Old Timer wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:10 AM:Years ago an elected official, in regards to this property to be swapped, warned us that "Oceanside will get the shaft and Carlsbad the gold mine." Well, now it is happening

sdraoul wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:08 AM:Kim Oakley, I'll tell you and back it up with a new study from the Public Policy Institute of San Francisco. I'll tell you that the study reports that an illegal from Mexico is ten times less likely to commit serious crime than native-born Americans.

Remember! I didn't make that up. A comprehensive study was conducted by native-born American Phds and they discovered that immigrants, including illegals, commit ten times less crime than native born Americans.

Do you understand that, Kim?

It is not so much that you publish four instances when the SD County illegal population might be 100-150,000 but that even one of your anecdotes states a "Latino" looking man pulled a gun. That article didn’t mention legality. But your inclusion of that incident means that you equate all "Latinos" as illegals, and that’s bigotry or better, racism to do so. Only 12 percent, maybe, of American Hispanics are illegals, one in 8 but they all look alike to you, don't they?

Kim, I suggest that you go to traffic court any day of the week and see how many native-born Americans are convicted of drunk driving.

I suggest you look up the violent crash on Highway 78 last month in which 4 Latinos died at the hands of a non-Hispanic drunk driver. The only Mexicans there died. I suggest you look over at Arizona today while a native-born American Border Patrol agent is tried for a murder of a Mexican illegal that appears to have been video taped.

Then I suggest you look at the 30,000 plus Mexicans who serve in the Army and Marines fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mexican citizens, Kim. Then there’s the thousands and thousands of Mexican Americans in the combat arms of the army and Marines.

Why don’t you write laudatory notes about them to balance off your four individual crimes.

El Guero wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:39 AM: I hope that sdraoul can join us today because I'd like to get his take on Kim Oakley's "published" letter recalling more "anecdotes' about illegal immigrants who only want to feed their families and put food on our tables. These "anecdotes" are like energizer bunnies: they just keep coming and coming. I wonder why that is. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say sdraoul would instruct us to ignore them, since illegal immigrants in the state's prisons account for only -0.3% of the inmate population. How ridiculous. These illegal immigrants are in our communities committing these crimes every day. They comprise a large cohort of the population that sdraoul and others like him serve throught their hateful war of words against gringos who object.

Ron wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:46 AM:Great point, Merrill Brown. Which is exactly why I posted only a few of the 1716 different and specific Federal Goverment programs, which supposedly are to help people live better and more fulfilling lives. Yet, with all of this spending, people still are not happy. Why? They say it's not enough. Each and every year our Government grows, and spends money to help this group, or that group, and runs up the Nation's credit card. Yesterday, I had several people tell me, that they need the Government to spend money on their parents, cause things are so tight in their households, they couldn't possibly bear to part with anything to help their own parents.

That kind of thinking goes to exactly what Merrill Brown is saying: "... today's spoiled-brat juveniles and self-serving parents who think nothing of maxing out a myriad of credit cards, declaring bankruptcy and walking away from mortgages and who have the gall to blame everyone else but themselves!"
At a time when the Federal Goverment, the State Goverment, and our local Governments spend more money to provide help & benefit to every single American, we are still running up our own debts. Still not saving, for the short or the long term. And still not helping our own parents.

Ron wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:53 AM:One of the Special Interests groups in Washington D.C. are lawyers. They love the tax codes, it gives them work.
Wouldn't it be great if you and I could actually do our own taxes without having to pay someone else to figuire them out for us? That's why I like the Fair Tax.
One of the biggest groups fighting any kind of tax simplification are attorneys. It puts them out of work. Yeah, that would be ashame. Maybe then they could concentrate on more death penalty cases. But those don't pay as well.

Billary or Hillary wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:12 AM:As the campaign of HerViciousness sinks into the abyss, it seems BJ makes a "tongue slip" in all of his stump speeches. And it's always "..and if you'll just vote for me". LOL, tongue slip?? year right. It is so calculated to make liberals think that their precious BJ will be running the show. How desperate can one get?

THX Kim Oakley... wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:23 AM:We need more patriotic people like Kim telling the awful TRUTH about the Mexican Invasion and less spin/lies from the advocates of illegals. Oakley points out the fact there we have a very serious problem w/illegal alien crime against American citizens and if you don't think so, then check out ..., one of the MANY websites devoted to chronicling the tsunami waves of atrocities by illegals. Thank you, Oakley, and keep up the good reporting. Hopefully the NCT's will print this because they've censured some of my other truth telling blogs yet they let sdraoul and his ilk blather on and slander Americans, including the patriotic Minutemen, who as it turns out, have no record of assaulting, attacking, murdering, raping any illegals yet if you go to the above website, you will see many documented cases of illegals murdering, robbing, assaulting, raping, etc., Americans. Such HYPOCRICY!

To sdraoul wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:37 AM:Speaking of horrific crashes. How about the one in Minnesota, this week where the suspect is an Illegal Alien who had three previous citations for unlicensed driving. Four American children were killed when their school bus was broadsided. Looking at the damage to the vehicles and based on info so far, it seems the illegal hit the railroad tracks and went airborne, that is how she was able to knock the bus over by hitting it higher up instead of at ground level.
Now all the illegal apologists will say Americans crash into school busses also. Yes, but they don't drive 55 mph and launch off a railroad track into the side of school busses!! I have never heard of an American doing anything like that, have you? By the way, seat belts and higher seat backs would not have saved those kids, she slammed her van directly into them.

Pluto wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:49 AM: I'm not surprised that Kim Oakley joins the chorus of people who don't understand that anecdotes don't prove anything. Just like some cold weather doesn't disprove the theory of global warming, a few crimes by "illegals" doesn't prove a thing. The study reported on A-3, on the other hand, proves that they are generally honest, hard-working people who try to behave themselves and fly under the radar. Another myth exploded.

Democracy at work wrote on Feb 26, 2008 8:19 AM:From the AP, QUOTE: BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government demanded for the first time that Turkey immediately withdraw from northern Iraq, warning Tuesday it feared the ongoing incursion could lead to clashes with the official forces of the semiautonomous Kurdish region. ENDQUOTE Gee, I wonder how the black-and-white world of Bush and his yahoos will deal with this one. Purple-thumbed Iraqi leadership, our great allies, threatening our great allies, Turkey, with conflict. All Turkey did was invade a sovereign nation. We know that's no biggie. But to make matters worse, the talk is about a conflict with the semi-autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq. What? I thought Iraq was in high gear towards unification! You know, because the surge is so successful? So the leadership of Iraq admits that the Kurds are virtually non-Iraqi at this point. This is complicated. Who's the good guys? Who are the terrorists? A few Kurds? The Turkish invaders? All of Kurdistan? I'm sure glad we have someone with the brains and subtle mind of George W Bush in charge with this kind of complexity going on. You know, a master negotiator?

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 26, 2008 8:19 AM: The published letter from Jeff Lassle is another out-of-control extremist hurling charges he can't back up. Once again, another casualty in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE makes up his own ridiculous half-baked theories, which he thinks trump all the PEER-REVIEWED science in legitimate academic and scientific journals, whom he dismisses as "so-called scientists" without citing his extensive scientific credentials or why he is more qualified than serious, credentialed experts.
He says, "CO2 is not a pollutant." What an absurd statement! Of course, CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and necessary for the cycle of life. Who ever said different? But Lassle seems to be one of those out-of-balance wackos who thinks that if a little is good, more is better. Sodium (salt) is necessary for life, but if you consume too much it can kill you. There are many nutrients that are life-saving in the right dosage, but fatal if taken in excessive quantities. Has Lassle never heard the word "overdose"? He sounds like the kind of guy who, if his doctor prescribes a medicine thinks that, hey, if a little will save my life, more will turn me into Superman, and ends up dying of, oh, what was that word, "OVERDOSE."
He then goes on to sucker for the Republican slime machine's favorite tactic, using their opponents' strengths against them, accusing environmentalists of being motivated by greed. Hello! Please show me the billionaire researchers (not employed by or taking kickbacks from Big Oil)? Show me the billionaire birdwatchers and backpackers. SHOW ME THE MONEY! On the flip side, it is very easy to start a very lengthy list of BILLIONS in corporate profits as well as the individual BILLIONNAIRES who are profiteering from the pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators, and who do not want this gravy train to stop.
So again, Jeff Lassle, back up your claims:
1. Show where there is any legitimate scientific support for your bizarre pseudo science and why your half-baked concoctions trump PEER-REVIEWED science.
2. Show where independent academic and scientific researches have received the "billions of dollars" you accused them of receiving.

