy of proactively PREVENTING problems. How’s that working out, by the way. Pretty poorly by all measurements, but that’s a lib for you. You don’t actually have to produce anything; you just have to “care about it.”
His Examples?
“Liberals support expanding free universal education.” Sounds good right?
Well, how’s that working out for us? In California, we spend ½ of our entire State’s Budget on education. So, what do we get for it? More graduates, higher test scores, and fewer prisoners? No.
150,000 a year — a number equivalent to the populations of Torrance, or Irvine, or all of Imperial County drops out each & every year. Fewer than 70% of ninth-graders statewide will graduate from high schools, and in some districts the percentage is less than half.
So, if were losing 1/3 Statewide, while at the same time spending half our budget, the liberal theory goes, we are still not spending enough.

What about healthcare?
The whizzer says:
“Liberals support universal health care, where dollars go directly from public funding to private, entrepreneurial health care providers (doctors, clinics, hospitals) without the exorbitant costs for underwriting and profiteering of insurance company middlemen that drive up health care costs and provide profit-driven incentives to provide LESS health care.”
He blames the costs on insurance companies, when the costs are from a SERVICE INDUSTRY, which means its people’s wages, salaries, and benefits.
Insurance companies are part of the cost, but not most of the cost. It’s ridiculous.
You look at any… ANY service industry, and by far the highest portion of total costs are for employees. School districts are prime examples of these costs, where 85-90% of all costs are the employees, not overhead, or buildings, or equipment.

He drivels on….

“Liberals support investing in adequate infrastructure and emergency resources in advance…” Oh really, it that why we have stuff crumbling in our own State, while they steal the money from our gas taxes?

It continues…
“Liberals support adequate investigation and attention to actual valid intelligence and successfully prevent terror attacks…”
Total fantasy….
After the Sept. 11 attacks, the CIA says it is still years away from fielding the network of spies and spymasters it will need to defeat global terrorists.
We have only about 1,000 case officers assigned against terrorist organizations around the world. And why would that be? Because recruitment of new case officers hit record lows in 1995 and 1996, when only 25 a year graduated from the CIA's training center, and hasn’t picked up since. Part of the “Peace Dividend” it was called, championed by John Kerry, who on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget.
And how many times has the wiz defended this guy?

He then boasts…

“Liberals support anticipating and preventing environmental disaster
I would remind you, that the levees in New Orleans were began in 1965 under LBJ, and continued throughout the years until Katrina hit. That’s some 40 year plan of protection, and it still didn’t work. Reminds me of the Big Dig in Boston.
It was supposed to protect the city, but as all pork barrel projects go on, and on, and on, and on… they become careers for some.

But I really have to draw the line here on this bogus statement. “Liberals can do so much and still run surplus budgets…”
I’ve allowed the wiz to promote the LBJ lie long enough. While LBJ might have run a theorized budget surplus, it is not surplus if you’re borrowing Social Security money. If you actually look at those budget years, 1964 through 1969, the only thing that saved him was the surpluses running in Social Security. For example, in 1964; Receipts were: $112,613 (million), while Outlays were:
$118,528 (million), that's a negative of $-5,915 (million).
Same to in 1965; Receipts were: $116,817
(million), while Outlays were: $118,228
(million). And it goes on like this until 1969 where you find an On-Budget Outlay of $158,436 (million), and a Receipt of only $157,928 (million) thus producing a negative $-507 (million).
The wizzer has said he ran a surplus, that is false. He borrowed out of Social Security. That is not a surplus. It’s borrowing against a future liability.
If you don’t want to believe me, go to the link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hist.html
And look for yourself.

Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:27 AM:I would kindly say to my dear friend DD Wiz @10:22 AM, I'm vying for the prize. ... Letter's we admire. LOL

Ms M wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:40 AM:Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:22 AM Did anyone read this looooooooooooong post?

Focal Point wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:43 AM:esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:46 AM: Individual terrorist or small groups of terrorists, foreign or domestic, can attack anywhere and at any time in the United States regardless of whether the border is secured or not secured and regardless of all the preventive high tech equipment used and despite the fact that the full weight of the original Patriot Act was brought to bear. It does not matter what political party or what type of President is in power. Terrorists individual or collective can attack this country at any time and any place at will. Parading around playing the fear card and the political party responsible card is of no service to this country.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:44 AM: The post from "Ron" (11:22am) finally cites an actual ".gov" source for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) figures (which he copied because I provided the link in previous posts) which shows, exactly as I stated, that the COMBINED federal budget for FY1969, the last year of LBJ's presidency, was a combined SURPLUS.
This combined budget SURPLUS was achieved despite the costs of the Vietnam War, Apollo moon landing program, and trying to establish the start-up costs for a War on Poverty that following Republicans would effectively gut.
Desperate to try and twist this into something else, he tries to break out the budget into its components and try to selectively show that one part did have a deficit. But even using his figures, the component he cites had a deficit of ½ a billion dollars; not even one billion, compared to the current president's proposed combined total overall budget of 400 BILLION and, using "Ron's" selective methodology, would be twice that when using his exact same selection.
As I said, LIBERAL proactive strategies to PREVENT problems cost less and do more.
CONSERVATIVE failed reactive policies cost more and do less.
Thank you again, "Ron," for reaffirming this.
And, definitely, your 10:18am post is still in the running for most outrageous comedy award -- and this effort to again creatively distort the record only reinforces how funny that claim to have posts "filled with facts" really is!
Keep it up! Laughter is the best medicine!

Ms M wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:46 AM:Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:22 AM Did anyone read this looooooooooooong post? LOL

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:48 AM: The post from "Ron" (11:22am) asks regarding John Kerry:
"how many times has the wiz defended this guy?"
In order for me to provide the quality of appropriate response your thoughtful analysis deserves (::::::uncontrolled laughter:::::::), please cite the exact date and time of the post(s) you are referring to in which I "defended" John Kerry.
I always afford you that courtesy, but then when I am referring to your posts, I also quote you accurately :-)

Concerned-1 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 12:00 PM:In regards to the Fredi Avalos letter. True, there is a growing anti-Latino sentiment here in California. As a 3rd Gen OC boy, I grew up with what we called "Mexicans" all my life. Many were close friends. Hell, I was almost born in Ensenada. Anyway, I've always felt close to the culture. Unfortunately in the past couple of years, the May 1 rallies and ridiculous LaRaza rants have gotten to me. I am one of a growing number of people who are fed up with a sub-culture that steals into the country and demands we support them. Especially when we are paying the most in taxes of any state in the union and we have the worst educational system. Both directly related to our subsidizing illegal aliens. So Fredi, you are right, but you brought it on yourselves. Deal with it.

esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 12:27 PM:Nice thinking Focal Point. That's like saying...crime is part of life, deal with it and let's do away with the police. Your liberal thoughts will get your family hurt from Islamists. To "to esteban"...I responded to you yesterday but the NCt refused to print it. I know you say you talked to one more miltary man than I did and you talked to some medical people who told you war was hell, so no matter what I say, you will somehow have the right facts and know the right people to back you up. It's easy when your argument is full of BS. Face it...you know nothing. The media is biased, and once again, you have lost an argument to me. Now go away.

esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 12:28 PM:DDWiz...since you believe in Al Gore and his wacky theories, I conclude you are not smart. Thanks.

To Ms M wrote on Feb 14, 2008 12:32 PM:I never read Ron's posts if they are looooooooooooong or short. Same with Karl and Esteban's I just use the down arrow as suggested by DD Wiz.

Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 12:36 PM:I see in the news that the 11% approval rated Nancy Legosi has told Bush to shove it on spying on the terrorists. We all know why--"Any sucess on the war on terror is detrimental to the causes of the democratic party" I'm guessing that rating will be passed right down to Her Viciousness and Hussein Obama when they back Pelosi

1f05j wrote on Feb 14, 2008 12:48 PM:Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:19 AM: Ola hombre! I would like to debate you about the hoard of voters that are illegaly casting their ballots. But, I am too occupied counting the hoard of illegals. Let me see, there is Enrique, Jorje, Jeusus, Jose, Martin, Luke and John. LOL

Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:00 PM:Unbelievable!!!!
But.. that's wizzer for ya. He completely dodges every point I made, only to re-state what I caught him on. LOL
He runs past education vs. prisons, right past healthcare expensives as a service industry, right past
the so-called "investing in adequate infrastructure and emergency resources"
past prevention of terror attacks,
past 40 year failure of Katrina levees,
and right into "Liberals can do so much and still run surplus budgets…”
Which he NOW admits was only a surplus if you count stealing Social Security money. Now, for those of us in the real world, that's a kin to borrowing out of your 401K plan to buy groceries or a new car. You know you have to pay it back, AT INTEREST, so to say this was a success, is a total stretch.
And I finally want to put an end to this myth of the Clinton surplus.
According to U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily, can you please explain to me, how you have achieved a surplus, when your actual debt increases every year since 1993? For example: in Fiscal
Year FY1993, the National Debt stood at $4.411488 trillion. By FY1996, it stood at: $5.224810 trillion. In FY1999, it stood at: $5.656270 trillion. FY2000: $5.674178 trillion. FY2001: $5.807463 trillion. These figuires are easily obtained at the Tresury website: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
How is it possible to have the DEBT go up, when you have a surplus?

Karl wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:00 PM:To "Ms M wrote on Feb 14, 2008 11:46 AM:" I did. I got my stamina up reading double D's.

By the way, first it was image verification then email address. What's next? Drivers License Number, SSN, first born?

Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:08 PM:Another blow to Chris- The news is reporting a top Hezbollah terrorist had his head blown off. I'm guessing is was an Israeli sniper. Dont you just hate it when that happens??

James wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:12 PM:Take a look outside. If this keeps up our resovoirs will be full of global warming.

to esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:18 PM:great post at 12:27, esteban. You sure showed that guy. Keep posting here, dude. You are the light.

Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:19 PM:To Focal Point: You are absolutely correct, as far as you go. A small cell, or an individual can even assassinate a president or any official, but the purpose of interdiction is to diminish the possibility and to keep small cells from developing larger targets with still more sophisticated methods. We cannot stop muggings, robberies of fast-food eateries locally, either, but we still have a police presence to keep it down to a dull roar. It is much easier to plan and execute anything if there is no know surveillance. Energy, money and time expended in counter surveillance is energy, money and time not spent in executing terrorist activities. Our choice is minor challenges to our “right to privacy” today, or SEVERE restrictions should there be a rash of terrorists on our soil. To overcome a rash of terrorist bombings, the American public WILL panic, and demands draconian restrictions on our liberties in the name of public safety. Sad, but true.

what if? wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:27 PM:Let's play "what if?" with just a couple of reasonable assumptions. What if Gore had become President in 2000 and then, after 911, gone into Afghanistan more or less as Bush did. I assume he'd not have had any interest in Iraq, so that country would be under Saddam, contained, armyless, weaponless. "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" would not exist. Our 150K military, with supportive allies (unbegged, unbribed) would have been fighting with us in Pakistan/Afghanistan. No poppy crop, as it was when we chased the Taliban out in '03. Anyone want to speculate further? This seems like a fair start...

GFN wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:28 PM:While briefly watching the Roger Clemens hearing yesterday, I saw our Rep. Darrel Issa siding with Clemens against a man who says he injected Roger with steroids. Why would Issa berate this man when Clemen's trainer, Brian McNamee, really had nothing to gain by lying about Clements?
Today, the answer becomes clear: Richard Emery, the trainer's attorney, thought about Roger's testimony overnight, and Clemens' reference to the call he received from the elder GHBush telling Roger to be strong during these troubled times. Mr. Emery is convinced that the questioning by Republicans was a concerted effort to help Roger Clemens who is very good friends with the Bush family who attended many of his games in Houston.

"All the pieces fell into place given his friendship, his personal friendship with the Bush family," Emery said. "They have some belief that even if he's prosecuted, he will never have to serve jail time, as he will be pardoned by GWB, or face a trial. This is a charade we're going through."
Remember that Issa is the ambitious one who will do anything to gain favor with the Bushes...and beware of ambitious men, et tu Brutus.

esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:31 PM:Ms. M...that is what people (like you) with no argument do, they refuse to listen to the other side. It tends to make themselves look bad. Chuck, that is the bottom line...success in the war equals bad press for the dems. It's amazing how they'll sell the country down the river just to stay in power. If you are a liberal, then you are as good as Al Queda to me...you're nothin.

times have changed, Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:32 PM:Your ever-repeated but never cited quote is now out of date as well as being false. Considering the way the election season has shaped up, I'd venture to say that a terror attack on us, or very bad news in the Middle East, would be things that John McCain would benefit from...a lot. He's the tough guy, after all...the war guy. He wants to take it to them, right? No, if you're gonna use that fake quote, you should correct it: Any success in the war on terror is detrimental to the presidential hopes of John McCain and the Republican party.

Focal Point wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:32 PM:esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 12:27 PM:
It is not liberal thought. Any thought not coinciding with your thoughts is liberal thought. Terrorism is a fact of life just like crime. In fact, it is criminal. What I stated is factual and accurate. It is not a matter of what I think. It is the truth. Collective terrorism that we can identify and isolate can be dealt with militarily as in the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Individual terrorism needs to be addressed by national police forces and trained units as in the case of the Germans, French and Italians.

sdraoul wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:35 PM:Concerned 1 is mistaken in his views, he and others don't subsidize illegals, they subsidize him and them. What does he think his dinner costs today? What would it cost if the illegals didn't put that food on his plate?

With billions of illegal confiscations for Social Security being distributed to Social security beneficiaries, how do the beneficiaries feel about some of their checks coming from illegals? Of course, people like Concerned 1 don't know about the Social Security bonus illegals pay but can't collect. How about the hundreds of millions they pay in property taxes that pay for everything from schools to streets and deputies pay? Concerned 1 complains about AMERICAN CITIZENS hitting the streets to protest stupid bills in Congress that did not pass and he complains about a group that represents millions of fellow Americans, yet he can't see the forest for the trees. To Concerned 1 and others who think like him, get an education, get the facts.

Confused wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:40 PM:I don't understand why conservatives are always complaining about our educational system. Complaining about the teachers, their union, the standards, the students, the parents, complain complain complain. My confusion comes from the obvious fact that these people HATE education. Listen to them talk about educated people. Nothing but insults. "Book learning is a waste of time" "Real life is the only teacher" etc etc Yet they complain about the educational system. Face it: if they could have their way, in their heart of hearts, they'd abolish ANY tax money going to education at all. A few wealthy ones might decide on their own to send a kid to school to become a doctor or lawyer, but otherwise, who needs it? Makes the common folk uppity. Leads them to believe they have minds, that they can replace wealth with skill and knowledge. Not a good idea. OK, so please, stop complaining.

esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:53 PM:And Mr. Focal Point, how do you identify both "collective" and "individual" terrorism? With eavesdropping, spying, sneakiness, and kicking in the lowlife's doors in the middle of the night!!!! Why hamper efforts to identify these pukes. You think Bush REALLy wants to listen in on Joe Blow's stupid phone calls? Get real.

Ms M wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:59 PM:esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:31 PM This liberal has a son who served a year in Kuwait. He is a helicopter mechanic and is in the National Guard so don't you EVER compare me to Al Queda or talk to me about bad press especially when my son is due to go back in 2009 if this madness has not ended. I have supported the troops as all liberals do from day one - it is not their fault that their commander in chief put them in the middle of a mess.

