PEM wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:16 PM:To Reg George just a reminder, Mexico is part of NORTH AMERICA. Remember those Georgraphy leasson you had back in 1st or 2nd grade. Guess your not smarter then a 5th Grader

Floyd wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:09 PM:I've always considered Mexico to be part of Central America.

Bob wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:01 AM:No Floyd, it is North America. It is part of the controversial NAU. Canada, United States and mexico. I do however agree with Reg, the migrants should not be able to come here without knowing and speaking English. It is a burden on everyone. If you go out of your country don't expect them to bend over backwards to accommodated your shortcomings.

Floyd wrote on Mar 7, 2008 1:13 AM:I looked it up on Wikipedia. Based on what I found, Mexico is a part of Central America.

Ray wrote on Mar 7, 2008 1:33 AM:When is the Bell vs. Contreras fueding going to end? I think this issue has been played to death. Doug move on, Raoul, get a life.

Fool on the Hill wrote on Mar 7, 2008 4:10 AM:Hey Bob, it is the rich and entitled who expect us to master the limbo. $ talks, we walk. As long as the monied class derives profit from the illegal game without transparency, we will continue to need chiropractors.

Que? wrote on Mar 7, 2008 5:41 AM:Just as a practical matter, it comes in very handy for policeman to learn, or at least be familiar with, the local vernacular. For example, the slang used on the street in the drug trade so they can pick up on things that the average citizen wouldn’t understand. This helps reduce crime and should be encouraged, not denigrated.

Lapin Blanc wrote on Mar 7, 2008 5:53 AM:When I travel abroad I find it comforting to see signs in English or have a waiter or hotel clerk speak English, but isn’t it funny some Americans expect and demand EVERYONE to speak English. I know it’s just a TV show but you see it all the time on CBS’ Amazing Race. Trying to talk to a cab driver or asking directions on the street in some country nobody’s ever heard of one of the contestants invariably cries out incredulously, “Doesn’t anybody here speak English?” The quintessential ugly American.

Duh wrote on Mar 7, 2008 6:06 AM:If everyone just spoke English then we wouldn't need policemen to learn Spanish. Well, if everyone just obeyed the law then we wouldn't need policemen.

What About Others wrote on Mar 7, 2008 7:03 AM:You know with the language debate and having English here spoken is wonderful. In most other countries, e.g, France, Spain, Russia, etc, have their own tongue language. However, here is the good ol USA we are a melting pot of all nations. This is the reason why we need one central language to use. Everytime I hear about emergency workers needing to learn Spanish, I wonder what about all of the other many language speaking people. Do they need to drop their native tongue and learn English or Spanish, or do you have the emergency workers learn those languages only?

Ron wrote on Mar 7, 2008 7:10 AM:DD Wiz {3/6}@ 5:30 PM; QUOTE:

"Earth to "Ron": the IPCC is not a scientific body." END QUOTE

From the IPCC website; QUOTE:
"The IPCC is a SCIENTIFIC body: the information it provides with "its reports is based on scientific evidence" and reflects existing viewpoints within the scientific community. The comprehensiveness of the scientific content is achieved through contributions from experts in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines including, where appropriately documented, industry literature and traditional practices, and a "two stage review process" by EXPERTS and governments." END QUOTE

I'll report, you decide...

Ron wrote on Mar 7, 2008 7:29 AM:I have nothing against energy self-sufficiency, Judith Withers. But, let's all ay least, agree on the facts, ok? In fact, I think it's a great idea, if you can afford it. If you spent the 1.3 billion as proposed in the Sunrise Power Link to provide solar for individual homes, you could cover 40,000 homes at a cost of $32.500 each. Should the solar system cost only $25,000, it would cover 52,000 homes. Far short of the 650,000 homes that would directly benefit from Sunrise. In fact, to match the power capability of the Sunrise Powerlink, you would have to install solar panels on 855,000 residential homes at roughly a cost to ratepayers of approximately $20 billion. Of the 1,118,410 housing units in San Diego County, Judith Withers idea would cover less tha 4% of the population. That is hardly a solution to a dynamic & growing County. Perhaps, over time, and when the costs of solar installation drop further, more people will be better able to afford them. But, at present, The Sunrise Power Link offers electric power user/consumers a direct benefit, and would only cost them about $2,000 each, amortized over time. Of course, if the costs were spread further, the direct costs to ratepayers would be a lot less.

Focal Point wrote on Mar 7, 2008 7:32 AM:FLOYD: Mexico is part of North America. I checked over six sites. The subject was also discussed by this blog several months ago. Mexico is part of North America continent.