Thanks, Ron wrote on Feb 26, 2008 8:21 AM:Your self-indulgences yesterday (and I really thought you were going to post the whole 76 pages) of posting the names of governmental programs was really informative and enlightening. I had no idea (and I'm sure other bloggers agree with me) that there were, you know, MANY government programs. I thought six, eight at the very most. But, WOW, it's really much more than that. Great public service Ron. You can post today: "I told ya! There are a LOT of government programs!" LOL

Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 8:45 AM:>>>Wouldn't it be great if you and I could actually do our own taxes without having to pay someone else>>

No, now what time do you want to come over for your tax appointment?

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 26, 2008 8:56 AM: The post from "Ron" (4:46am) takes an excellent point by Merrill Brown about the foolishness of living in debt, and warning of the need for living within one's means and avoiding DEBT (which is the perfect metaphor for the fiscal irresponsibility and deficits of "Ron's" Republican allies and their BORROW AND SPEND deficits to finance corporate welfare, no-bid contracts and sweetheart deals for those who profiteer of the death, devastation and mayhem of an unnecessary war to steal the oil from Iraq while diverting precious military resources from going after the real terrorists who attacked us) and tries to tie it to the bizarre lists of agencies and funded organization that he listed yesterday, all while evading and avoiding the points raised in my responses yesterday!
All of "Ron's" lists from yesterday merely demonstrate the real conservative approach to "fiscal responsibility" and why it will never work; why only liberals will (and have) actually balanced budgets.
The conservative Republican approach is to just go after services with a meat cleaver. No thought. No cost-benefit analysis, just slash everything except corporate welfare and no bid contracts for military profiteers who make their livings off the death and mayhem of brave young American men and women.
"Ron" showcases the foolishness of conservatives trying to cut programs that actually SAVE money because they are PROACTIVE and prevent social problems (have conservatives ever heard of "stitch in time saves nine?") instead of the conservative approach which is REACTIVE and tries to clean up disaster and devastation when it is hugely expensive, but which could have been prevented when they were still small. This, folks, is why conservatives create deficits and fiscal mayhem while humans suffer, and why liberals not only solve problems, but accomplish more while paying less and end up with BALANCED BUDGETS.
A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS should examine at individual programs. What are the costs of the programs? (Many are quite small.)
This can be verified by going to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ".GOV" website at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hist.html
and clicking on tables 3.1 and 3.2 to get the expense detail, and you can see that the total of all programs listed by "Ron" combined are less than what is being wasted on killing Americans in Iraq, and even less than just the interest on the deficits created by Reagan-Bush-Bush!
What is the benefit, not only in reducing human suffering, but also in just hard cold dollars and sense (the only thing conservatives relate to, if not understand)? How much less expensive is it to spend money on "Abandoned Infants" or "Alcohol" programs rather than on letting abandoned and neglected children grow up into gang members and criminals or letting untreated alcoholics commit domestic abuse, murder and all kinds of crimes way beyond just DUI. I'm sure there are some needless or wasteful projects and earmarks. The cost-benefit approach will help to identify those that are wasteful or, worse, counter-productive (LIKE THE WAR), so that where problems exist they can be specifically addressed.
And while you're at it, do the cost-benefit analysis for the INTEREST on the Reagan-Bush-Bush DEFICITS.
Oh, and, "Ron," how you comin' with the documentation for those claims about the extent of specific errors in Gore's book and movie?
And those government tax/income/asset statistics that should be available on ".GOV" websites?
And we're still waiting answer the questions in the posts from "SUPERHIGHWAY" (2/24 - 11:18am and 12:45pm) -- does Eisenhower get any credit for "creating" the interstate highway system?
WE'RE STILL WAITING. AND WAITING.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 26, 2008 8:57 AM: The post from "Ron" (4:53am) offer some points of agreement but, alas, remindes us that "Ron" is unable to linger too long in the real world before drifting back into the fantasy of trying to make it conform to his own pre-conceived conclusions.
"Ron" notes the problems of overly complicated tax codes, and seems to support tax simplification. We agree completely! But it is critically important to recognize that most of the complicated loopholes and multi-layered forumulas for computation are the result of "Ron's" conservative buddies trying to concoct tax giveaways for their corporate bribers (I mean, donors).
And the worst is the way they cobble out a special LOWER RATE for the richest Americans, giving favoratism to UNEARNED investment, dividend and interest income over hard-earned labor earned by the sweat of one's brow. And one of the most deceptive strategies of "Ron's" conservative buddies is how they try to link the much-needed and very valid issue of tax simplification to a "flat tax" to give even more tax breaks to the richest Americans who benefit the most from the current system and have the highest levels of income and, especially, accumulated assets being protected by that system.
"Ron" repeatedly notes that the rich pay a higher percentage of taxes than the poor (duh! that is what a progressive system is designed to do!) without also noting the disproportionate share of income and, especially, accumulated assets since they are able to save, invest, and acquire durable assets such as real property, using marginal income not available to the poor who live hand-to-mouth, and spend their meager resources on survival needs. He also fails to note that a truly progressive system (unlike the largely regressive system we have now that actually favors the rich) is completely fair! It only taxes the portion of income in higher brackets at the higher rates; every single person pays EXACTLY THE SAME RATES on the portions of income in equivalent layers!

esteban wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:09 AM:Hey Peggy...Dubya sure ain't perfect. He's horribe on immigration and border security. In Iraq, he's got the right idea, but going about it all wrong. Should be less ground troops and more air support. Also, take Iraqi oil and use it to pay for the war. He's being too nice to that gov't. But without GWB (meaning with one of your lousy democrats in office) we are toast. With Dems, we get infiltrated, bombbed, and even worse (dirty bombs). I fully support GWB's restrictions on certain freedoms until these terrorists are dead. Remember, while the Repubs aren't perfect, a vote for the Dems is a fhrgvvote for Al Queda. You know I am right, if you don't, then you are not intelligent.

repeating the question for raoul wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:17 AM:People have tried this before, but raoul runs away. Let's try once more. Raoul, if people who are here illegally commit any violent crime at all, even if the crime rate among them is the lowest of any group in the US, aren't those crimes avoidable via enforced immigration laws? Does it matter at all if their crime rate is low as long as it's not zero? ...

Randy wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:21 AM:Thanks to John McCain's quagmire in Iraq, we are laying off teachers in North County. We can't even build our own nation. Who are we fooling when we claim to be nation building in the Middle East?

Nick wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:40 AM:Here are some numbers on the cost of Illegals in Minnesota taken from Page#5 of a study prepared by The Office of Strategic Planning & Results Management
Minnesota Department of Administration:
Minnesota’s illegal immigrant population is increasing. According to recent estimates, there are 80,000 to 85,000 illegal immigrants in Minnesota. The number of illegal immigrants skyrocketed throughout the 1990s and continues to increase. Minnesota’s illegal immigrant population is greater than at least 20 other states. This population poses a substantial challenge to Minnesota. The illegal immigration challenge includes: (1) a financial strain on state resources, and (2) societal impacts, such as crime and economic loss.
In Minnesota, illegal immigration has the greatest cost impact on the K-12 education system, where over 14,000 children of illegal immigrants are educated. In addition, despite the Minnesota legislature’s reforms in 2003 that significantly limited the benefits for illegal immigrants, they continue to utilize publicly-provided social services.
Another fiscal consideration is the costs associated with crimes illegal immigrants commit. The costs resulting from apprehension, prosecution and incarceration are considerable. In addition, there are other costs to society associated with these criminal acts. Here are the figures:
Program Area
Illegal Immigrants’ Cost Impact to Minnesota
(1)K-12 Public Education
$118-$158 million (for FY 2004)
(2)Public Assistance Health Care Programs
$17 million (for FY 2005)
(3)Incarceration
$13 million (for FY 2005)6
Total
$148-188 million.
Now when you figure how small Minnesota is and the fact that they only have around 80,000 ILLEGALS residing there, imagine the drain in California, Texas and Arizona where the numbers of Illegals is far greater. 180 Million dollars is a lot of money for any state, let alone Minnesota. The financial burden placed on American taxpayers by Illegals is on a grander scale than "SD Raoul" would like any of us to know.