Nixon did wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:02 PM:Nixon and JE Hoover really DID want to listen in on Joe Blow's phone calls. If Joe Blow was a civil rights activist, or was a member of a group that thought the VietNam war was wrong. Maybe esteban is right, but when I look at the record of Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the secrecy they love, I just don't think of them as being different in that way from Nixon and Hoover. I could be wrong. But Nixon was the reason FISA was passed, with great public approval.

Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:14 PM:To Confused: You are well named! I complain about “education” – actually about schooling (since you can be self-educated without schooling), because we are not getting what we are paying for! I personally have a sufficiency of schooling, BS in engineering, MA in management, 14 years prof. of computer science – I love education! In California we have the second highest paid public school teachers in the nation, but we rank in the bottom 10% of the states and territories in reading and math, as tested by the US Dept of Education and reported annually in the National Report Card! Right now, without serious reform, any money spent in California on schooling is moneny badly spent.

Ms M wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:31 PM:esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:31 PM This liberal has a son who served a year in Kuwait. He is a helicopter mechanic and is in the National Guard so don't you EVER compare me to Al Queda or talk to me about bad press especially when my son is due to go back in 2009 if this madness has not ended. I have supported the troops as all liberals do from day one - it is not their fault that their commander in chief put them in the middle of a mess.

Right on Ms. M.... wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:32 PM:You tell 'em. It is know it all all's like Esteban who create such division in our world. They just can't handle anyone to disagree with them and if you do then you are Un-America or worse yet Al Queda. Thank you for your sacrifice and that of your son. I hope this useless war ends soon.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:35 PM: The post from "Ron" (1:00pm) shows he is really dishonest about misrepresenting the record, really illiterate about economics, or really trying hard for that most outrageous comedy award!
"Ron" provides an excellent and valid link to an OFFICIAL ".gov" site showing the National Debt, and then notes that the national debt increased during years when the Office of Management and Budget showed combined budget surpluses.
"Ron" rightly asks: "How is it possible to have the DEBT go up, when you have a surplus?"
What is the point of his question?
The current Bush administration is the one responsible for keeping both the National Debt web page and the OMB deficit/surplus page.
Is there something sinister going on in "Ron's" beloved Bush administration?
Should he not direct his question to them instead of asking it here ---
OR, should he just read the definitions on the web page HE provided a link to?
You will note that if you do that, you will note that the DEFINITION of the national debt held by the public is not computed based on revenues and expenditures as the OMB surpluses/deficits are. It is based not on the actual cash value of redeemable securities, but on the FACE AMOUNT, which may not mature for several years, yet is not the actual amount currently redeemable, which is the real liability.
And another thing I just find incredibly humorous is how the same conservatives who try to interpret the FDR process of separating on-budget and off-budget accounts (though the combined totals are also shown along side the on- and off- tables, so it isn't exactly like there is a big secret or something) are the first ones to use whichever column alone best makes the point they are trying to make, while I have been consistent in using the total combined budgets of the entire federal budget. Again, I continue to be amazed at the extent these desperate, pathetic number-jugglers will go to in twisting and selectively emphasizing whatever they want to try to make a specific point, while failing to show comparative numbers from their favorite Republican administrations using whatever standard they apply to Democrats.
In any case, my suggestion to "Ron" is to take his questions to the federal agencies that prepare these tables, and then take whatever standard he wants to apply to either LBJ's budget which OMB shows as a combined SURPLUS and Clinton's final four years which OMB also shows as combined SURPLUSES each year, and apply those to the budget years of the Reagan, Papa Bush and Dubya administrations, and just compare them using whatever standard he wants, as long as it is the same.
Oh, by the way, did you find that reference for me where I defended Kerry yet? (Reference, yours of 11:22am and mine of 11:48.) Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:37 PM:Tell us how the liberals in Berkeley love the Marines! Please tell us.

to Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:39 PM:good for you to bring up the education problem again. In addition to a large immigrant population and the women's movement, I would say that the entire way American culture has developed in the last 40-50 years is a huge part of this. I'm the opposite of a 60's-blamer and don't believe this has anything to do with "left" or "right". Rather, our success after WWII produced a population that saw salvation in consumerism. Buying and discarding things quickly and easily brings happiness. Active, avid consumerism drives the economy. As we became more successful, we turned ourselves into a kind of entertainment-based society. Instead of the forms of entertainment being little oases from the grim realities of life, they became the thing that people expect 24/7...they ARE life. Instead of young people wanting to pursue responsible careers, they want to be famous. Like I say, foolish people will want to make this a political issue. They'll bash the 60s generation's "if it feels good, do it" idea. But remember, that idea, in its actual time, had to do with promoting low-cost living and a spiritual lifestyle. Consumerism co-opted this and made it "if it feels good, do it, and to do it, you have to buy this cool thing!" We surround ourselves with entertainment. Gone are any cultural venues where extended conversation about complicated topics are discussed. So how could anyone expect the schools to overcome the entire culture? I am a liberal, but would not throw money at the schools. The schools, if they had the world's best teachers, would be in the same boat, inconsequential in the world view of our entire society. Boring. Trivial. Everything we do is based on wanting new things NOW. The idea of the past is dead. This doesn't explain why California is among the worst of a bad group. The weather? The immigrants? Being the center of that culture of entertainment? Having adults who champion that value system even louder than others? Beats me.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:47 PM: The posts from "Ms M" (1:59pm and 2:31pm) underscore the unnecessary cruelty of conservatives like "esteban" -- who not only add insult to injury, but also injury to injury as they belittle those who actually have loved ones in harm's way and are sacrificing more and SUPPORTING THE TROOPS more than small-minded conservatives can ever imagine.
"Ms M" is right. Liberals support our troops and support legitimate military actions to protect and defend this great nation and its freedoms, such as World War II and going after the Al Qaeda terrorists being harbored by the Taliban government of Afghanistan. We do not support wasting precious lives of loved ones in frivolous wars of choice that invade other nations' sovereignty and expand the worldwide reach of Al Qaeda by opening new troubled spots where they can fester.
"esteban" should be ashamed of how he disrespects the troops and their loved ones and seeks to keep them at risk and in harm's way in a manner that makes us less safe and strengthens the terrorists.
To "Ms M": Bless you and your family for your service and sacrifice, and praying for safety and that no further troops be jeopardized in what you so rightly refer to as MADNESS.

Karl wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:47 PM:To "sdraoul wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:35 PM" Let me get this straight, you said "With billions of illegal confiscations for Social Security" does this mean that funds are illegally being confiscated from illegals immigrants who obtain Social Security numbers fraudulently? Then you go on to say "Social Security bonus illegals pay but can't collect". The way I see it, the number they used to pay into SS was stolen and leaves the original number owner open for identity theft.

I do believe that illegal immigrants both contribute and drain resources. The million dollar question is how much on both sides. I would really like to see a comprehensive study by a neutral source that could lay out the plusses and minusses on an easy to read spread sheet. With this information both sides could quit throwing out big numbers with no representation for the other side.

You see while you preach the value added you always omit the value subtracted. In both of these subjects you need to bring all the facts to the table not just the ones that support you side of the debate.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:49 PM: The post from "Reardon" (2:37pm) asks:
"Tell us how the liberals in Berkeley love the Marines! Please tell us."
Uhm, how about, they don't want them to either kill or be killed?

Cluck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:50 PM:more of the same conservative "personal responsibility" in today's posts. take no accountability and call those who disagree the enemy. Typical from these filthy conservatives who are determined to destroy this country because of their hate of half of its citizens. Thank God conservatism is dead. We will pray for you. Even if you don't deserve it.

Karl wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:52 PM:Good point Reardon. I suspect you will not recieve an answer on the Bezerkly deal.

Cluck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:58 PM:Esteban calling someone not smart is right on. He/she is definitely the authority on "not smart." That's what happens when one is an enemy of the state, their hatred gets in the way of any intelligent discourse. Keep up the good work! ... God Bless America!!