Ron wrote on Mar 7, 2008 7:46 AM:After years, and perhaps decades of this anti-gun indoctrination, many people, mostly urbanites, have bought into this idea that only a madmen would own a gun. Gerald Reaster is right, "The truth is, guns don't kill people, people kill people."
But to listen to some on the far left, you'd be left to believe that only unstable types could even consider owning a gun, let a lone carrying one.
The anti-gun lobby, and their ilk have been very successful at demonizing all gun owners. Even hunters are inadverdantly thrown into this catagory, even though anti-gun types say they don't intend to. But that slack is taken up by a sister group, the environmentalist lobby, whereby every deer is portrayed as Bambi, and what a horrible person you are for shooting him. Rarely do they speak in Constitutional terms, for they have lost faith in that document, and most don't even care what is says anymore. All that matters is, Guns are evil, people are good, and if we got rid of the guns, then everything would be rosey. It is a complete mischaractorization of man, and what he is liable to do. Take away his gun, he'll find a stick. Take away the stick, he'll find a rock. But most liberal's are completely unable to fathom this kind of logic, given their utopian bent. Check with any local police officer, firemen, or agency and what you'll find is that in most cases, injury or death to person's inside homes are not caused by guns. They are caused by kitchen knifes. You want to outlaw those too? Cause statistically, they cause more death and injurys each year, than guns do. Oops, just gave em another thing to take away...

Good job, Ron! wrote on Mar 7, 2008 8:14 AM:It's great to see you finally coming around on the IPCC. You're quoting it, after all. If they say they are a scientific body, then you believe they are. So let's look at that quote you gave us: From the IPCC website; QUOTE:
"The IPCC is a SCIENTIFIC body: the information it provides with "its reports is based on scientific evidence" and reflects existing viewpoints within the scientific community. The comprehensiveness of the scientific content is achieved through contributions from experts in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines including, where appropriately documented, industry literature and traditional practices, and a "two stage review process" by EXPERTS and governments." END QUOTE
Wow. Seems like the panel looks at research from all over and from all fields and from industry when it's documented properly. Since you are suddenly taking their word for things, I'm just wondering what this very quote does to your claim that they are purely a politically exclusive club, only allowing data to count when it's in line with their preconceived notions. Or is "scientific body" the only phrase in this quote that you suddenly take to be true? Just curious.

Bravo Raoul wrote on Mar 7, 2008 8:16 AM:Thank you for responding to the rants of Doug Bell. As usual Doug uses exaggeration, fear, and lies to create a division in our communities. Once again crime affects all races, nationalities, and ethnic groups in one way or another. One thing Doug Bell and the like minded is that Not all Latinos are illegal, Not all illegals are Latinos, and not all law breakers are Latino as they try to profess. I agree with Raoul as usual Doug Bell brought a knife to a gun fight. Thanks Raoul.

Thanks Floyd wrote on Mar 7, 2008 8:17 AM:You cleared up your views on Presidential lying quite a bit last evening. Clinton under oath was awful, of course. But an orchestrated effort to bamboozle the country into an unnecessary war? That would fall under normal politician lying. I suspected this was your moral ground, if you can call it that. And also, along similar lines, thanks so much for extending you expertise to world geography. You've already defined science for us. And defined the moral terrain of lying. And let's not forget your expertise on what's best for the Iraqi people. Now we learn that Mexico is in Central America. Floyd, is there anything you don't know?

GFN wrote on Mar 7, 2008 8:39 AM:How ironic and sooo Raoul: He mentions in his letter, in which he tries to obfuscate the truth about Hispanic crime, the report from last week that "one in 100 Americans is in prison." True, but what Raoul failed to add is the same report stated that 1 in 39 Hispanics is in prison; a rate that is MORE THAN two and one-half times the rate of all "Americans".

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 7, 2008 8:42 AM: The post from "Ron" (7:10am) corrects my choice of wording and I accept that correction of specific wording and stand corrected. However I also stand by the point that I was making, however poorly expressed by this flawed, barely literate third-grade dropout with no qualifications.
The IPCC is a "scientific body" in the sense that it deals with scientific issues, in the same sense that any government or public policy committee or body that deals with scientific issues could be called a scientific body. In that sense, Al Gore's book and movie could be called scientific in their subject matter, some of the offerings by National Geographic, Science Channel, Discovery Channel, PBS, or science articles in major newspapers could be said to be scientific in their subject matter.
In the specific context that I was discussing, the issue of PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE, none of these "scientific" materials would be acceptable as primary, peer-reviewed scientific sources. The works of objective, neutral science writers would be secondary sources as long as they accurately reflect the state of current scientific consensus.
In the case of Al Gore and the IPCC, as long as they also conform accurately to established PEER REVIEWED consensus, they might also be considered secondary sources, but I would be even less inclined to cite them, and might call them "tertiary" sources because those questioning them might find them suspect because they do also reflect public policy agendas. In my opinion, they validly support their public policy agendas with solid science, but I doubt they would be very convincing to doubters.
That is why, although I do find secondary and what I call tertiary sources to be accurate, I limit my citations to primary PEER-REVIEWED source material from scientific and academic journals, which is easy since there is so much of it.
In the meantime, I will reiterate the acknowledgement of my clumsy wording and stand corrected by "Ron."