Nick wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:48 AM:The costs of Sanctuary Cities from the ca.gov website:
While there is a great deal of debate but little action on the problem of illegal immigration, there should be no debate about illegal immigrants who commit crimes in this country. When caught, they should be prosecuted and deported immediately, anything less is unsafe and unwise. Yet it has been the policy of the Los Angeles Police Department not to do so for nearly the last 30 years. A directive from the city administration known as Special Order 40 prohibits police officers from inquiring about the immigration status of suspects.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Police Chief William Bratton are vocal supporters of this “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, claiming a policy of enforcement would prevent officers from effectively investigating crimes because it would deter illegal immigrant witnesses from coming forward. However, opponents of Special Order 40 are simply asking for the deportation of illegal immigrant criminals, not witnesses.
Villaraigosa and Bratton’s sanctuary policy allows recidivism among illegal immigrant criminals to go unchecked, putting citizens in danger and making police officers’ jobs more dangerous. A 2005 study conducted by the Government Accountability Office surveyed over 55,000 illegal immigrants incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities. The study found that the inmates had been arrested an average of eight times each, 49% had been previously convicted of a felony, and 20% had been arrested for a drug offense. In Tennessee, a couple was recently killed by an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk and running from police. After the accident, authorities revealed that the suspect had been arrested at least 14 times before, including four times for driving drunk. Removal would have prevented this tragedy.
In addition to creating a dangerous environment for citizens, sanctuary policies put an unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers. A recent census found that 20% of inmates in Los Angeles County and 10% of inmates in Orange County jails were illegal immigrants. A 2004 immigration study estimated that public spending on the incarceration of illegal immigrants in prisons and jails in California could be as high as $1.4 billion.
The state is supposed to be reimbursed by the federal government for such costs. Yet California is still waiting for the reimbursement money promised from the federal government last year. And even the money promised is insufficient. California was promised $85.9 million last year, yet Los Angeles County alone spent $80 million in 2005 to keep illegal immigrants in jail. Even at its highest rate of reimbursement, it is estimated that federal payments cover about one-third of total costs.

TO SDRAOUL wrote on Feb 26, 2008 10:00 AM:And your point in attacking Kim's letter is????
IF a PERSON is ILLEGALLY in this country - s/he is A LAW BREAKER and therefore guilty of ILLEGAL behavior by his/her very presence on American soil. Therefore, these folks don't need to commit ANOTHER crime to be law breakers. Don't quote meaningless statistics.

Karl wrote on Feb 26, 2008 11:18 AM:Raoul,
Simply put we have enough criminals in this here United States without adding fuel to the fire.

Comprende?

Oh, Ron (@ 4:53) wrote on Feb 26, 2008 11:25 AM:One of the Special Interests groups in Washington D.C. are companies that make things for military purposes. They love the huge American military, it gives them work.
Wouldn't it be great if you and I could actually realize that the vast majority of our military and our military spending is unnecessary?
One of the biggest groups fighting any kind of reduction in the military are people who make things the military buys and uses. It puts them out of work. Yeah, that would be a shame. Maybe then they could concentrate on more useful jobs and machinery. But those don't pay as well. LOL

Reardon wrote on Feb 26, 2008 11:32 AM:Dialog with DD: PROVE IT!
Writer: O.K., the source is xxxxx.com/science
DD: NO! (Idiot!) That site is scientific but not PEER REVIE#WED! Further, blah, blah, blah…
Writer: Yes, it is!
DD: Even if it is, the authors have been completely discredited in a letter to the editor in Science magazine, August..
Writer: Then how about yyyy,edu/nobelprize…
DD: You LIE! I asked in ALL CAPS! Your answer is in lower case, and that site is supported by electricity produced by FINITE FILTHY FOSSILE FUEL, and yada, yada,yada (here follows 600 words, some capitalized…)
Writer: Then…
DD: YOU ARE CONTINUING THE CONSERVATIVE WAR ON SCIENCE…(450 words follow,..)
Writer: But…
DD: LIAR! Further your answer is REACTIVE, not PROACTIVE! We must be PROACTIVE! To be PROACTIVE we must end all POVERTY in Mexico, and around the WORLD, PLACE SOLAR PANELS on EVERY Roof, harness the OCEAN WAVES, build WIND POWER in MEXICO to develop their economy and provide us CLEAN ENERGY, place balloons on all toilets to capture GAS for CLEAN ENERGY…(here follows 800 words…some of them intelligible, but not readable…)

Real life wrote on Feb 26, 2008 11:52 AM:A woman in a hot air balloon realizes she is lost and spots a man below fishing in a boat. She shouts to him, "Can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man looks at his GPS and replies, "You're about 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level at 31 degrees north latitude and 100 degrees west longitude."

She rolls her eyes and says, "You must be a republican."

"Yes, how did you know?"

"Because while everything you said is technically correct, I don't know what to do with your information. I'm still lost and frankly, you aren't much help at all."

He says, "And you must be a democrat."

"Yes, how did you know?"

"Well, you don't know where you are or where you're going and you've only gotten this far because of a lot of hot air. You've made a promise you don't know how to keep and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault."

James wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:00 PM:SD Raoul: Regardless of how many crimes are committed by US Citizens, we should not have to deal at all with crimes committed by illegal aliens. We have to deal with our own people, but the illegals DON'T BELONG HERE! If your kids have friends over and all your kids and the neighbors are both causing trouble you punish your own and send the others home. If they weren't invited in the first place they don't belong there. We'd be better able to handle our own problems if we didn't have to deal with Mexico's as well.

Chris to Ron wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:07 PM:"'wouldn't it be great if you and I could do our own taxes. Why Ron I though you were smart enough to do a simple thing like doing your own taxes. I do mine and have no problem. The fact is that people don't want to be bothered and then they come out here and talk about something they know nothing about. Well, isn't that what this blog is about.

Chris wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:15 PM:I see that taxi to the dark side won the best documenatry. This film is about how our great military arrested an Afghan taxi driver and five days later he was dead thanks to our tourture. Oh, of course these Bush supporters try to tell us that all we do is humilitate them. As it turns out this taxi driver was completely innocent. But who cares. He was an afganistai so it doesn't matter, does it.

sdraoul wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:22 PM:El Guero -- the white guy -- continues his hysterics about anecdotes but never cites legitimate studies by legitimate groups. Now he is joined by another hysterical critics named ThxKim Oakley who also believes in emotional anecdotes and individual instances that do not relate in any way to the lives of millions of illegals among us.

Here are words from Dan Walters, another Guero, who writes the truth by quoting a legitimate study that is not refuted by anyone, including El Guero -- the white guy -- and ThxKim Oakley or Kim Oakley, herself:

"PPIC (Public Policy Institute of California) found that immigrants, including illegal immigrants, are "far less likely than the average U.S. native to commit crime in California." Among PPIC's points:

• People born outside the United States are 35 percent of the state's adult population but only about 17 percent of the state's prison population.

• U.S.-born men are incarcerated at rates up to 3.3 times higher than those born outside the country, and the rate is 10 times higher among men 18-40 years old.

• Noncitizen males in the 18-40 age bracket from Mexico, most of whom are illegal immigrants, are more than eight times less likely to be behind bars than U.S.-born men in the same age bracket.

"The findings are striking," PPIC said, "because immigrants in California are more likely to be young and male and to have low levels of education – all characteristics associated with higher rates of crime and incarceration."

Finally, the PPIC study found that cities with higher shares of recent immigrants have lower property and violent crime rates than cities with low immigrant populations."

OK, Kim Oakley, ThxKim Oakley and El Guero -- the white guy -- can you point us to any legitimate studies by any legitimate non-profit that refutes these words and observations? I’ll bet you can’t. You only have deceitful bigoted anti-Mexican sites that deal in anecdotes but never scientifically conducted studies by people with a lot of initials after their names with legitimate degrees from legitimate universities.

You who agree with Kim Oakley are also infected with what afflicts Kim, all “Latinos” look alike thus all Latinos are illegals because, I, Kim Oakley or Valley center, thinks its so, thus it must be so.

hardtack wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:32 PM:It’s the last thing we need, but I seem to have discovered a new form of bigotry. I call those who practice it “literary bigots.”