Snowbird-2 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:58 PM:I have studied a lot of science, mechanical, industrial, and manufacturing engineering, with postgraduate courses in business, and worked in those fields. Most recently as a scientific computer programmer with satellites, and factual activities like that. I usually deal in facts. I had only a few courses in psychology so I cannot claim expertise in that field. Therefore I am hesitant to say the writings of another commenter indicate he may be a pompous obsessive-compulsive egomaniac. That might be exaggerating a bit, and I would not want to hurt someone else’s feelings, so I won’t say it. Well, not today anyway. Cheers!

Ms M wrote on Feb 14, 2008 3:04 PM:Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:37 PM I'm not in Berkley. Are you saying that ALL cons. support this war - if so that's only 30% of the country and we both know that the repub. make up more than 30%. Stop lumping everyone together.

Ms M wrote on Feb 14, 2008 3:04 PM:Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:37 PM I'm not in Berkley. Are you saying that ALL cons. support this war - if so that's only 30% of the country and we both know that the repub. make up more than 30%. Let's stop lumping everyone together.

Chris to Confused wrote on Feb 14, 2008 3:08 PM:All you have to do is read the blogs from the conservatives and you will see why they hate education, because they don't want any and as for esteban to accuse someone of not listening to the other side, that is hypocrisy at it's ultimate.

Ms M wrote on Feb 14, 2008 3:11 PM:Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 2:37 PM I'm not in Berkley and what they are doing is beyond stupid. In fact if I am not mistaken they are back peddling big time - thank goodness. Are you saying that ALL cons. support this war - if so that's only 30% of the country and we both know that the repub. make up more than 30%. Let's stop lumping everyone together.

Focal Point wrote on Feb 14, 2008 3:11 PM:esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 1:53 PM: My oh my is your face turning red from your hypertension. Such anger. Individual terrorists come in deep cover moles and spontaneous emotional kookies. Collective terrorists is a term that I employ to describe cells. Cells are usually isolated from other cells in order to protect their
viability and identity. Most terrorists are identified by citizens. They are unmasked by vigilant aware citizens who provide information to the specaily trained anti terrorists units. This was in the case of many nations in Europe especially how the Italians dealt with the Red Brigade. The methods that you mentioned used by George Bush have so far been unsuccessful. What I think is that GWB, Dead Eye Dick and Karl Rove wish to an do want to listen in to any body that they consider their political enemy. I do not believe any thing GWB says. The resources of the CIA and FBI were misused in the past against citizens and permanent residents in this country prior to the Patriot Act. Who knows what Bush is up to? You See, esteban, all the information and how it is secured is CLASSIFIED whether or not the information is worthy of such designation. Esteban/Chuck, you have a great night. It was a wonderful time playing with your head.

esteban wrote on Feb 14, 2008 3:17 PM:DDWIZ...you'll never find a more staunch supporter of our military and police than me. And I would love to see our troops home as much as anyone. But the job need to be finished first. I will not support your gutless policy of cut and run. That is a slap in the face of the men who died. Liberals like YOU are hurting our troops by not letting our elected Prez (like him or not) use the tools necessary to possibly shorten this war. So don't lump me in with anti American nuts like Chris, who actually wants to see more dead US troops.

Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 3:19 PM:>>That might be exaggerating a bit, and I would not want to hurt someone else’s feelings, so I won’t say it. Well, not today anyway. Cheers!>>> Aww come on. We like factiacs and other genuises to lay it on us. We can take it. I havent signed my SB777 declaration to turn myself into a girly-man.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 3:29 PM: The post from "Snowbird-2" (2:58pm) brags about having "studied a lot of science, mechanical, industrial, and manufacturing engineering, with postgraduate courses in business, and worked in those fields. Most recently as a scientific computer programmer with satellites, and factual activities like that."
Wow, pretty impressive, huh?!
Of course, in logic, they would call that arguing from a "claim to authority" which is one of the great logical fallacies, but I guess that is what people do when they don't have REAL facts and logic on their side.
And also of course, this being an anonymous blog, anyone can create whatever "personae" they want, and "Snowbird-2" has decided to create the personae of having "studied a lot of science, mechanical, industrial, and manufacturing engineering, with postgraduate courses in business, and worked in those fields. Most recently as a scientific computer programmer with satellites, and factual activities like that."
For my part, my online personae is that I am a barely literate third-grade dropout.
I claim no credentials or qualifications whatsoever.
So all I can do is cite FACTS and document them from actual PEER-REVIEWED studies.
I guess it says a lot when a barely-literate third grade dropout with no qualifications whatsoever can completely and repeatedly confound an expert of the obvious mastery of "Snowbird-2" (or was that "Snow Job Too"?).
In order to do that, I would guess the barely-literate third-grade dropout with no qualifications whatsoever would have to really find some good resources.
Not only that, but notice how it usually takes me a few minutes to find scads of well-documented PEER-REVIEWED scientific and academic journal articles, whereas "Snowbird-2" with all his education, degrees, qualifications and obvious intelligence, can't find ANY!
Hint: it is a lot easier and faster to find things that really exist.
And "Snowbird-2" continues to evade and avoid the real relevant question:
Why is he doing this? Why is he so invested in pushing the propaganda of Big Oil Bullies?
If this highly educated scholar is not just another ... victim of the DUMBING DOWN of science education in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE, then what is his direct interest in promoting the AGENDA of the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators?
Does he own a gas station? Own a fleet of tanker trucks? Work as a propagandist for the Big Oil Bullies? Or just have some investments -- stocks, bonds, IRA, 401k, mutual funds -- heavily concentrated in the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators?

Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 3:44 PM: >>read the blogs from the conservatives and you will see why they hate education,>>> we dont hate education, we hate union public school education. We just happen to think that math, science, english and literature is more preparatory than diversity class, putting condoms on cucumber class, and "Johnny has 2 daddies" indoctrination class

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 3:51 PM: The post from "esteban" (3:17pm) protests how much he is a "staunch supporter of our military." Sorry, guy, I don't buy it. Methinks thou doth protest too much.
"esteban" says he wants to give our "Prez" the "tools" to do whatever he wants to keep our troops in harm's way because he "will not support" the "gutless policy of cut and run."
Hello, "esteban," it was Prez DUBYA who CUT AND RAN from the REAL WAR ON TERROR when he had Osama bin Forgotten cornered at Tora Bora, outsourced the job of capturing him to local warlords who were fighting on the other side the week before, and diverted the troops to IRAQ which had NOTHING TO DO WITH AL QAEDA OR TERRORISM.
To "esteban": you say "the job need to be finished first."
HELLO! The "JOB" was to fight terrorism. Bush and the war in Iraq have made it worse.
Dubya and anyone who supports him and this war are TRAITORS to the war against the real terrorists and enablers of the Big Oil Bullies who are profiteering on the death of noble American soldiers.
To "esteban": you owe "Ms M" and all the gold star mothers and those whose sons are in Iraq or may be called to this WASTE OF RESOURCES a huge apology for the devastation and tragedy YOUR SUPPORT HAS CAUSED.

Chris wrote on Feb 14, 2008 3:52 PM:For someone in the minor leagues I shure seem to pull a lot of chains. Esteban say's that I want to see a lot of dead troops. No I don't I just want to see them pack it up because all the people they are killing are Iraqi citizens but of course esteban has no problem with that. None of the people we have killed or that have been killed in this so-called war were a threat to us. You see the reason I am hated is because I am upset over the wonton killing of muslims and because of that I am an American hater and want to surrender the U.S. to these non-existant terrorist (the ones who are comming after us).