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 7, 2008 8:44 AM: The post from "Bob" (12:01am) refers to "the controversial NAU" which presumably is the North American Union that was described recently by "Concerned-1" as being a proposal that included abolishing the Constitution and by "Nick," rising in defense of "Concerned-1" as something that does not exist "YET," though he later backed off from support for "Concerned-1's" claim about abolishing the Constitution after accusing me of inventing the reference to "abolishing the Constitution" which was actually from the post by "Concerned-1" (3/5 - 8:35am) that "Nick" was defending.
So I will repeat for "Bob" the same (as yet unanswered) question that I posed to "Concerned-1" and "Nick": please direct us to a specific SERIOUS proposal (introduced into either the Senate or House by a current member) for whatever it is you are referring to as the "NAU" -- when I asked this before (my post of 3/5 - 11:30am) an anonymous submission ("To DD Wiz" 3/5 - 11:56am) provided a link to a site about something called the "SPP" (the term "North American Union" or "NAU" didn't even appear in the entire site) which "Nick" later claimed to be something different -- so then what is this NAU that "Concerned-1" and "Bob" refer to in the present tense?
Please provide the actual website for an actual proposal, or admit that it is just something that has some crackpot rumors swirling about but is not actually something that either exists or has even been proposed yet.
If it is an actual proposal introduced into Congress, there should be a ".GOV" website.
While hyperventilating about imaginary threats from website rumors, the same conservatives ignore the real threats to the Constitution by the Bush administrations many abuses of power and efforts to subvert the other branches of government, deny civil liberties, torture, etc. In fact, one might seriously wonder if these trumped-up hyped alarmist scare tactics about "abolishing the Constitution" might be Neocon smokescreens to distract us from the real threats by the Bush administration to violate, undermine and, dare I say, figuratively "abolish" the Constitution, much as Iraq has been a distraction from the real war against the real terrorists (Saudis operating out of Afghanistan and now hiding in Pakistan).
In the meantime, it boggles the mind that you ALARMISTS can stir up so much fear mongering about something that does not exist, has not even been proposed, and is just something a few crackpots are mumbling about, yet you can stick your heads in the sand (or other dark place) and ignore warnings from serious scientists about catastrophic climate change.
Oh yeah, but then there are people who thought the best way to deal with terrorists in Afghanistan would be to invade Iraq. Ah! Wonders of the conservative mind!

GFN wrote on Mar 7, 2008 8:50 AM:Larry Cohen, you summarized the "Bush Legacy" pretty well. Even the Republicans wouldn't argue that his rating in History has now plunged even further than Jimmy Carter's!

Ron wrote on Mar 7, 2008 8:54 AM:The Sprinter mini-train thingy is set to begin boarding passengers on Sunday. Can you hear the corks popping now? The string of German-made trains {out-sourcing?} will cover 22 miles between Oceanside and Escondido. I guess a lot of folks might make that trek. But, hopefully it won't be anything like the half empty buses. Plus the Sprinter came in at about 100 million dollars over budget. {Wasn't it first proposed at $60 mil?, fuzzy math?} Unfortunately that isn’t news. Nothing the gummint builds comes in on budget anymore. Imagine your home contractor bids you a price and then at the end hands you a bill for twice the number? Kind of useless in arguing after the fact, the damage has been done.
And the project is way overdue. Promised dates came and went, and even now the launch is about three months past the most recent promise date. So don't hold yur breath on Sunday. But even if she rolls, she ain’t ready to roll. Some stations don’t have parking, which means you’ll have to put your car on a lawn nearby or in front of somebody’s driveway. And at some places you can only go one direction.
I've been seriously tough on the North County Transit District for months. Considering 70% of NCTD's total budget comes from sales taxes.. Can you blame me? This boneheaded decision has gone, from bad to worse. Why just today, according the the NCT, the Sprinter has been fined $685,000 for polluting Buena Vista Lagoon, Loma Alta Creek and Lake San Marcos with sediment that environmental groups say could kill the waterways. The district was also fined $160,000 in December for the same problems. Can you say "cash register" for the wacko's? {more sales taxes to offset the growing fines, which are really a funding mechanism for enviro groups?}
My ponder tho has been, you can’t yell and scream and get any results once gummint breaks ground. Then it’s "in for a penny, in for a pound," or whatever. Folks who didn’t want the Sprinter needed to begin their fight 30 years ago when this thing was first proposed.
Meanwhile it’s a done deal. The Sprinter rolls. I will pop a cork. Not so much to celebrate the Sprinter, but because it’s an excuse for a couple of slugs. Cheers!