It works something like this. One posts the quote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” To which the literary bigot will respond that the author was a slave owner and summarily reject the thought expressed in the quote – perhaps, even going so far as to accuse the one who posted the quote of being a racist, conspiring to shred the Constitution and restore the practice of slavery. Don’t think it can’t happen here.

No-Spin Doctor wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:38 PM:sdraoul wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:08 AM:Kim Oakley,( I'll tell you and back it up with a new study from the Public Policy Institute of San Francisco. I'll tell you that the study reports that an illegal from Mexico is ten times less likely to commit serious crime than native-born Americans.) WELL,if you knew whom financed the Public Policy Institute of San Francisco, you'd be ill advised to believe a word. It's NOT a HUGE problem with fresh in the country illegals. It's their children that pollute our state and jails and prisons and neighborhoods. Something that the Public Policy Institute of San Francisco won't tell you. Go to the California Department of Corrections website and look at the numbers. 42% of all new felony committments are Hispanic. That's 42% Sdraoul, do your own homework and let the press continue to report half truths.

Ron wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:39 PM:"Where is the accountability?", asks Henry Sanford. Well, quite frankly...
there isn't any. The choo-choo was proposed at $60 million, final cost: $488 million. Or in other words...
8.1 times the estimated cost, and about $13.94 million bucks a mile. That must be some "golden railroad." Given the amount of cost over runs, and since we are stuck with this thing, NCTD should give the first 488 millions rides on it for free. That would be a great start. And, in that same article ("Credit crunch stings North County Transit District," Feb. 22), How many of you caught the fact, that, 70% of the revenue to run all of NCTD comes from sales taxes, and not ridership?
I was actually hoping to see at least.. 50% of revenues covered by fares. But, sadly... even that appears to be too much to ask for. Now, everytime I buy something, I think of all the subsidized riders I'm helping.

OBSERVATION wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:42 PM:Randy wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:21 AM: GWB is the current President. John McCain is running for President. Iraq is not his quagmire yet.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:46 PM: The post from "Ron" (4:53am) offer some points of agreement but, alas, reminds us that "Ron" is unable to linger too long in the real world before drifting back into the fantasy of trying to make it conform to his own pre-conceived conclusions regarding his economic ideas that have been proven failures in the past..
"Ron" notes the problems of overly complicated tax codes, and seems to support tax simplification. We agree completely! But it is critically important to recognize that most of the complicated loopholes and multi-layered forumulas for computation are the result of "Ron's" conservative buddies trying to concoct tax giveaways for their corporate bribers (I mean, donors).
And the worst is the way they cobble out a special LOWER RATE for the richest Americans, giving favoratism to UNEARNED investment, dividend and interest income over hard-earned labor earned by the sweat of one's brow. And one of the most deceptive strategies of "Ron's" conservative buddies is how they try to link the much-needed and very valid issue of tax simplification to a "flat tax" to give even more tax breaks to the richest Americans who benefit the most from the current system and have the highest levels of income and, especially, accumulated assets being protected by that system.
"Ron" repeatedly notes that the rich pay a higher percentage of taxes than the poor (duh! that is what a progressive system is designed to do!) without also noting the disproportionate share of income and, especially, accumulated assets since they are able to save, invest, and acquire durable assets such as real property, using marginal income not available to the poor who live hand-to-mouth, and spend their meager resources on survival needs. He also fails to note that a truly progressive system (unlike the largely regressive system we have now that actually favors the rich) is completely fair! It only taxes the portion of income in higher brackets at the higher rates; every single person pays EXACTLY THE SAME RATES on the portions of income in equivalent layers!

esteban wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:57 PM:Chris..no it does not matter. As long as no US troops were hurt. Thanks.

Concerned-1 wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:04 PM:Illegal immigration appears to be, once again, the topic of the day. And well it should. You won't see much about it in the media, but we are on the brink of a huge crime wave originating south of the border. Mexican narcos no longer fear Mexican government, and they are becoming more brazen here. Border security must become our number one priority. Secondly, we must (individuals, small business owners and corporations) all stop hiring illegal aliens (you can insert undocumented workers here if it makes you feel better). Let's face it, we will never cut them off of the freebies because we are too kind and politically correct. I just hope we can make it through the next 10 years in California. If not, it will be interesting to see how people such as sdraoul, Flores, Jillings and the bunch make it through. If I had to guess, I'd bet they'll be on the run just like the rest of us.

chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:12 PM:>>>8.1 times the estimated cost, and about $13.94 million bucks a mile. That must be some "golden railroad>>> And not one single bureaucrat has lost his job or pension over it. They jam their pathetic agenda down our throat and now were stuck paying for it

Color Blind Not wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:15 PM:"Yes, but they don't drive 55 mph and launch off a railroad track into the side of school busses!! I have never heard of an American doing anything like that, have you?" Of course they do. I recall one woman driving her car off a bridge with her two children in it and then leaving them to drown. I remember a guy who stole a tank and drove it down the freeway the wrong way. Both were white Americans. The real issue here is treating human beings like human beings. The rest is paperwork.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:16 PM: The post from "Reardon" (11:32am) generated a sincere belly laugh! Definitely in the running for a humor award! The nice thing about satire is that it doesn't actually have to conform to what it parodies.
In this excellent instance, "Reardon" generates huge laughter by parodying my long-winded style but, while I actually do point out scientific literature, and cite specific instances where others' sources are neither valid science nor from accredited PEER-REVIEWED sources, or else have simply misrepresented the conclusions they purport to cite, "Reardon's" humorous parody does no such thing.
And yes, when others have clearly misstated facts in ways that show they have made up their own statistics, misstated what they claim to have read, and even misquoted what is in this very record, I do have to conclude that when it happens that many times, there has to be some degree of INTENT, especially since there are a few people who clearly do have a strong vested financial interest in pushing our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators.
Sad to say, but especially since "Reardon" has described himself has being a college instructor and engineer (as part of a long and varied mix of careers), it seems that he should definitely understand the difference between original sources (PEER-REVIEWED) and SECONDARY sources which may be "scientific" but do not carry much weight when challenging the almost universal scientific CONSENSUS. Even thought I have ample "science" commentary available from SECONDARY sources such as the Audubon Society, Al Gore's excellent materials, and even mainstream media such as National Geographic and documentaries on ALL leading network and cable news sources (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and MSNBC), and even though they are in concert with the PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, I have never cited them because they are SECONDARY "science journalism" sources.
"Reardon's" satirical parody, though humorous, shows that, sadly, he is just another casualty in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE.
(There, I think I got 'em all in there -- I know the fans of "Reardon's" award-nominated satire would be disappointed if I didn't.)

Pinky wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:18 PM:I salute your subtle tongue-in-cheek, sir. "I had no idea (and I'm sure other bloggers agree with me) that there were, you know, MANY government programs. I thought six, eight at the very most."

Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:20 PM:What is this I hear, that Hussein Obama wants to totally remove the Social Security cap of the first $102,000 and make you pay SS tax on all of your earned income..LOL. If Gates had to pay SS tax on all of his earned income, when he's 65, his monthly SS checks would be $300,000. But likely, Hussein would try to re-distribute SS like they do to the lazy with the income tax, like the good little communist he is

A Toast for esteban wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:21 PM:"esteban writes: But without GWB (meaning with one of your lousy democrats in office) we are toast." Here's to President Barack Obama. Cheers!

World's Greatest wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:24 PM:"You know I am right, if you don't, then you are not intelligent." Witness the World's Greatest Debator, I give you esteban!

Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:25 PM:I cant wait until McCain corners Hussein Obama and forces real answers and policy out of him, instead of this mysticism that has people fainting at his very appearance

At least estaban is honest wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:26 PM:"esteban wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:09 AM:Hey Peggy...Dubya sure ain't perfect. He's horribe on immigration and border security. In Iraq, he's got the right idea, but going about it all wrong. Should be less ground troops and more air support. Also, take Iraqi oil and use it to pay for the war. He's being too nice to that gov't." Why pretend we are bringing democracy to the Middle East? We already know we are better than they are so they should just hand over all their assets and be done with it. Thanks esteban, for your truthiness.

Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:30 PM:All the liberals are gum flapping that the Social Security system is broke, yet they want the same bureaucrats that run Social Security to run medical delivery in this country. LOL

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:36 PM:A 10% flat tax is extremely progressive when you subtract the first $40,000 of income from the calculation. If you make $30,000/year you pay zero tax, or 0%. A person making $100,000/year pays $6,000 in taxes which works out to 6% of total income. Another person making $1,000,000/year pays $96,000 in taxes, which is 9.6%. As income goes up, the percentage of income lost to taxes goes up linearly. You can have it all with a flat tax, simplicity AND progressivity. This presentation is needed because of the ongoing LIBERAL FUSILLADE OF BLATHER that is causing a CHANGE IN THE CLIMATE of this blog.

James wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:39 PM:To SD Raoul: People born outside the US make up only 17 per cent of our prison population? The if they weren't here our prison poplation would be reduced by 17 per cent. That's quite a lot of money to be saved.

Marky Marx to Pluto wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:40 PM:Right on doode, you and Chris are my favorite bloggers here and personal heroes. Thanks for debunking Kim Oakley, she?s always posting her ... junk here in the LTE. In most of the examples she gave the Hispanics had been framed, the rest were total fabrications. Maybe she should spend a little time researching the deaths our US Marines cause. She needs to read peer reviewed materials like the Public Policy Institute of San Francisco to get the truth. I doubt that?ll happen anytime soon.

REARDONS RIDICULE wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:40 PM:-
Hmmm. I wonder why Reardon feels so compelled to ridicule those who actually cite legitimate scientific sources instead of Big Oil propaganda. Why is he so antagonistic to real science?

0412 wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:54 PM:Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:25 PM: I do too. Chuck. Its for sure John McCain does not have the correct answers. So BHO can spoon feed him. So say me and my five liberals.

Awesome wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:58 PM:"Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:25 PM:I cant wait until McCain corners Hussein Obama and forces real answers and policy out of him, instead of this mysticism that has people fainting at his very appearance." Now that is the debate we should be having. McCain says he doesn't understand the economy but he did read Bernake's book. Can't wait to hear him debate Obama.

esteban wrote on Feb 26, 2008 2:14 PM:Thanks for the support folks. I'm here for the people.

Chris to esteban wrote on Feb 26, 2008 2:31 PM:Your wellcome.

Reardon wrote on Feb 26, 2008 2:39 PM:Floyd; Why the $30,000 without taxes? Don’t those people get national defense, and need federal infrastructure? Isn’t “Representation without taxation” just as bad as “Taxation without representation?’ That is why I favor weighted voting – you get one vote weighted for every dollar of taxes you pay. Those on government welfare get no vote of any kind, and those on state welfare get no state vote. People who have nothing to lose should have nothing to gain by voting. (It's bad enough that we let people in mental institutions vote, but how else could we have a Democrat Party.)

Randy wrote on Feb 26, 2008 2:53 PM:"Senate advances bill to cut Iraq funding:" Send part of the savings to California, so we can afford to educate our children!

Asteroid to esteban wrote on Feb 26, 2008 2:57 PM:esteban wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:57 PM:Chris..no it does not matter. As long as no US troops were hurt. Thanks. Couldn't have said it better myself bro.......esteban for President. BTW what the hell is "taxi to the dark side", some kind of leftist propaganda, or is it the product of a "peer reviewed" report?

esteban wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:03 PM:Thanks Asteroids...I need to speak in simple sentences for some of these peeps in here.

RobertM wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:04 PM:To Peggy Sloan: It's fine that you're backing Obama but you do know the choice is not between him and G.W. Bush. Bush is not running this year.

Reardon wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:06 PM:Reardons Ridicule: Piltdown Man, Nuclear Winter, Alar. Saccerine, Three-Mile Island, Global Cooling, Spotted Owl, Y2K, Love Canal, Africanized bees, Ozone depletion, DDT, population bomb, bird flu, heterosexual HIV...

Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:10 PM:>>>"Senate advances bill to cut Iraq funding:" Send part of the savings to California, so we can afford to educate our children!>>> What does money have to do with education?? Ahnuld has thrown billions at the public school unions and he gets repaid with lower scores, bills like SB777 and Planned Parenthood doing abortions while mommy and daddy's (or mommy and mommy's) backs are turned at work

Ms m wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:11 PM:Reardon wrote on Feb 26, 2008 2:39 It's bad enough that we let people in mental institutions vote, but how else could we have a Democrat Party. And just what does that say for the folks that voted for Bush not once but twice LMAO.

ORACLE = wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:12 PM: = WHAT’S UP, and what’s down. The market was up today a bit. The price of gold hit $951+ an oz., an all time high; oil closed above $101.00, an all time high; the Euro closed at 1.497, and all time high, and silver is headed for $19.00 an oz. It all means one thing: everything is up relative to the dollar. Inflation is blowing in with a vengeance, and the dollar is sliding into the slough of despond.

Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:19 PM:I'm loving these liberal fools in the senate. First they block Bush from being able to spy on terrorists, now they want to block funding for the war, so that the troops go broke. But, liberals have made it clear they hate the troops because the troops dont vote for liberals, so they mean zippo to liberals

Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:22 PM:>>>She needs to read peer reviewed materials like the Public Policy Institute of San Francisco to get the truth>>> The only public policy that San Francisco has is: no troops and no white, heterosexual Christians need apply

Ms M wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:23 PM:Reardon wrote on Feb 26, 2008 2:39 It's bad enough that we let people in mental institutions vote, but how else could we have a Democrat Party. And just what does that say for the folks that voted for Bush not once but twice LMAO.

El Guero wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:27 PM:To sdraoul: It doesn't surprise me that you respond to honest questions about local (and national) crimes committed by illegal immigrants (from Mexico) in your usually belligerent way. The victims of illegal immigrant crime are actual people and your expressions of sympathy for them is underwhelming. Your strategy of reducing every victim of a crime committed by an illegal immigrant to nothing more than an 'anecdote' is disgusting. But at least you have Pluto on board. May you both enjoy the murderous multicultural swamp you're creating together!

Reardon: huh? wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:28 PM:I don't understand the point you're trying to make, if any, with your list at 3:06. It's a very mixed bunch of phrases/names. Are you saying these were all the names of bogus science scares? Can't be because some of them were right on. I don't know what Three Mile Island means. Are you trying to say that nuclear accidents are a red herring? Have you followed Chernobyl at all? How about heterosexual AIDS? Are you saying that's a myth? Have you seen the AIDS rates, passed male to female, in Africa? What does DDT mean? Are you saying this is a benign chemical? Seriously, can you expand on your list and try to explain what you are trying to say? You're making no sense there that I can make out. Give me a hand.

Quit Whining Kevin wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:29 PM:Hey Kevin, when are you going to face the fact that property in your neighborhood isn't protected from change? Enough whining about this already. It appears that half of the Douglas Street neighbors are selling thier properties. Do you think more horse ranches are going in? I doubt it. The City Attorney did nothing but tell the council that they do indeed have to obey the law. The City of Murrieta isn't exempt from the laws that govern everyone else. Why do you think you're special in this respect? The City should not be spending one more dime of our taxpayer dollars fighting this ridiculous vendetta for you or the RM clowns. It's time to move on.

to Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:31 PM:The vote in the Senate to cut Iraq war funding was 70-24, meaning that almost half the Republicans voted for it.

Reardon wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:38 PM:Ms M: What the election of Bush says is: Not enough people in mental institutions! BTW. my attorney once had to delay a trial for a morning while the judge handled a number of people being placed in mental institutions. In almost every case, the judge specifically permitted the incoming residents to retain their drivers licenses, so they could be "independent" should they get a "weekend pass." Now, aren't you glad you got home safely? Be careful out there…lots of Democrats on the road.

SOLON about LOL ... wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:45 PM: ... Wish you people would stop using the expression “LOL”. Originally it meant “Little old lady ”, the famous lady in Pasadena who drove all the used cars in California. Then there was “LOM”. the driver just ahead of you on a 2-lane, winding country road, driving his beat up 1938 pickup at 20 MPH. At least you people could use FLOL, meaning "For laughing out loud."