Berkeley wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:04 PM:The liberals in Berkeley probably do love the Marines and other troops. So much that they don't want them to be bamboozled into thinking that our President's wars have anything to do with the national defense. If I had a kid who loved his country and wanted to be a hero, and I lived in Berkeley, I'd encourage him to go to one of the colleges in the area. That would be doing much, much more for our country than volunteering for a deadly scam. As for the troops that are there, I support their coming home as soon and as alive as possible. The "job" of policing the entire middle east into a oil-corporation-friendly faux-democracy is not, IMHO, a noble job. Let Bush and his followers send their kids and grandkids, since they are the ones who intend to benefit from it. Or let the oil companies and related profiteers just go this one on all private money. Hire merceneries, stop duping our kids. Go have your little bloodsheds on your own dime.

Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:06 PM:To DD: To paraphrase Churchill (on battleships): That is what Marines are for – to kill and be killed. They understand their mission perfectly well, and not only accept their purpose, they volunteer for that role. Do you have another proposal for their use?

Chris to Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:12 PM:No Chuck you hate education. You see I used to think like you then I did a terrible thing. I asked questions and started doing research. That is something you will never do. Now I can stand up and be counted because I know the truth and can stand up to people like you because I know that all your rhetoric is pure BS. Now of course you try to throw out the red herring of cucumbers and other nonsense. There is a reason why dictators get rid of the academics and that is because these academics can't be led around by the nose and that is what you are trying to do. So my statement stands. You hate education because then you might have to let go of your anchor of beligerent jingoism and then you would be lost. Just like these Christians you have to have an anchor to hold onto and if anything comes along that does not agree with all the dogma you hold dear, then you totaly ignore it and attack anyone who presents it to you.

Nick wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:31 PM:You know "Whizzer", just because some of us folks don't by all of the hype on Global Warming, you accuse us of being ignorant, flat-earth scientists, in some sort of Conservative War against Science(which I LMAO every time you say it), or somehow being involved in the Petroleum business. How about the fact that we just don't buy all the hype, Period! Get it. Quit belittling all those who don't share your viewpoint, it makes you look pretty bad. I have found plenty of scientific data that proves the earth's temperatures fluctuate up and down and they always have. Global Warming is not the end of the world dilemma you make it out to be.
Cheers, Nick.

snowbird-2 wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:37 PM:I was surprised to read that DD Wiz at 3:29 PM claims his online persona to be a barely literate third grade dropout. That does explain a lot, doesn’t it! I would have guessed he was at least a high school graduate who took English and history classes but no science courses or math. A recent post by me stated that complete burning of one gallon of pure gasoline in air produces only a little more than one gallon of water (as water vapor) and CO2 gas. Carbon Dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas produced by people and animals breathing, and required by plants during photosynthesis. It is also used in carbonated drinks. When I posted that recently he went into his literary about prove it by citing peer reviewed scientific journals. Well Duh! A student part way through first year high school chemistry should be able to calculate that as a routine assignment based on what was taught in his textbook. And if he missed learning it there it is repeated in more complexity in freshman college chemistry class.

Ron wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:38 PM:OMG wiz ole buddy, I honestly do not know how you stay in business, if you in anyway calculate your own books the way these "very creative" types do in the government. I would hope you would not. But your post @2:35 PM says this: "It is based not on the actual cash value of redeemable securities, but on the FACE AMOUNT, which may not mature for several years, yet is not the actual amount currently redeemable, which is the real liability."
And yet, GAAP requires that you ACCRUE for all future liabilites. Are you telling me you don't accrue? I know the government doesn't, they steal it.

to Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:45 PM:It's true that they volunteer, and that their job is to kill and be killed. But ask them what they are dying and killing FOR. Listen to their answers. Then ask them where they got THAT idea. If they knew the truth about what our military's job was, at least since WWII, I think the rate of enlistment would be about 10% what it is now. If that were the case, then I'd agree with you're 4:06 post 100%. At the moment, however, I think the government lies to them completely about what it's all about. That's criminal to me. People laughed with derision when Mitt Romney said his sons' work for his campaign was their "service to their country". But where are the children of Bush? Cheney? Wolfowitz? Rumsfeld? and all the rest? All those beneficiaries of this war. It's dishonest to the very core. IMHO

Nick wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:55 PM:Tibet's Temperatur Story:
An article forthcoming in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology tells a very different story – and a story that will not be featured anywhere but World Climate Report. The research was conducted by scientists from various Chinese institutions, Columbia University, and the University of Delaware; the work was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China.
The Gou et al. team took 139 tree ring cores from 97 trees located in the valley of Qiemuqu in the Animagin Mountains in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau; you all realize from your geography classes that this valley produces a major headwater tributary of the Yellow River. They found that the tree ring widths were very highly correlated with summer maximum air temperatures in the region (the trees love cool summers), and this allowed for a surprisingly accurate way to reconstruct temperatures back 700 years.
In their own words, Gou et al. observe “The ten-year average summer half-year maximum temperature in the 1990s is relatively high, but it is still colder than several other periods, including 1480s–1490s and 1590s–1600s. The 1480s is the warmest period in the past 700 years. The summer half-year maximum temperature can change significantly within decades.”
Even more amazing, with respect to all the material we see on the internet is their finding that “There is no warming trend for the reconstructed summer half-year maximum temperature since the Industrial Revolution in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau.” Further, we learn “The summer half-year maximum temperature in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau has increased since the 1980s, but it is not exceptional on centennial or millennial timescales. The ten-year average summer half-year maximum temperature in the 1990s was relatively high, but was still colder than several other periods.” You undoubtedly see now why this article will be immediately dismissed by the global warming crusade.
I will leave you with this exact quote, because it speaks volumes as they so clearly state
“There is no warming trend since the Industrial Revolution, in fact, the linear trend is negative.”
Reference:

Gou, X; J. Peng, F. Chen, M. Yang, D.F. Levia, and J. Li. 2008. A dendrochronological analysis of maximum summer half-year temperature variations over the past 700 years on the northeastern Tibetan Plateau. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, DOI 10.1007/s00704-007-0336-y.

Nick wrote on Feb 14, 2008 4:59 PM:Antarctic Snowfall Increase:
The ice caps hold a special place in the cold hearts of the global warming advocates who are all too quick to insist that our ice caps are currently melting at an unprecedented rate. We suspect that they will not be particularly thrilled to learn that a paper has just appeared in Geophysical Research Letters entitled “A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.” The article is by scientists with the British Antarctic Survey and the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada; the work was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council and the U.S. National Science Foundation. In case you think that the Desert Research Institute in Nevada would have little interest in Antarctica, recall from geography classes you’ve had that Antarctica receives little precipitation and is regarded by climatologists as a frozen desert.
We have covered Antarctica many times in past essays, and despite literally thousands of websites claiming that some calamity is occurring in Antarctica related to global warming, we side with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in this matter. Magazine covers have wonderful pictures of melting of the Antarctic, but IPCC in their 2007 report clearly states “Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region” (in fact, Antarctic sea ice extent has recently set record highs for both total areal extent as well as total extent anomaly (see here and here)). Furthermore, IPCC tells the world (and we wonder if anyone is listening) “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.”
Elizabeth Thomas and her two colleagues begin their article noting “Antarctic precipitation is a difficult parameter to measure directly, primarily because of problems with blowing snow. A recent synthesis of available data suggests no significant change in snowfall across the continent as a whole since the 1950s. However, proxy indicators do suggest an increase in the Peninsula.” They note “that the number of days with precipitation — based on synoptic observations of ‘present weather’ — at Faraday station, in the north-western Peninsula, increased at a rate of 12.4 days/decade between 1950–99. In addition, model data reveal an upward trend in regional precipitation for the period 1980–2004 while satellite altimeter data indicate an increase in elevation in the western Peninsula for 1992–2003, thought to be due to greater snowfall.” Notice that they are talking about more snow and more snow accumulation – in Antarctica.
Thomas et al. analyzed a medium depth ice core drilled at a high accumulation site (Gomez) on the south-western Antarctic Peninsula (73.59°S, 70.36°W, 1400 m) (see map , Figure 1). If you want the details, the core was drilled in January 2007 using an electromechanical, 104 mm diameter drill to a depth of 136 m. As seen in the figure below, the snow accumulation (measured in meters of water equivalent per year, mweq y-1), has as the title of the article suggests, been rising like a rocket. In their own words, the authors state “Annual accumulation has more than doubled in the last 150 years: the mean for 1855–1864 was 0.49 mweq y-1while for 1997–2006 it was 1.10 mweq y-1. At the beginning of the record annual accumulation is relatively stable until about 1930 when it begins to increase steadily. Following a slight reduction in accumulation in the late 1960s, the most rapid increase occurs in the latter part of the record with the mean accumulation rate from the mid-1970s onwards increasing to 0.95 mweq y-1. Note that for the post-1980 period even the lowest annual accumulation values are still greater than the highest accumulation values from the first half of the record (1855–1924).” This huge increase may be unique to the Gomez area, but other cores sites certainly show increases in accumulation as well.
So while we’ve heard recent reports about Antarctica losing ice, here we again find evidence to the contrary, and then some, at least in these locations. Not only is there no evidence of melting at the Gomez site, snow is accumulating there at an amazingly high rate. Clearly, this paper adds to the evidence that suggests that we simply, as of yet, do not have a firm grasp on the climate changes and their drivers that are effecting Antarctica, past, present, or, much less, future.