Chuck wrote on Mar 7, 2008 9:23 AM:The news reports that an Obama adviser resigns after calling Clinton 'a monster. Why did the advisor resign?? It seems if you tell the truth these days you have to resign

Chuck wrote on Mar 7, 2008 9:27 AM:>>>A lot of what we hear from environmentalists are scare tactics>>>> Liberals wat toilet to tap before desalination. Come on over, I'll give you a bottle of green tea, I think

Ron wrote on Mar 7, 2008 9:28 AM:I mean... Man, don't you get tired of riding that little yellow bus? Good job, Ron! @8:14 AM?
I specifically quoted the IPCC website, because yesterday Wiz said they were not SCIENTIFIC body. Obviously, they just happen to be in disagreement. They proport themselves to be a scientific body, that's what THEY advertise themselves to be.
You'd be surprised, by I actually agree with ole wizzer on this. They ARE NOT a scientific anything, they are a political organization. But they ADVERTISE themselves, as a scientific body to those who wouldn't know a scientific body if it fell out of the sky, and clocked them on their little wooden heads.
But, they are a part of this large climate change movement, and they use this kind of subtrofuge to fool regular folk, who don't know any better, and try to take advantage of them. Of course, they take these "scientific reports" from real scientists, and then this "body", these political hacks congeal all those into one big report that says: What THEY want it to say. Which fits exactly into larger political goals of the UN. No secret there, at all.
It's kind of like comparing Pope Al Gore. Ya know, the guy's a "trained" journalist, yet his "documentary" is so far fetched, so wrong in it's facts, that teachers have to issue warnings prior to showing the movie, or reading his book, stating it's a political document, and not based on real science. That would put Al Gore, at least in my mind, on the same level as say... Jayson Blair of the NYT's? Or maybe he's a lot closer to James Dale Guckert? Perhaps better known by his pseudonym: Jeff Gannon?

Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 7, 2008 9:29 AM:Yesterday's posts were both interesting and entertaining. I'm going away for the weekend, but before I go I'd like to answer a couple of yesterday's posts. DD continues to misinterpret my post on the NAU. I was attempting to ask for an opinion on what I've read. I did not say I believed it. Nick was kind enough to provide some specific information, unlike DD's typical rants. Correct me if I'm wrong DD (I know you will) but I don't recall introducing "black helicopters" into the conversation. Finally PEER REVIEW asked if I believed there were computer manuals that were peer reviewed. I dismissed his/her question because obviously there are such publications. So Yes, duh. Now I'm off to a weekend on the slopes (skis not board), and I wish you all the best. Nick, keep up the good fight. The more they post, the more we get to know them! Cheers, C-1.

Chuck wrote on Mar 7, 2008 9:36 AM:Ask China about global warming. their coldest winter in a century has killed its winter crops, millions of cattle and hogs are dead (I see another pork-belly opportunity for Hillary), & trains are still covered in snow from avalanches. Where is Al Goreleone?? Why arent the liberals bashing China's FEMA?? In fact, you wont even hear about this in the media, because it doesnt fit into the biased agenda of the global warming kool-aid drinkers

to GFN & Raoul wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:03 AM:We've long noted that the one issue raoul refuses to address or acknowledge: isn't ANY crime by "illegal" visitors too many? Or are crimes committed by any low-crime-rate people freebies? Ask the victims. (BTW, hasn't raoul also defended the Iraq invasion by saying that the troop mortality rate is low? Ask their families.)

Pluto wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:08 AM: Only in "America" are people proud that they only speak one language, and want to enforce their ignorance/laziness on everyone. Reg George should go to Europe some time. And Floyd should look at a map. Most of Mexico is clearly part of the big land mass called North America (some is arguably not). BTW, the reason I put "America" in quotes is because the U.S. is only one of many countries in the Americas (North, Central & South). Appropriating the word "Americans" for ourselves is a sign of our ignorance and our arrogance.

Verdad wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:09 AM:Floyd wrote on Mar 7, 2008 1:13 AM Wikepedia states that Mexico is part of North America. Go read it again.