Funny idea, Reardon wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:47 PM:We wouldn't want anyone who makes no money to be considered, you know, a citizen, would we? No one who is relatively poor should have any say in how his/her country is run, right? Well, I will say this. Even though to some degree, we have one person/one vote, the very wealthy have already seen to it who our choices of candidates are, so in that sense, the wealthiest DO have the most control in this republic. Maybe you are sad that you weren't here in the days of the founders. The only voters were propertied white males.

Ms M wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:49 PM:Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:19 PM I'm loving these liberal fools in the senate. First they block Bush from being able to spy on terrorists... Now Chuck we liberal fools have told you so many times that we want Bush to listen to conversations - we just want him to OBEY the law. That's all. I wonder who is going to cry the most when the fool liberals are in office come Januaruary 08 and WE claim executive privlege, ingnore subpoenas...you know all the stuff the guys in charge have been doing....Let the fun begin!!!!!

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:54 PM:The post from "hardtack" (12:32pm) find a new way to whine about the fact that he got caught red handed citing a writer who had been a Nazi sympathizer and whose very work being cited ORIGINALLY BY HIM on the subject of LIBERTY being incompatible with EQUALITY comes to the ultimate absurd conclusion that the form of government most conduscive to LIBERTY is ... A MONARCHY! The very form of tyrannical government our Founding Fathers rebelled against.
The problem with "hardtack's" analogy is that I am NOT saying that because someone had personal flaws or was less than infallible that every idea they ever had is therefore unacceptable. "hardtack" just made that up!
On the contrary, what I am challenging is the actual IDEA being raised by "hardtack" himself.
"hardtack" made the claim that LIBERTY is incompatible with EQUALITY and cited the specific work that I criticized. Aside from pointing out the author's pro-Nazi CONTEXT (relevant to his views on tyranny), I noted that the very work "hardtack" cites is a treatise justifying MONARCHY as the preferred form of government.
This is NOT the same as, say, challenging or invalidating Thomas Jefferson's ideas on universal equality (funny for "hardtack" to be citing that example, of all things, considering how Jefferson's Declaration of Independence celebrates both LIBERTY and EQUALITY which "hardtacks" claims are incongruous), just because Jefferson inconsistently violated that principle. My comments are more like challenging someone writing in defense of slavery. In fact, very much like that.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:55 PM:The post from "Floyd The Scientist" (1:36pm) shows he is even less an economist than the phony "scientist" he masquerades as. Incredibly, he does not understand the meaning of the word "FLAT TAX." It means all income is taxed at exactly the same rate!
By allowing a primary exemption of $40,000 you DO NOT HAVE A FLAT TAX. You have a graduated tax structure with TWO BRACKETS: Zero and ten percent. In fact, Flat Tax "Floyd's" own math shows you can back into a different GRADUATED rate.
Bottom line is that Flat Tax "Floyd" is acknowledging the need for differing rates to allow for progressivity; that the marginal utility of first dollar (survival need) is very different than the dollars in the multi-million dollar (luxury) range.
The fact that all PHONY "flat tax" proposals have this primary exemption level, making them not really true FLAT taxes at all, shows the universality with which the differentiation of rates is recognized, INCLUDING BY CONSERVATIVES! At least "Reardon" (2:39pm) has the rare consistency to recognize this.
As a separate issue, Flat Tax "Floyd" won't admit it, but he is actually dealing with multiple issues. A "flat" 10% rate is a gross reduction in Federal Revenues. That may or may not be a good idea, but it is a different issue, and Flat Tax "Floyd" needs to be specific about exactly where he would cut funds, following the kind of detailed cost-benefit analysis that "Ron" keeps running away from.

0412 wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:59 PM:Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:19 PM Has any one in the USA been arrested as a terrorist due to the spying of the government on the American people? Does not matter if Bush spies or does not spies. He does not get real results. Liberals do not hate the troops. We just hate the ones who sent them to be killed and wounded in Iraq. Do you think that the thousands of black and brown service persons are conservatives? LOL LOL LOL I never once voted Republican when I was in the service.

SOLON … wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:01 PM: … Jeff Lassle (letter today) exemplifies the fundamentalist right-wing scientific community: He has no comprehension of geological or evolutionary time. He says “I am just waiting for the day when the sun begins its quiet stage and the Earth begins cooling again …” Not even his fossilized bones will be around when that happens. When you really get inside their mind, you find out these people believe that the Earth and all creation was accomplished literally in six days.
Ironically Lassle criticizes those who believe the evidence for global warming because they quote Hollywood stars, Al Gore without studying “real science”. Yet Lassle quotes NO AUTHORITY except himself. He must be one brilliant fellow!

OBSERVATION wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:01 PM:SOLON about LOL ... wrote on Feb 26, 2008 3:45 PM: LOL is e mail speak. It was not made up by blog members.qjea

Reardon wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:07 PM:Reardon. Huh: Sorry, I can't spare a hand, but...well you know the rest. (Sorry, I couldn't help it.) None of my list was EVER the crises that was widely predicted -- the old saw was correct: "More people died in the rear seat of Teddy Kennedy's car than died at Three Mile Island." I didn't say that none of those caused ANY problem -- just that the magnitude of the predicted crises never reached the scare tactics that were predicted for them. That incomplete list is sufficient to cause any thinking person to begin any examination of any predicted massive crises with Da Vinci's dictum: "I Question..."

Concerned-1 wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:10 PM:Good humor by Readon, and Dude, I get you. The country may be going hell in a handbag, but we still have some lively conversations here. A good day to all.

More bad news wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:14 PM:Looks like the Bush years will finish with a bang. Oil prices are back over $100/barrel today and $4 gallons might be with us by spring. According to today's NY Times, QUOTE The price of oil has quadrupled in six years, and Tuesday’s close was not far below the inflation-adjusted all-time high set in April 1980, after the Iranian revolution. That record, $39.50 a barrel, equals $103.76 in today’s money. ENDQUOTE With gas going up, with credit becoming harder to get and more expensive, with the housing price decline, with inflation going up, it's hard to see how a "stimulus" package will be of much help right now. The poor will, of course, bear the terrible brunt of all this. Unemployment will go up among them, most of which is not counted officially. The consequences for the poor youth, especially, will be drastic. Tough times ahead folks. I don't blame Bush for this, although it once again is a failed experiment in "trickle down" economics, which never somehow delivers.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:14 PM:The post from "Reardon" (3:06pm) is another excellent offering! Three in one day -- humor at 11:32; rare consistency on tax philosophy at 2:39 and now this -- I'm impressed!
The 3:06pm post lists an excellent litany of scientific miscues tha have all been corrected! (Well, not all of them are valid, but for the sake of the present argument we will accept them as such).
These are EXCELLENT examples of how real secience is wonderfully self-correcting!
Virtually NONE of these reflect PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, and even so, when the rare error does creep into that level of agreement, such as, say, that ulcers are caused by stress instead of a bacterium, or resisting the idea of plate tectonics, it is corrected in the PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE, not by ridicule from amateurs. That is the wonderful thing about real science. By the time it gets to a certain level of PEER-REVIEWED CONSENSUS, it is rarely wrong; but even in the rare instances where it is, it is self-correcting through the scientific method, not through propaganda by profiteering pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS.

SOLON … wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:20 PM: … I must vouch for sdraoul’s post of 1:08 AM. The first thing I heard on NPR early this morning, even before I got out of bed, was the new study from the Public Policy Institute debunking the myth of immigrant criminality. A great deal has been said and written about each, reinforcing age-old popular stereotypes about immigration and crime (a Google search for "immigration +crime" immediately returns 57.2 million hits). But rarely are carefully researched connections made between the two, based on rigorous evidence.
Immigrants are far less likely than the average US-born citizen to commit crime in California, the most populous state in the United States, according to this new report.
People born outside the United States make up about 35% of California's adult population but account for about 17% of the adult prison population, the report showed.
According to the report's authors the findings suggest that long-standing fears of immigration as a threat to public safety are unjustified. The report also noted that US-born adult men are incarcerated at a rate more than 2 1/2 times greater than that of foreign-born men.
The Mexican-origin population dwarfs all others in both the first and second generations; it already accounts for 27 percent of the country's total immigrant-stock population. The first generation of Mexican immigrants now totals more than 10 million persons — much larger than the next sizable immigrant groups (the Filipinos, Chinese, Indians, and Vietnamese, with more than 1 million each, followed by Cubans, Koreans, Salvadorans and Dominicans, with less than 1 million each).
The number of adults incarcerated in federal or state prisons or local jails in the United States skyrocketed from just over 500,000 in 1980 to 2.2 million in 2005, according to the Department of Justice. Two-thirds of those are in federal or state prisons and one-third in local jails; the vast majority are young men between 18 and 39. An estimated 80 percent of them either violated drug or alcohol laws, were high at the time they committed their crimes, stole property to buy drugs, or had a history of drug and alcohol abuse and addiction — or some combination of those characteristics. Adding those on parole or probation to the incarcerated population, nearly 7 million adults are currently under correctional supervision, 3.2 percent of all US adults 18 or older.
By racial categories (there were 4,834 black male prisoners per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,778 Hispanic males per 100,000, and 681 white males per 100,000, and by level of education those incarcerated are overwhelmingly high school dropouts.