Reference:

Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, 2008. A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Leters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.

Nick wrote on Feb 14, 2008 5:15 PM:Just a few more tidbits for you that would care for some science with view DIFFERENT than "DD Whiz's"......
-New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming: Excerpt: This study published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds that climate models fail test against real clouds. "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Dr. Roy Spencer said. "At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.
-Many prominent scientists have spoken out in 2007 to debunk many fears relating to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball recently explained that one of the reasons climate models are failing is because they overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2’s warming impact diminishes. “Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint,” Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press.
-Boston College paleoclimatologist Dr. Amy Frappier recently explained how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cease to have a warming impact. Frappier noted in a February 1, 2007 article in Boston College’s newspaper The Heights, that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere do not consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, but gases instead stabilize in the atmosphere and cease having a warming effect.
"At some point the heat-trapping capacity of [CO2] and its effect gets saturated," said Frappier, "and you don't have increased heating." "The geologic record shows that many millions of years ago, CO2 levels were indeed higher - in some cases many times higher - than today," Frappier, who believes mankind is having an impact on the climate, explained. According the article, Frappier criticizes Gore because “the movie (An Inconvenient Truth) fails to mention any ancient incongruity between carbon dioxide and temperature.”
-In May 2007, the “father of meteorology” Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin, dismissed fears of increased man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.
“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” Bryson, who has been identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world, said. (LINK) “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson added.
‘Temperature drives CO2’

Beer Man wrote on Feb 14, 2008 5:31 PM:EXPLAINING OUR UNITED STATES TAXING SYSTEM WITH BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free, but once
outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important....they didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.



For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible!

Nick wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:11 PM:Why can't I have free beer?

Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:16 PM:To To Reardon: I began my 26 year military career in Korea at 17. I am not certain I knew who the president was, much less his policies -- or what he might ask me to do in the future. I spent my career in service to my COUNTRY, serving Democrat presidents, and Republican presidents, and I served NONE of them as individuals but only the office they represented because THEY were elected by the people. (Often, twice.) I did things in furtherance of policies I disagreed with, and I was restrained in doing things I wanted to do because there were political policies against what I wanted to do. If that were not the case, the military would disintegrate in discipline -- or behave like some Latin countries and overthrow the duly elected government. Military people swear their allegiance to the nation, not to the nation's leaders as individuals, or to any specific policy. I don't think you would want it otherwise. President Bush is the duly elected leader -- twice, I would remind you. When a person enlists, they do not know what presidents under which they may serve, or what policies they may be asked to move forward.

Chris to moderator wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:39 PM:What happened to my blog to Chuck. Do I have to do it all over again. What happenes to these bloggs? A couple of words are beligerant jingoism.

RobertM wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:41 PM:Beerman: to make things fair, shouldn't the first four have been able to drink for free and also share in the $20?

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:44 PM:Do my eyes deceive me? Is it true that DD Wiz -- the one who adores peer-reviewed scientific articles -- says that an appeal to authority is a sign of faulty reasoning? Oh, each day just gets better and better!

James wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:49 PM:Nick, don't you understand that what you are talking about is weather, not climate. If you measure temperatures all around the world and find out the are falling over time ore jsut remaining constant, it's due to the weather conditions in each area. The important thing is climate change and it's climate that's changing in global warming. Global warming is causing falling temperatures all over the world.

Chris to Chuck wrote on Feb 14, 2008 6:57 PM:So you say that you are not against education. What rot. I used to think like you but then I did something you will never do and that is do some research. Because of that I can stand up to you because I know the truth and can withstand your beligerant jingoism. Of course you come out here with some red herring about cucumbers but the fact is that you are for education as long as it consist of American jingoism but if the education brings out the truth about the crimminal actions of the U.S. then you yell loud and hard in order to intimidate the person and then start calling the person who knows what is going on an American hater. The first thing that despots do is get rid of the acedemics because they know they cannot be led around by the nose. No, you don't want our schools to educate anybody you only want them to indoctrinate the student so they will join you in your pan Americanism.

Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:27 PM:I would like to call this Blogs’ attention the Senate Bill called Global Poverty Tax, (S2433) submitted to the Senate by Senator Obama, and its House Version, H.R. 1302, passed by the House in September of this past year on a voice vote.

The companion bills would direct the United States to pay to the United Nations, .7% of the Gross Domestic Product (about $850 billion more in foreign aid over 13 years than it now contributes) – but the US would have no say as to how the money would be distributed.

Exactly, Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:28 PM:They volunteer out of love for their country. But I would love them to get educated about whether sending troops to all kinds of places that are not a threat to us in any way expresses that love. I would love them to figure out that volunteering for the military rarely serves their country. Then I'd love for them to think about other things they could do at that time in their lives, with that love, and that desire to be heroic, for their country. Since at least Vietnam, the old slogans just don't wash any longer. Most of us figured out that our government was simply lying to us, trying to use us for unsavory ends, and that the government certainly did NOT act in the best interests of the country or its people. If you look over these blogs on any given day, you see this agreed upon by the vast majority of the posters, from extreme left to extreme right. Who here feels that the politicians in DC serve them? Who here feels that the politicians in DC care only about our nation? Exactly. So in the one case of sending our kids to faux-wars, invented adventures, trumped up "danger zones", you miraculously believe that these same politicians behave in the opposite ways to what you yourself probably say they do all the other time? Puh-lease. I might nudge a bit in your direction if I saw that almost every Congressperson and every member of the Cabinet had children or grandchildren in the combat zones. Then I'd think twice. But their behavior says they themselves don't believe it's for the noble defense of the nation. Why should I? Why should you?