Floyd wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:10 AM:Glad I could help, "Thanks Floyd". That orchestrated effort to bamboozle the country can be seen in postings such as yours, since you think the war in Iraq was unnecessary, that lying under oath is no cause for alarm, and haven't figured out that Mexico can be considered part of Central America.

Karl wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:11 AM:Responding to "DD Wiz wrote on Mar 6, 2008 5:35 PM" Double D's I think you missed my earlier post yesterday about my PHD (Poway High Diploma). Get it? P as in Poway, H as in High and D as in Diploma. I only have one PHD and am humbled by your mutliple PHD's and your generosity in giving one or more of them away.

Ron wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:33 AM:Let me see if I can cut through some of this back wash from the Surfrider Foundation, Dave English. Like most enviromentalist groups, they have a preception in their minds of what the Earth should look like. As do most other enviro groups. But, They have this idea that, before man came on the scene, everything was peachy-keen, pristine, and wonderful. Man steps in, and fouls the whole thing up. So, groups like the Surfrider Foundation have been taken over by small, but very vocal groups of extremists, who want you to believe they are all about "saving the ocean", yet when you read further, inevitably, what you will find are anti-capitalist & anti-growth themes. Now, not ALL the members are such, but their leadership certainly is. Take a look at their MISSION & PRINCIPLES, for example.
Principle #5. SURFRIDER claims to value individualism, camaraderie, and non materialism. Interesting point, that last one... NON-MATERIALISM. In philosophy the general belief is that possessing property interferes with spirituality and the divine, or that it leads to an immoral lifestyle. Some also believe that materialism is often a source of societal ills such as war, crime, poverty, oppression and genocide.
Anybody ever talk to a real surfer, some speak in spiritual or mystical terms about surfing. So, it's a natural outgrowth to believe that a home next to the ocean, or a desal plant next to the ocean, is inheirently evil.
Now, don't get me wrong, Not ALL are like this, they simply want the beach & the ocean clean, as do most of us. But, the tendency by a lot of enviromentalist groups is, they start in one direction, and end up, somewhere else. And usually, it's because of more extremist enviromentalists evenutally take over the group. As was done with GreenPeace.
But, finally... Have you ever watched a surfboard being made? I have. THAT is NOT a very eco-friendly enviroment or process. Between the polyurethane blanks, polystyrene, epoxys, polyester resins, pigments, solvents, thinners, additives, catalysts, vinyl ester resins, and isophthalic resins.
How they merge those two ideas, I'll never understand. Maybe.. it's the fumes?

Pluto wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:37 AM: To Gerald Reaster and Ron @7:46am: Nobody is saying that every gun owner is a nut or violence-prone or whatever. There are legitimate reasons for some people to own a gun, and some perfectly normal people undoubtedly do. But there is also a gun-nut culture, encouraged by the NRA, gun shows, survivalist magazines, etc. They help certain people - even some women - feel "real men", ready for anything, etc. They don't feel complete unless they have at least one rifle for long range, at least one hand gun, and at least one shotgun, maybe a semi-auto or two. This type of thinking is surely a sickness of inadequacy or excessive fantasizing or both. The question is what is best for society, and the big-bucks gun lobby is unqualified to make such decisions. Ron is obviously wrong when he argues "Take away his gun, he'll find a stick. Take away the stick, he'll find a rock." Sticks and rocks could not have killed all those students at Virginia Tech and other such mass murder incidents. Only a nut with a gun.

Ron wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:43 AM:I have just one question for Raoul Lowery Contreras. He claims: "Non-native Americans less criminal..."

Than who? Than Americans? Is that what you are asserting here? That Americans are more prone to criminal behavior than illegals from Mexico?
What the heck are you saying?
So, you are perfectly willing to discount stealing Social Security numbers to work? You don't consider that, criminal? Every single working illegal alien has to show an American ID in order to work here. Where did they get it Raoul? That is, unless they are standing on a street corner.
Man, your back must be killing you.. for bending over soo far.

To Raoul Lowery Contreras wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:43 AM:Does it occur to you, Raoul, that YOU are as RACIST as the people you critize? Your point of view is that Mexicans are wonderful and Caucasians are bad. That, my friend, is the very definition of racist and it can't be hidden under the guise of challenging racism. ANY comment based solely on a person's race is RACIST on the face of it.
Secondly, just because a Mexican in not in jail doesn't mean he/she isn't a criminal. If s/he lives in America WITHOUT proper papers, s/he is, by definition a CRIMINAL. You may want to change that law but until it IS changed, it is the law. So, Raoul, it seems your letters are studies in one racist challenging other racists. It would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

El Guero wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:43 AM:Dear GFN: Please don't confuse Raoul with the facts. They will only make him crazier and more belligerent.

wet Marky Marx to Chris wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:53 AM:Our right wing media is reporting “a Palestinian gunman” killed eight students at a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem yesterday. First what’s the truth; what are you hearing from your Al Jezeerah sources? Secondly ; what part did the United States play in causing it. Third; how do you feel about Palestinians celebrating the slaughter of defenseless children; since it wasn’t directly an act of U.S. militarism do you support it? Thank-you, comrade.

