Whew, what a relief wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:46 AM:Finally, the truth about Iraq is spoken. From Reuters, QUOTE: BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday declared the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq a "successful endeavor" in a visit to Iraq that was overshadowed by a suicide bombing that killed at least 25 people. "If you look back on those five years it has been a difficult, challenging but nonetheless successful endeavor ... and it has been well worth the effort," Cheney told a news conference in Baghdad after meeting Iraqi leaders. ENDQUOTE Ah, well worth the effort, that's good to know. The thousands who are dead and maimed will rest easy now that they know. And all the more so because it's been a successful endeavor. Wow. What are Cheney's FAILURES like? If you agree with Cheney wholeheartedly, then vote for McCain. He will keep this successful endeavor going, and might well initiate some more successful endeavors.

Alf wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:02 AM:ATTENTION MODERATOR - WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE COMMENTS BEFORE 9:46AM????? Regards, Alf. Editor's note: Due to an error the wrong Letters to the Editor were posted on our Web site for Monday, March 17. The correct letters are now posted. All comments before 9:46 were on letters that will post tomorrow. Those comments will appear on the 3-18 letters.

Yokozuna wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:14 AM:It was always my understanding that the concerns with cell phones and other electronics (including computers with wi-fi enabled)dealt with the possible problems of those items interfering with the electronics on the airplane, not ground communications.

Ron wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:22 AM:If I'm not mistaken, this is the second letter from Donald Bentley about reductions in government payments {single-payer} for receipiants of government run healthcare.
This time about Tricare benefits, the last letter, as I recall, was about Medi-Care, I believe.
Tricare was offered to my own Father, a retiree from the Navy, and he wouldn't take it, because the coverage was very limited in both scope & provider, and he'd rather have a Kaiser HMO, for equal the cost to him.
But listen to Donald Bentley:
"The allowable fee for the military insurance, Tricare, has decreased once again. This 13 percent... comes on top of a 10 percent... A 23 percent {total}reduction... places military families and retirees in serious jeopardy of potentially being unable to find a provider who will accept Tricare."
Further he writes:
"Since Tricare now only allows 34 percent of my billed fee, I soon will find myself running in the red and actually losing money for every Tricare patient I see...."
And what did I tell you about begging your Congressman for your very life?
He continues...
"I am asking Congressman Bilbray and anyone else who cares about military veterans and families to halt further reductions in the Tricare program."
And what have I told you about the outcome of long term government run healthcare? It removes incentives for those who plan on being doctors.
He continues:
"However, some medical providers may not be able to sustain further reductions and may need to completely eliminate services to Tricare beneficiaries."
Per-Zactly right!
It will shortly become defacto rationing, by paying medical providers so little, 34%.. They can not afford to see patients, and stay in business.
I tried to tell you, the government is already doing it. They are taking money away from providers in order to keep the rising costs down. That's how it done in Britian, France, and anywhere else you have universal healthcare paid for by the government. It WILL happen here too, if it becomes law. Mark my words.

Ron wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:33 AM:I don't know.. Trish Green. I believe SDG&E has found a more environmentally friendly solution with the Sunrise Powerlink, within a cost to benefit ratio consumers will be able to absorb. It will link solar, geothermal, and wind generated power to additional 650,000 consumers for a net cost of $1.3 billion, or about $2,000 each.
Locally generated solar would require a minimum of 800,000 homes be fitted, at a cost of $20 billion. Sunrise will
reduce greenhouse gases now, and
is a more environmentally friendly solution than what we currently use.

Apollo wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:46 AM: Re: Ron (10:22 a.m.)
Excellent post!
Shows that if you are going to reform healthcare, it needs to be done right.
That obviously means not having it administered by Republicans (Bush, Bilbray, Issa, McCain)!
Republicans say government can't work and they are out to prove it.