Nick wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:33 PM:No "James", it is NOT just weather. Temperatures are used to figure Global Climate...
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a “greenhouse gas.” It absorbs energy from the Sun and then releases it back into the atmosphere. This “greenhouse effect” keeps the Earth warmer than it would be if this process did not occur.
Throughout most of the past 425,000 years the concentration of CO2 has ranged between 180 and 280 parts per million (ppm). When the concentration was at its highest the world was warmer. The Antarctic ice cores that provided evidence of ancient temperatures also contain tiny air bubbles that were trapped as snow accumulated. These bubbles have been analyzed and provide a record of CO2 concentration over time...Read this part "James", "There is a close correspondence between average global temperature and CO2 concentration". How do you get an average Global temperature? You take LOTS of temperatures from all around the world.
Are the changes in CO2 concentration causing changes in temperature or is it the other way around? It’s both.
A major reason for the drop in atmospheric CO2 as temperatures decrease is that colder oceans are able to dissolve more CO2. There is a constant exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the oceans. Gas is dissolved and also released into the atmosphere. The balance is determined largely by temperature. You can see this effect for yourself. Open a bottle of carbonated water or soda. Pour some into each of two glasses. Put one in the refrigerator and leave one at room temperature. Come back in about an hour and take a drink from each. The one in the refrigerator has retained more bubbles. The fluctuations in CO2 level in the atmosphere are part of the carbon cycle, a complex process by which carbon moves between the atmosphere, biological organisms, the Earth’s crust, and the oceans.
The drops in CO2 concentration do not always begin until after a cooling period has begun. Then, as an ice age is ending, the concentrations may remain low for some time into the warming period. This means that the CO2 changes cannot be the driving force in initiating these major climate shifts. But as the climate cools, the concentration of CO2 drops and this has a further cooling effect. And as the climate is warming, more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, further increasing global temperatures. This is called a positive feedback loop.
Another positive feedback loop appears to be occurring now in the Arctic. During the summer the ice floating in the Arctic Ocean partly melts. Each winter the ice cover increases. In recent years the ice has been retreating more in the summer and recovering less in the winter. The process tends to reinforce itself. Here’s how: Ice reflects quite a bit of sunlight. Water is much less reflective and absorbs more of the Sun’s energy. As the amount of open water increases, more of the Sun’s energy is absorbed. The water temperature increases. This causes more melting, which results in more open water, which.....you get it rright?
There is a clear relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperature. But this does not tell us what initiates the large climatic changes we have seen. The explanation may have to do with the motion of the Earth and the Sun.
Astronomer Milutin Milankovitch (1879 – 1958) studied the variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and the tilt of the Earth’s axis. He theorized that these cyclical changes and the interactions among them were responsible for long-term climate changes.
Milankovitch studied three factors:
1. Changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis;
2. Variations in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun; and
3. Precession: changes in how the tilt of the axis is oriented in relation to the orbit.....
More on this later.
Cheers, Nick.

hardtack wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:51 PM:Great letter from Harry Titus! Ah, the blessings of being governed.

Chris wrote on Feb 14, 2008 7:54 PM:I don't know if "to Chris" is still out here but if he is I just wonder if he heard about Israel building a 1000 more units in east Jeruselem. That is supposed to be Arab territory. As I said the Iraelis want the Palestinians gone. I am now just getting into the 1967 war that Israel started and one of the objectives was to encroach on Palistinian land. The U.N. came up with resolution 242 that in essence says that aquiring land by war is wrong. But since when does Israel or the U.S. give a damn about the rule of law. Let's see what sarcastic remark Chuck has over this. I wonder where he and the rest of these Arab haters are on Israel violating a U.N. resolution.

Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:16 PM:To Exactly Reardon: I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to explain that the military does not get a vote on policy. Military people cannot sign up for the duration of the enlistees satisfaction with policy. Neither would you want a military that ebbed and flowed with policy satisfaction. In your ideal world, there would be no need for a military because no one would serve for a nation wherein the government lies. ALL GOVERNMENTS LIE! QED!

Just Curious wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:40 PM:Chris: How was the Six Day War started?

JAMES wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:43 PM:Nick, that was a long post, too long for me. I gave up half way through. Who cares anyhow? Did you see American Idol last night?

Reardon wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:58 PM:To To Reardon: Let me admit that it never occurred to me that those who served with me were not the children of Congresscritters. Many were the children of other military people, and I assume that many people take the path of their parents -- both politicians and military people. My son followed me into the same service in which I served, then followed me into my current business profession, and I now work for HIM! Britain has a history of its Princes serving in the military, but we do not. Some Congresscritter's children do serve -- A Gore *whose father was a Congresscritter) served (sort of), and John McCain's son is currently at Annapolis. I served with people who wanted to serve, but it didn't enter my brain to continually ask, "Where are the sons of the Congresscritters?" Who cares?

Focal Point wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:11 PM:JAMES wrote on Feb 14, 2008 8:43 PMn Great show.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:20 PM: The post from "Reardon" (4:06pm) astonishes even me, and everyone can see for themselves his shocking disregard for human life. He "paraphrases" a comment by Winston Churchill regarding battleships (inanimate objects) and, applying it to human beings who happen to be serving their country, says, that this is what they are for: "to kill and be killed."
"Reardon" then asks: "Do you have another proposal for their use?"
Actually, "Reardon," yes I do.
How about: to protect our freedoms in legitimate military actions that actually do that, instead of being diverted from the real war against terrorists to have their precious blood spilled wastefully for a war of choice trying to secure additional resources of FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS.
On this day when we honor our beloveds (just got back from taking Mrs. Wiz -- who is well known to some of the liberals here -- out to celebrate Valentines) with lots of flowers and HEARTS, "Reardon" proves how dangerous he is and, when it comes to HEARTS, that he doesn't have one.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:22 PM: The post from "snowbird-2" (4:37pm) shows that, for all the education, experience, science, etc., yadda, yadda, yadda that he bragged about at 2:58pm, he couldn't understand the simple point made by a barely-literate 3rd-grade dropout with no qualifications.
For all the degrees, education, experience and knowledge that he claims, he should have been able to find PEER-REVIEWED studies to back up his claims, or at least understand what they are and how to find them, or with all the academic and scientific glitter and glitz he boasts of, perhaps had a few PEER-REVIEWED studies of his own published in bona fide academic and scientific journals. Yet a simple, uneducated simpleton like me is repeatedly able to back up everything I say with either government sources or qualified PEER-REVIEWED academic and scientific journal articles. Is it because I am smarter or more qualified? NO! I am not! I am obviously very uneducated, barely literate and pathetically incapable of an attention span longer than a few seconds.
Because I claim no expertise or qualifications whatsoever, everything or anything I claim can only be backed up by one thing: not my claim of authority or expertise, since I have none, but by actual qualified PEER-REVIEWED sources.
Of course, as I stated at 3:29pm, it makes it a heck of a lot easier for even an uneducated simpleton to completely outmatch an erudite, professorial academic and scientific elitist IF (and only IF) what I'm looking for (and can easily find) actually exists and what he would have been looking for can't be found because it doesn't exist.
A claim to authority doesn't cut it. Facts, backed up by real science, are all that work.
This uneducated barely-literate 3rd grade dropout has got it.
That educated, experienced, intelligent, knowledgeable academic and scientific "expert" DOESN'T.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:22 PM: The post from "Ron" (4:38pm) shows that he cannot even understand the material HE refers us to, much less actually read what I wrote about it.
Let's try this again. I'll try to type real slow.
"Ron" tries to insult my business accounting (of course, failing to take into consideration that an uneducated, barely-literate 3rd-grade dropout with no qualifications or expertise such as myself has his books done by a professional accountant).
HELLO, "Ron" -- READ MY POST at 2:35! Better yet, go back and look at the official ".gov" web page YOU referred us to!
YOU asked the question as to why the OFFICIAL OMB (Office of Management and Budget) website that I had referenced several times and which you also referenced earlier today showed BUDGET SURPLUSES for the last four years of the Clinton presidency and for LBJ's final budget (FY 1969 -- despite the costs of the Vietnam War, Apollo Moonshot program and the extraordinary start-up costs of trying to initiate a War on Poverty that subsequent Republican administrations effectively dismantled), while the OFFICIAL ".gov" web page YOU found showing the history of the national debt showed slight increases in total national indebtedness during most of those years.
I pointed out to you what was on the web page YOU FOUND and YOU REFERRED us to.
Did you actually read it?
It has nothing to do with how *I* (or my accountant) keep the books for my business.
Go to the web page YOU found.
Do you see where it shows the terms "Debt Held by the Public" and "Intragovernmental Holdings"?
Do you notice how they are BLUE and UNDERLINED?
Do you understand what this means on the Internet?
Here, let this uneducated, barely-literate 3rd-grade dropout with no qualifications or expertise help you:
IT MEANS THERE IS A LINK.
OK, so click on the link to "Debt Held by the Public" and note that -- omigosh -- it provides definitions of the terms.
Not my definitions.
Not definitions from my accountant.
Not definitions according to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles).
Definitions for the Federal National Debt page that YOU referred us to.
And that is where I got the terms that the indebted value is based NOT on the actual cash value of redeemable securities, but on the FACE AMOUNT, which may not mature for several years, yet is not the actual amount currently redeemable, which is the real liability.
So you're big complaint, which you wrongly direct toward me (or my accountant) instead of whoever compiled the page YOU DIRECTED US TO, really means that YOU AGREE WITH THE ORIGINAL OMB TABLE -- that using the GAAP methodology there really was a surplus under Clinton and LBJ?
And, in any case, you skipped over my final suggestion: to take your questions to the federal agencies that prepare these tables, and then take whatever standard he wants to apply to either LBJ's budget which OMB shows as a combined SURPLUS and Clinton's final four years which OMB also shows as combined SURPLUSES each year, and apply those to the budget years of the Reagan, Papa Bush and Dubya administrations, and just compare them using whatever standard he wants, as long as it is the same.
Oh and then there was that follow up about the Kerry thing. How's that going?