Pluto wrote on Mar 7, 2008 10:54 AM: I don't know exactly how to respond to Rev. Richard Perozich. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but a Catholic priest is obliged to parrot the party line on matters like these. Who knows what he really thinks? He's not free to say. But whatever he thinks, it's absurd to say that homosexuality "is not in the authentic nature of human behavior" without offering any proof. The fact is that virtually every species displays homosexual behavior at about the same rate (15%) as humans. So Rev. Perozich's unsubstantiated statement must rest on the old, discredited doctrine that humans are not animals, not part of the evolution of life on this planet because we were "specially created" by God "in his image". This must be the same God of the Bible who is angry, jealous, vengeful, and whose DNA is apparently 97% the same as a chimpanzee.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 7, 2008 11:09 AM: The post from "Floyd The Scientist" (3/6 - 11:02pm) confirms that he understands as little about liberal (intelligent) thinking than about science.
"Floyd" says: "it was not necessary to fabricate a reason to invade Iraq. There were plenty of reasons to take action, as previously posted."
NO! There have been NO VALID REASONS posted previously that justify invading Iraq. All the reasons given were BOGUS. There were no WMD. There were no threats to the United States. And this was well known to the Bush administration, who simply lied when they said otherwise. What other reasons are there? Well, Saddam was a bad guy. Granted. He gassed the Kurds (in the late 1980s using materials supplied by the Reagan administration and with their knowledge and assent and, afterward, with their continued allegiance until he crossed Bush I by invading Kuwait because of a misunderstanding with ambassador April Glaspie). He was a dictator. Hello! All of those things apply ten times as much to many other dictatorships around the world that are far worse (Saddam didn't even make Parade's "Top Ten Worst Dictators" any year ever). Compare North Korea, Burma (I refuse to use the dictators' preferred term "Myanmar:), Cuba, China, SAUDI ARABIA, etc. Why didn't we invade them? Oh yeah, the Oil thing (Saudi Arabia was willing to enter into the deals the Bush/Cheney Big Oil cronies found acceptable).
"Floyd" continues to lose sleep over Bill Clinton's oral tryst with a consenting adult: "it's not that Clinton's lie disturbs me, it's the fact that liberals don't seem to comprehend the seriousness of lying under oath."
What a bunch of baloney. It is your big "gotcha" moment. You evade the point that Bush lied UNDER OATH when the promised to "protect, preserve and defend the Constitution" and then has violated and undermined it at every turn. And the ONLY reason there aren't more such violations is because he simply refused to go under oath. That said, you do not understand a basic tenet of perjury: the lie has to be relevant to the subject matter at inquiry. The subject matter was sexual harassment, NOT consensual fooling around. The content was not relevant to the subject at issue. No perjury existed.
And you know the ol' saying, "When Clinton lied, Hillary cried; When Bush lied, thousands died."
You are just making excuses for the inexcusable, and there is no comparison between the petty dalliance of Clinton and the crimes against humanity and our Constitution committed by Bush.

Ron wrote on Mar 7, 2008 11:11 AM:The only person who is clueless, is
Larry Cohen. Take the $12 Billion a month figuire he gives, taken over a year {12 x 12} comes to $144 Billion.
Let me see here, last year we spent a total of $2.9 Trillion dollars in our Federal spending, and $144 Billion out of a $2.9 Trillion dollar budget is... let me do the math here.... bzzz. bzzz.. what is that? 5%, yeah that's it. FIVE PERCENT of a $2.9 Trillion dollar budget, soon to be $3.1 Trillion, and the Democrats say that anit big enough, they want another $18 Billion to spend.
So, you take the valuable time out of your day to give us this nonsense? 5%, Five percent? Do you have any... ANY clue to the fastest growing portion of our Federal Budget? I bet he doesn't, so let me buy him a clue. In 2000, the Federal Gummint's total spending between on just entitlement programs was $600 Billion a year. Taken by the month, $50 Billion a month. Last year, 2007, that number, that spending grew to $962 Billion. Taken by the month, $80 Billion. That my dear friend is an inflation rate of 62.5% in just 7 years. Taken by year, that is nearly a 9% growth in inflation of just those government entitlement programs! But, of course you don't care, your entitled.
Clueless.