Focal Point wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:46 AM:See you all in two days after NCT gets it together.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:57 AM: The post from "Ron" (10:33am) compares Sunrise PowerLink and solar alternatives in an analogy that is as valid as apples and fruitcakes for three reasons:
1 - "Ron" compares the cost of Sunrise ProfitStink (love that word from the published letter by Todd Saier!) with the cost of installing solar on an equivalent number of homes. A true comparison would show that the cost of the solar alternative is close to ZERO, because the ProfitStink line only covers the transmission of the energy from distant production sites, not the production of the energy. The cost of LOCAL ON-SITE solar is for the production of the energy itself. It you want to have a fair comparison, you have to also include the cost of the originating solar, geothermal and wind production sources that are not included in the 1.3 billion.
2 - "Ron" assumes that the equivalent would be full installation of the solar. But many people would be glad to erase their electric bills if they just had enough additional financial incentive to compensate them for the excess energy they produce, so you don't need to pay for their entire solar, just offer enough of an incentive to attract those who are already close.
3 - "Ron" assumes that to equal 650,000 homes powered by ProfitStink is equal to 800,000 homes by solar. Huh? 650,000 = 800,000? More conservative fuzzy math?

Reardon wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:05 AM:To Focal Point: As Ron noted above on another subject, you get what you pay for. (Often less, but NEVER more!)There ain't no such thing as a "free" lunch!

esteban wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:11 AM:To whew...millions died in WW1 and WW2. I guess those endevors were not successful?

OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:13 AM:-
Jean Peterson's letter rightly criticizes both Geraldine Ferraro's grammar as well as her conclusion.
Ferraro was all over the talk shows defending her statement and denying that she is racist.
She may or not be, but her statement was.
When you make a statement in which race is the key issue, it is racist.

But Cheney said it was successful! wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:13 AM:From AFP, QUOTE: The humanitarian situation in post-war Iraq five years after the US-led invasion is one of the most critical in the world, the International Committee of the Red Cross said in a report late Sunday. Millions in the country had no access to drinking water, sanitation or healthcare. Decades of previous unrest and economic sanctions had exacerbated the situation, it stressed. ENDQUOTE Hmm, to believe Dick Cheney or the Red Cross? LOL I know that some here will actually take Cheney's side in this, believing that the Red Cross is some commie, terror-loving group of nut cases. But those of us who are sane have long ago learned what to think of Cheney's claims. The Iraq occupation is shameful.

Reardon wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:30 AM:To Apollo: Yes, indeed – I have been VERY impressed with the Democrats organizational skills! There is a great example in the Florida and Illinois primary debacle; the combination of primary ballot/caucus in Texas, where people can legally vote twice but the results take days to count; a system where the Super Delegates can trump the will of the Primary voters; a potential “Do-Over” in Florida (as one comedian commented, “combining the organizational skills of the Democrats with the efficiency of the Postal Service”); a Candidate who attended the Church of Chris for 20 years (yes, pun intended)...

Focal Point wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:31 AM:Reardon wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:05 AM Do not know why you are addressing me about a free lunch or value for payment.

Surfer wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:34 AM:esteban wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:11 AM Bogus. Here you go again trying to elevate the reasons for World War II with Iraq. You are trying to deflect from the real subject is Iraq. Typical Conservative ploy. Dude, these tactics no longer work.

whew wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:44 AM:esteban, in WWI and II (1) the war was justified on the basis of there being a dire threat to allies and no other resorts left; (2) there was an identifiable enemy in each of those wars; (3) there was an understanding of how "success" or "victory" was defined. None of these conditions are true in Iraq. Nice try, son, but no wishing or violence-loving can bring back those who've died for nothing. If Bush's aim was regime change, then even though the invasion was unjustified (as we now know for sure), that mission was accomplished years ago. What's happened since is already a defeat for all concerned except perhaps Iran.

Uh oh wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:48 AM:Violence in Iraq is increasing, if you haven't noticed. McCain, in a clever move, has already done a pre-emptive political strike on this. He knows that the increased security is very tentative, and that his promotion of the surge is the one thing he's got going for him. So he's already announced that if violence increases in Iraq, it'll be due to the desire of the "terrorists" to have the Democrats win and not any surge-failure. In this, I think we have a perfect snapshot of how McCain will run the "war" if he is in charge. Just like Bush and Cheney, with spins, lies, false claims about political enemies, you know, the usual fare.