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:24 PM: The posts from "Nick" (4:55pm, 4:59pm and 5:15pm) confirm that this pseudo-intellectual needs additional instruction in science literacy from this uneducated, barely-literate 3rd-grade dropout with no qualifications.
"Nick's" post at 4:55pm about a single specific acute location is worthless and shows an abject inability to understand implications for global, worldwide climate change.
"Nick's" post at 4:59pm about INCREASED snow in the Antarctic shows he understands NOTHING about the relation between snow and climate change. It is particularly ironic since all this week CBS News has been showcasing a series on increased hemispheric temperature centered on the Antarctic continent and the reducing icepack there. "Nick" has obviously never lived in a snowy climate before, or if he did never learned from the experience. When it becomes TOO COLD, snow cannot form. This is the usual condition at the South Pole. The fact that snowfall is INCREASING is well-documented PEER-REVIEWED evidence that the temperature at the South Pole is INCREASING enough to allow the increased formation of snowfall there.
"Nick's" post at 5:15pm cites various snippets, many of which are from "many scientists" and NOT peer-reviewed sources and, more important, others that do not confirm a lack of increasing longitudinal temperature and "Nick" misrepresents them to be.
"Nick" is a fraud and an apologist for the poor, pathetic IGNORANT victims of the DUMBING DOWN of science education in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE by the Big Oil Bullies and pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:25 PM: The post from "Beer Man" (5:31pm) shows the pathetic level to which conservative economics has sunk. It is not at all analogous to explaining our tax system, no matter what he says, and is actually as silly as if you put nine homeless people in a room with Bill Gates and tried to convince people that "the average net worth of each person in the room is over ten billion dollars." Actually, it would be technically true, but not worth much.
Similarly, this silly exercise does NOT "explain" the tax system, because it reverse-engineers itself into calculating backwards into effective percentage distributions that do not reflect how taxes are actually computed. In fact, in a progressive structure (disallowing the regressive aspects of employment taxes and special low rates on capital gains, that I oppose), everyone pays exactly the same rate on the portions of income in equivalent layers.
If it results that you can back into a net calculation in which some people get reverse engineered into higher rates, it merely reflects how much better they are doing than the others, and how much more they are benefiting from the system those taxes support and how much more they have to be protected by the system of common order supported by those taxes.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:27 PM: The post from "Floyd The Scientist" (6:44pm), which yet again proves he isn't one, expresses astonishment at my point to "Snowbird-2" about the fallacy of arguing from a "claim to authority" which is one of the great logical fallacies. But of course, Flat Earth "Floyd" misstates what I said, changes the wording, and tries to make it look like I am denigrating scientific research.
In fact, the "claim to authority" I was referring to was "Snowbird-2's" claim to expertise in and of himself, with no evidence to back it up. In contrast, I make NO claims to any authority or expertise in and of myself and ONLY base my comments on actual PEER-REVIEWED evidence from scientific and academic sources.
Such claims of self-authority may provide qualifications in applying for a job or being selected for a position or for participation in PEER-REVIEWED work, but the actual evidence is the PEER-REVIEWED work itself, not the number of initials behind the names of the participants. And it is reference to the almost unanimous CONSENSUS of PEER-REVIEWED academic and scientific journals I have been referring to.
Flat Earth "Floyd's" inability to understands this shows that he is even more literacy challenged than I am as an uneducated, barely-literate 3rd-grade dropout with no qualifications.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:27 PM: The post from "Nick" (7:33pm) again obfuscates real issues of science by confusing the fact that CO2 is a necessary molecule for life on earth, without adequately or factually addressing the issue of its balance in the atmosphere. This would be like telling someone who has a problem with high blood pressure due to over consumption of sodium (not hard to do in our modern society) that they should actually be eating MORE salt because salt is a necessary component of human life (true) and there are other factors that also contribute to hypertension (also true).
And of course, we would most likely expect the person trying to push an unhealthy addiction to more sodium to the hypertension-challenged to be in cahoots with the pushers of sodium.
CO2 and Sodium (salt) are both necessary for human life on earth.
Too much of either (out of balance) can have tragic health consequences.
The negative effects of such excesses also have other contributing causes.
There are people like "Nick" who profit from the causes of both excess CO2 and excess sodium, and try to obfuscate the above facts to make it look like it is just ducky to keep on poisoning ourselves with both of these.

Chris to Just Curious wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:47 PM:I have to study it further but esentialy Israel did a preemtive (where have we heard that before)attack on Egypt. According to Norman Finkelstein (who Nick denegrates) Egypt wasn't prepaired to attack Israel but Israel claimed they were. You see Israel has a history of provoking someone to do something. Egypt had a mutual defense agreement with Syria and Israel threatened to attack Syria so Egypt did enter the sini but was not prepairing to attack Israel. But because Egypt was in the sini then Israel was able to claim that Egypt was going to attack. Egypt was in the process of trying to get a diplomatic solution to the problem and one of their diplomats was going to washington but two days before he was to go Israel attacted Egypt. So the result of the war was to facilitate the occupation of the west bank and ever since then Israel has been building settlements and taking more and more of Arab land. The U.N. passed a resolution 242 that said that Israel needed to end the occupation but Israel ignored it. Of course you don't hear Chuck and the rest of them talking about Israel violating any U.N. resolutions.

Chris wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:56 PM:One of the points missing for these crybabies for the rich as to the taxes they pay is that if you are rich you are able to put a lot of money into things that allow a tax writeoff. Now the poor or middle class spend most of what they make in order to survive. So the rich are able to buy stock and they don't have to pay taxes on the money it makes them over time and when they do it is only 15 percent. Or they can buy rentals and the renter pays off their property then when the property is sold the capitol gains is taxed at 15 percent. So the point is that the rich are able to shield money from taxes while that money is making them more money but the poor and middle class do not.

Focal Point wrote on Feb 15, 2008 6:21 AM:Chris to Just Curious wrote on Feb 14, 2008 9:47 PM:The 1967 war began when Egypt had the UN peace keepers removed and placed 1000 tanks and 10,000 soldiers near Israeli demarcation line established due to the 1958 Suez War. It was so provocative that Isreal initiated a preemptive strike. I agree with you, it is the policy of the Isrealis to establish an all Jewish capital and to dispossess the Arabs living in eastern Jerusalem.

Concerned-1 wrote on Feb 15, 2008 9:26 AM:I guess DD Whiz is ALWAYS right. At least he thinks so. And there you have it.