to Ron @10:43am wrote on Mar 7, 2008 11:24 AM: I think Raoul is talking about real crimes, not the minor crap incidental to living and working in the country without documents. Surely you know what a real crime is. Yes, that's exactly what Raul is asserting and what the statistics show - that "Americans" are more prone to commit real crimes than illegals from Mexico. This is probably because most of these people are trying to avoid contact with law enforcement.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 7, 2008 11:27 AM: The post from "Pluto" (10:54am) hits the mark perfectly. I looked at the Rev. Richard Perozich's published letter with jaw-dropping incredulity that someone representing an organization that claims to represent a gospel of love and compassion could be so Neanderthal and out of touch with modern science.
But then I remembered the Inquisitions, denial of "round-earth" consensus, the persecutions of Galileo (and the rest of their participation in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE), subjugation of women, denial of private medical choices including even birth control!) and their eager cover-ups and abetting of known patterns of child sexual rape, and it actually seemed to make sense that they would persecute another unpopular minority.
I suppose in Jesus' time they would have been the ones first in line to stone the sinners, spit on the Samaritans and turn away the lepers.
Today, they represent the established religious orthodoxy that Jesus preached against. They are the modern Pharisees.
Good post, "Pluto."

to Rev Perozich wrote on Mar 7, 2008 11:30 AM:One statement of yours intrigues me: "MSM and WSW behaviors may provide temporary relief from feelings of loneliness, isolation, true identity, inferiority, marginalization, which are characteristic of the condition" Seems to me that the first two (relief from isolation and loneliness) applies as equally to MSW, no? And the last two, inferiority and marginalization, are "symptoms" caused by their society, just as other oppressed, hated groups felt "inferior and marginalized" until they won a semblance of equal standing in their communities. So the homosexuals are just like heterosexuals and they are victims of an intolerant society. And you call this their problem? As for chastity, I wish it were true that chastity brings peace of mind, but my sense from experience of self and others is quite the opposite.

Whew! What a relief! wrote on Mar 7, 2008 11:36 AM:From today's Times QUOTE: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush on Friday said he was concerned about the U.S. economy which had clearly slowed."I know Americans are concerned about our economy, so am I," Bush said to reporters. "It's clear our economy has slowed, but the good news is we anticipated this and took decisive action to bolster the economy by passing a growth package that will put money into the hands of American workers and businesses." ENDQUOTE I cannot tell you all how relieved I am that Bush anticipated the economic downturn and has taken the steps necessary to fix it. Aren't you? All's well.

BUDGET WOES wrote on Mar 7, 2008 11:42 AM:-
Ron cites with dismay the growth in "entitlements" since 2000.
The lion's share of that, of course, is interest on Republican borrow-and spend Voodoo Economics.
Gee, who has been running the presidency during that time?
Who has been running Congress for most of that time (and Congress blocked by vetoes the rest of the time)?
I agree with Ronnie.
The Republicans sure have messed things up, haven't they.

Just Curious wrote on Mar 7, 2008 11:49 AM:What About Others wrote on Mar 7, 2008 7:03 AM English is or was the dominant language in the USA because the majority of the people spoke English. Immigrants comprising the minority needed English in order to function within the society of the majority. It is estimated that by 2050 or sooner the USA will be about half Hispanic or Spanish speakers.
This will increase again in time. So, I am wondering. When the day comes that Spanish speakers outnumber English speakers, will Spanish become the unofficial language of the United States?

Awards wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:04 PM: I nominate Duh @6:06am for "Best Comment of the Day".

So? wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:20 PM:Switzerland and Belgium, among many nations, from Canada to India, are multilingual. What's the big deal? At some point it will surely be obvious that at least in certain regions of the country, all schooling will be bilingual in the sense that all the anglo kids will be taught Spanish and vice versa from the git go. No problem...too bad we are resisting this now.

esteban wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:22 PM:Marky...we all know Chris applauds the deaths of anything Israeli or American. And considering one of the dead unarmed children used to live in the US...Chris is especially ecstatic. He's probably popping open a beer right now and saying, "Go Hammas!!!!!"

