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