Reardon wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:23 PM:Funny Idea: Actually, a part of the Founders concept of voting did have a part in my thinking – that part that said only landowners could vote. Their concept, and mine, is that people should have as much to lose in their vote as they do to gain – so we could stop people from voting money out of others pockets. If one person, or ten takes money from another, we rightly call that theft. Even if 10 or 100 hire someone else to take money from someone, we call that theft. Somehow, if 100, or 1,000 “votes” to have someone take money from someone, we call that...what? Good Citizenship? Democracy? (How about, “theft!”) Please tell me at what exact number does the concept of theft become whatever nice term it is that you use for theft when government is involved?

Reardon: Huh? wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:24 PM:Oh, I see. Still isn't a very sensible list, I'm afraid. Like I said, Chernobyl, African heterosexual HIV, etc. I guess if your point is that "some predictions turn out wrong", ok, but, sorry, that's about as interesting and surprising as Ron's "there are many government programs". Oh, really?! I have a suspicion that when you list crises that haven't come to pass, what you're really pretending to say is, "Therefore, global warming is hooey". The logic there is, um, absent, even if GW does turn out to be wrong, of course. "Some predictions are wrong. Global warming disaster is a prediction. Therefore, global warming is false." Confused, at best.

Ron wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:26 PM:I see that ole wizzer wants me to justify some kind of cost-to-benefit analysis on all these govt programs. Since I don't want them, and you do, I believe the ball is in your court as to how, or why they should exist. As far as I'm concerned, they are unconstitutional, and outside the enumerated responsibilities under the Constitution.

snerd wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:27 PM:to Reardon: When I was younger I was lucky enough to get a scholarship to an Ivy League school. More first year dorm roommates were trust fund babies. We became friends and I was able to visit their family homes and spend hours discussing politics with their parents. The system you mentioned in your blog where a persons income would relate to their ability to vote is actually already in place. The families I came to know and befriend had a great deal of generational money and used it to affect policy that benefitted them way out of proportion to the one vote they were entitled to. I don't think most Americans realize how powerful the power elite actually are, and how skillful they are at using that power. The bloggers here actually repeat many of the arguments my friends used to put forth their positions. The only difference is I am sure none of the bloggers here have anywhere near the kind of wealth that I observed. Need I mention they were, to a man, Republicans. I have kept in touch with my old dormies and they have carried on their fathers and their fathers fathers political traditions even adding some new ones, especially the tax on transfer of assets upon death, which their PR people call a "death tax" instead of the more common "inheritance tax". As one who is considerably less wealthy than my old college friends, I think we should all keep in mind the power they wield and how we can oppose it.

Secure the border wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:33 PM:100% of illegal immigrants are criminals in the United States!

Oh, I get it, Reardon wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:42 PM:Kinda like when Bush talks! Compassionate conservative. No child left behind. I'm a uniter. Dead or alive. WMD's. Bring em on. Saddam and al Qaeda. Mushroom cloud. Mission accomplished. Heckuva job. Iran's nukes. The US does not torture. To spy on people, you need a court order. [and so on...as Da Vinci said, "I question..."]

SOLON to OBSERVATION … wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:49 PM: … GWB is the current president. John McCain is not GWB, ergo the Bush War is not his quagmire, so you said (9:21 AM). “My friend”, you forget that the Republican Party is the Quagmire Party. The GOP is quagmire down to the core. Quagmire for the honor of the United States, quagmire for credibility, quagmire for our currency and economy, and quagmire for political morality. QUAGMIRE to the core!

Reardon wrote on Feb 26, 2008 4:52 PM:If there was a continuing and massive trend toward Global Warming, you would expect an asymptotic curve of warmer and warmer temperatures, month after month, year after year. (After all, CO2 increases minute by minute, unabated.)Not so with temperatures, as it happens. January was the 17th warmest ocean temperature, the 31st warmest land and water temperature, and the 63rd warmest land temperature. Since most temperatures are measured since the installation of reasonably good scientific devices (about 1880), and the distribution of those instruments was even after that, the history is not all that long. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, only measured snow across North America since 1967!) Source http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/global.html#temp

Karl wrote on Feb 26, 2008 5:14 PM:To "DD Wiz wrote on Feb 26, 2008 8:19 AM" Out of control? I beg to differ. I have still not made up my mind on the GW deal. To claim someone on the other side of the fence is "out of control" shows your lock step with the GW crowd. Debates have 2 sides with many facets on both sides. Your name calling on this post is totally out of control. When I am up in the air over a debate I tend to lean towards the opposite side of the name callers and that is you my friend. Quit the name calling and your posts will mean a lot more to the the fence sitters. Isn't that what you are trying to do here? Convince others to use less energy for the good of all of us? Drop the name calling and you might more successfull. Chuck this includes you also.

Karl wrote on Feb 26, 2008 5:24 PM:To "DD Wiz wrote on Feb 26, 2008 1:16 PM: The post from "Reardon" (11:32am) " Could it be that he makes sense?

Karl wrote on Feb 26, 2008 5:28 PM:Hey "sdraoul wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:22" When you post "the white guy" I get into the mood to sue you... Get it?

Old White Men wrote on Feb 26, 2008 5:41 PM:Every day we have those here who try to make us believe that the Liberals don't support the troops. Yet the Republican-controlled Congress and Bushies failed to provide our troops with the explosive-proof trucks already developed two years ago and instead spent the promised money on future, lighter truck designs, leaving our troops to die NOW. But somehow after continuing to bleat the same old crap day after day about the Liberals, there is no shame on the Conservative side, eh, esteban, Chuck, Ron, Asstroids? It's ok with you that our troops die while the trucks they need sit here at home, as long as it's a Conservative making the decision, right? Oorah. Pffffft.

suckers wrote on Feb 26, 2008 5:45 PM:"esteban wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:57 PM:Chris..no it does not matter. As long as no US troops were hurt. Thanks." A whole lot of troops have been hurt by Bush and his cronies, and the enabling Republican Congress by not providing the armor and equipment ALREADY AVAILABLE because they would rather spend the money on a new design by another one of their military contractor buddies. But that's ok, as long as no US troops were hurt. Boy, have you been had.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 26, 2008 6:01 PM:The post from "Reardon" (4:07pm) claims to cite a list of events in which "the magnitude of the predicted crises never reached the scare tactics that were predicted for them."
And I'm sure there are many more.
And just as many on the other side, like Bush and Hurricane Katrina, or the old guy who refused to leave Mt. St. Helens not believing the "scare tactics."
The philosophy of "Reardon" seems to be to disregard warnings, take no precautions, and hope they're not as bad as predicted. The wise person takes extra precautions and, if the disaster is worse, is ready, but if not, they are still safe anyway.
And the worst we have to "fear" by heeding the warnings of PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE that "Reardon" continually denigrates and ridicules is cleaner air and independence from buying oil from dictators and terrorists.