Ron wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:24 PM:Wiz @8:42 AM, despite your "literate third-grade dropout with no qualifications" {LOL}, I understood yesterday what you were saying. My only point today, and I wish the blog editor would have posted my previous post to that affect, was to show what THEY claim to be. What THEY advertise to the world to be. It's a misnomer, but it's even worse than that, at least in my mind.
Because the IPCC proports itself to speak for the consensus scientists, as the foremost authority of climate change. When they are not. They are, in fact, a political body with a public policy agenda. They use PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE and they re-write it to meet their particular political agenda.
So, when the IPCC proports themselves as being "a scientific body" who use of "Peer-reviewed science" is bogus, and nothing short of a purposely cryptic way of fooling the uneducated. When the exact opposite is true. They do have a pre-determinated political position in this debate, and they use the "cover" of science journals and peer-reviewed studies to deguise their real political agenda. The design of which, is to confuse most regular folks.
I do not consider them neutral science writers, or even a reliable secondary source. Because they can not accurately reflect the state of current scientific consensus. I've seen too many examples of drafting problems with IPCC reports, it's not even funny.
In my opinion, they can not validly support their public policy agendas with solid science, because they have this preconceived notion of humans contributing to climate change.
And the problem is further exasorbated when dissenting scientists are attacked for being out of the mainstream, as if that were a crime, or who funds them. Regardless of who funds, and that can be a whole other long conversation, the science must be allowed to stand on it's own, or fall. Probably the one thing that most bothers me about this whole debate is this idea that dissenting scientist must be dirty, and should be expelled from consideration.
If the theory they promote meets the scientific protocol, what difference does it make, if it moves the ball forward? Dismissing theory or argument simply because you disagree with them, is not science. That's political.
Oh, I do miss your Chris Mooney retorts;
properly stated: The Republican War Against Science.

GFN wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:28 PM:Ron, you 8:54 post brings up some good points. I will also slug with you...cheers!

CHASTITY wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:29 PM:-
Rev Richard Perozich suggests chastity for those who feel same sex attraction.
If you believe in equal rights for everyone, does that mean chastity should be required for those who feel opposite sex attraction?
Is this an opinion he recommends, or does the Rev think it should be enforced by law?

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:33 PM: The post from "Ron" (12:24pm) continues to rant and rail against the IPCC.
Who is he arguing against?
No one here has cited the IPCC as an authority. In fact, I have explained my reasons for not doing so, whether they are right or wrong.
Is this all that "Ron" is left with because he is incapable of responding to the virtually unanimous consensus in the PEER-REVIEWED scientific and academic journals I DID cite?
Another straw man, "Ron," another straw man.
Another Republican diversion from the real thing.

Oh, esteban wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:39 PM:You know perfectly well from reading Chris' posts that he finds all killing horrible. Especially killing children. That makes the Jeruselem murderers horrible. And the American bomber-murderers of Iraqi children horrible. At least that's how I've always read Chris' posts. And I agree with him. No, it's the war lovers who pop the cork whenever violence calls. Even the death of those kids is, for you, just a happy excuse to get revenge. And so it will continue, with you all in charge, death after death after death, no end.

NO AMNESTY .. wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:39 PM: --- No telecom amnesty, no immunity, or, for that matter, to anyone who cooperates with the illegal demands of the Bush administration. Warrantless
wiretapping is a violation of the people’s right to privacy (please read the 4thamendment). When an administration takes an oath of office and then proceeds to act in an irresponsible manner, ignoring that oath, those corporations and/or individuals who assisted must not be "forgiven". And certainly a request for a retroactive action additionally causes those who might consider illegal activities in the future to believe that their "indiscretions" will be pardoned. Our internet and phone communications have been violated, and these acts have been admitted to by Bush. Congress must defend our Constitution and stand strong for our rights.

ORACLE = wrote on Mar 7, 2008 12:42 PM:= THE DEVALUATION TAX = The true definition of TAXES is confiscation of one’s wealth by government. The most insidious tax is that imposed upon the people by a government that pursues policies which devalue a nation’s currency. Such a tax can also be termed an INFLATION TAX. The current administration has finally levied this insidious tax upon all Americans. Our dollar is plunging. There is fear of hyper-inflation (hyper-taxation).
Gold hit $980 yesterday. The $1000 gold target will be reached within days. The $20 silver target has already been breached. The $100 crude oil price has been breached. Oil hit an new all time high of $106 today. Why would Hugo Chavez cut off oil supplies to the US? This is his sweet revenge against Bush-Cheney. Bush-Cheney, by pursuing a national oil policy of profiteering by oil producers, have given great aid and comfort to our enemies and the oil exporting nations, while at the same time betrayed the people of the United States.
When a gold target of $1000 was proposed three to four years ago, most economists dismissed such talk as silly, irresponsible, even ludicrous. Not any more! Another marker was crossed yesterday: For the first time in several decades the Pound Sterling is worth $2. All this means that it will take more dollars to pay for gas, food, and everything from diamonds to trinkets.
The great commodity bull market is entering into its second crucial phase , ma