James wrote on Feb 26, 2008 6:01 PM:Some of us don't believe global warming is happening. Some of us belive it might be happening but don't believe man is contributing. Some of us believe man is contributing but don't see how making changes can help without India, China and others making changes as well. These three groups represent an enormous number of people not even counting those of us who JUST DON'T CARE.

danny wrote on Feb 26, 2008 6:19 PM:No more extra money to schools until they have documented cuts in unnecessary administrators and waste.

sdraoul wrote on Feb 26, 2008 6:24 PM:Karl, get a life. "El Guero" is the white guy because that's what El Guero means. Specifically, it means blonde. You are neither but I don't refer to you as a white guy.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 26, 2008 6:30 PM:The post from "Ron" (4:26pm) as usual gets things backwards. He is the one calling for a change in the status quo; he is the one with the burden of proving his position.
These programs have been vetted and determined to be cost-effective, and if "Ron," who knows absolutely nothing about them except that their name appeared on a list disagrees, he need to tell us why he is such an expert.
A few years ago, when Repubican Pete Wilson was governor, I had some involvement with a program that was providing job training and job placement for disabled people. The purpose was to help them GET OFF WELFARE. Wilson canceled it as a "cost-cutting" measure. The San Diego Union-Tribune, not known for being ultra liberal, ran an article showing how much it saved by getting people off welfare and turning beneficiaries into taxpayers, compared with its relatively small cost by working through voluntary business partnerships. Because I had been involved with it and knew many people who would lose opportunities, it was personal to me.
As for the Constitutional issue, frankly no one cares about "Ron's" rather silly opinion. The Interstate Commerce and Welfare Clauses both apply. I understand "Ron" doesn't like it, but his expertise in this area is somewhat less than compelling.

Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 6:33 PM:>>But somehow after continuing to bleat the same old crap day after day about the Liberals, there is no shame on the Conservative side, eh, esteban, Chuck, Ron, Asstroids>>> I certainly have none.

JAMES DOESNT CARE wrote on Feb 26, 2008 6:37 PM:-
For someone who keeps telling us over and over how much he DOESNT CARE, James sure does spend a lot of time obsessing about it!

chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 6:42 PM:>>Does not matter if Bush spies or does not spies. He does not get real results>> Then I suppose you think he spies to catch perverts making reservations at their favorite bathhouse??? What would you know about what the NSA and CIA does?? Liberals seem to spend an awful lot of time figuring out how we spy, only to leak the techniques to Al Jazzera

Chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 6:44 PM:>>El Guero means. Specifically, it means blonde.>> Then I must be El Greyo

0412 wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:00 PM:chuck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 6:42 PM No he sends in his best senate operative, Larry Craig, who has experience in those places.
I know nothing about how they do operations. GWB knows less than me about the FBI, CIA AND NSA. it does not matter what I know. The question is has any terrorists been arrested inside the USA?...

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:20 PM:The post from "Karl" (5:14pm) says that "debates have 2 sides with many facts on both sides."
This is sometimes true, especially on complex policy issues with multiple possible strategies for implementation.
But sometimes we are talking about settled science (PEER-REVIEWED CONSENSUS) vs. propaganda from profiteers who don't want to stop raking in BILLIONS at risk if people listen to the scientists.
Based on what you say, "Karl," do you believe there are two sides to the "debate" on whether or not the earth is flat? Do you believe there are two sides to the "debate" on whether or not the earth revolves around the sun?
There are still, today, organizations that challenge those views.
How seriously should we take them?
Being objective and balanced does not mean giving every half-baked kook equal hearing with qualified scientific experts. It means holding them to the same standards of verification.

Cluck wrote on Feb 26, 2008 7:39 PM:"there is no shame on the Conservative side, eh, esteban, Chuck, Ron, Asstroids>>> I certainly have none."
I certainly have none. Having no shame is the conservative way. No pun intended. That's why conservatism is dead in this country.

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Feb 26, 2008 10:47 PM:DD Wiz seems to think that a single, unvarying tax rate of 10% is not flat if the first $40,000 of income is exempt from taxation. There is no "tax bracket" on money that is exempt from taxes! He also seems to think that a rate of 10% will reduce tax revenue. Consider the fact that Vista recently increased their sales tax to 8.25% and are now reporting a shortfall in their collections. Consider the fact that Ronald Reagan reduced marginal tax rates and doubled collections during his two terms as he presided over the longest period of economic growth in history. Consider the fact that John F. Kennedy reduced marginal rates from a stratospheric 85% and still generated enough funds to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade (albeit posthumously). And just because low-wage earners are exempt from the income tax doesn't mean they won't be paying sales taxes, excise taxes, government service fees, and other imposts.

DD Wiz wrote on Feb 27, 2008 4:19 AM: The post from "Floyd The Scientist" (10:47pm) is replete with factual inaccuracies, showing the sloppiness of his carelessness with facts on economic history, which is even worse than his usual propensity for ridiculing true science. Examples:
Flat Tax "Floyd" asserts that charging a rate of "zero" for the first $40,000 and 10% for anything above is not a two-tiered tax system. It is. And it is for EXACTLY the same reason as a system with four brackets or thirteen brackets -- to recognize the differing marginal utility at differing levels of income. When the difference is the survival level, it is so obvious that even the wacko extremists can't ignore it. But the same principle applies throughout the economic strata of differing marginal utilities.
Flat Tax "Floyd" cites the example of Vista raising its sales tax and losing revenue. Well, duh! He can't tell the difference between an extremely small, localized economic base where alternatives are easily accessed by simply driving a few miles out of the way, and a broad-scale national economy. When top marginal rates were much higher, during the Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy years, some of the years of greatest prosperity in our history, people did not all move to Canada or Mexico. He is simply hypothesizing with his half-baked imagination about something that is completely different.
Flat Tax "Floyd" states: "John F. Kennedy reduced marginal rates from a stratospheric 85% and still generated enough funds." He just makes stuff up as he goes! Actually, JFK proposed a tax reduction, but it was not passed before he died. It was completed by LBJ in early 1964 and effective for the FY1965 budget. And the top rate was NOT 85% -- again, Flat Tax "Floyd" is just making up his own "facts," just like he does with "science." The top rate out of thirteen brackets was 91%, and the JFK proposal that LBJ enacted reduced it to 70%.
Flat Tax "Floyd" and I are in agreement with JFK/LBJ that a top marginal rate of 91% was excessive.
Flat Tax "Floyd" cites Kennedy as a model, and I will agree that the top marginal rate of 70% (out of thirteen brackets instead of six) that Kennedy proposed (and LBJ enacted), which only applied to a very small number of millionaires in that era, would be better than we have now, and I thank Flat Tax "Floyd" for his agreement on this point!
Flat Tax "Floyd" claims that the tax reduction of the top marginal rate by Reagan doubled revenues, but does not cite a source. Actually, once again, he is just making this up! Reagan cut the top marginal rate from the JFK/LBJ rate of 70% to a new low of 50% which, again, applied to only a very few of the wealthiest elites, but eliminated consumer interest tax deductions that were broadly used by the vast majority of the broad middle class, but by few of the wealthy elite, leaving intact the interest deduction on real estate which is the only debt held by many of the wealthiest Americans, which actually resulted in a huge TAX INCREASE for most Americans. Even so, the claim by Flat Tax "Floyd" that Reagan DOUBLED REVENUES is simply another "fact" invented by the fertile but crackpot imagination of Flat Tax "Floyd". Here are the actual revenues (combined on/off budget), shown in BILLIONS, for the Reagan budget years:
1982 - 618
1983 - 601
1984 - 666
1985 - 734
1986 - 769
1987 - 854
1988 - 909
Source: ".GOV" website from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/hist.html
There is never a year in which the budget doubles; the largest single year-to-year percentage increase (from '86 to '87) is only 11%. The total cumulative increase is only 47%, nothing close to doubling (and if you use only on-budget, which would reflect income taxes only, the differences are even smaller; I have used combined because it is my understanding that the point of Flat Tax "Floyd" is that the lower rate stimulated the overall economy, and the comb revenues reflect that overall economy), and that is accountable for the combination of population growth (fueled by Reagan's immigration amnesty) coupled with the huge middle class TAX INCREASE by disallowing the tax deduction on consumer interest, while cutting the top marginal rate to help billionaires.
Once again, we see that "facts" from Flat Tax "Floyd" are false and unreliable, as with all his posts.

esteban wrote on Feb 27, 2008 7:57 AM:I see the Dem controlled congress is in a hurry to get the new trucks to the troops too huh? Liberals remember this...no matter how you spin it, most people believe YOu are a danger to this great nation. Deal with it.

Tim wrote on Feb 27, 2008 10:43 AM:We cannot lower our standards and way of living to accomodate lawlessness. Using jargon like "we didn't cross the borders the borders crossed us," is stupid and obscures the real issue, which is STOP BREAKING THE LAWS STUPIDS.