Sorry we have to repeat this... wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:00 PM:But Ron ignores posts that correct him and chooses to repeat nonsense. For the nth time, none of the Presidential candidates is proposing a system of health care like those in Britain or Frace. The problem remains: under our current system, we cannot afford the healthcare we need. Not uninsured people. Not veterans. Not those who think they are well-insured until they find out otherwise. We pay more in administrative costs for our care than do people even in Britain and France. A change is inevitable and it'll be about time, but thanks to the Rons here, millions of Americans will have their health care later rather than sooner. Shameful.

Ron wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:05 PM:Big budget woes will require ALL to pitch in, and pay "their fair share."
This will include MP3 or Ipod downloads.
Currently, untaxed. The California State legislature is searching high & low for addition revenues.
They will be going after your children, they are the highest users of comuter music/video downloads.
Just so ya know... it won't only be "the Rich." Unless you want them to pay for your downloads too.

SOLON ... wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:18 PM:… The cost of the Bush War is not $12 billion per month, as stated by Marily Werkema (letter today). The projected cost of the Bush war is aleady $3 trillion for six years, making the cost $50 billion per months, not just $12. The Bush propaganda machine keep promoting this preposterously low figure, which does not even include over $850 billion just in interest for all the money this administration is borrowing from China and other foreign nations. It does not include the hundreds of billions in medical care for our wounded vets. Perhaps the Republican party does not intend to provide for veterans medical care???
Submitted 1:20am Re-submitted 10:03am Re-submitted 11:18am

Bad boy vs. EVIL boy . wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:21 PM:- - While New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was paying an ‘escort’ $4,300 in a hotel room in Washington, just down the road, George Bush’s new Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Ben Bernanke, was secretly handing over $200 billion in a tryst with mortgage bank industry speculators. Both acts were wanton, wicked and lewd. But there’s a BIG difference. The Governor was using his own checkbook. Bush’s man Bernanke was using ours to bail out banks that had made wild and foolish speculations.

SOLON ... wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:29 PM:… Cheny-Bush don’t give a Rat’s derriere about the humanitarian crisis they caused in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. They don’t care that the people are plagued by disease and contaminated drinking water and lack of sanitation. They don’t care that over 4 million Iraqis have been driven out of their homes, and about the millions who have fled to Syria, Iran and Jordan. They do not care that over one million excess deaths have been caused by the Bush War. All is rosy and on the road to recovery -- kind of like our own economy, which is on the verge of tanking. It’s so reassuring to have men with vision and experience at the helm of our own government.

Apollo wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:40 PM: Re: Reardon (11:30 a.m.)
You are absolutely right!
Democrats run lousy campaigns but know how to govern.
Republicans run incredible campaigns but can't govern.
We should have all campaigns run by Republicans and all governing by Democrats.

Ron wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:52 PM:Another very puzzling post by Wiz
@10:57 AM. In which, he claims my comparison is that of apples to fruitcakes?
The three reasons:
1 - I compare the cost of Sunrise Powerlink @ $1.3 billion across the 650,000 new users @ $2K each.
The cost of installing solar on an equivalent number of homes, you say under $30K, let's make it $20K just for argument sake, that's $13 billion. After they install, and pay the second mortgage, then the meter goes to zero, but you still have a payment of some kind, right?

2 - I also assume that a full installation of the solar would only offset costs initially. People would be glad to erase their electric bills if they can achieve a lesser payment on the second mortgage, or break even. Plus with a paid off system in the future, no payments to either SDG&E or the lender. Without figuiring interest, @ $20K over 10 years, that's about $166 a month. Like I said, if the cost after installation is lesser, it's a good investment. If your a break even, then you'll realize savings after 10 years.

3 - As to "...additional financial incentive to compensate them for the excess energy they produce...",
If you are below baseline, which your system would surely do, your electric bill is already providing financial incentives which compensates you with lower per Kwt per Hr rates.
At present, "Selling Back" is not allowed, and would, in my own opinon, make you a energy producer, like SDG&E, for which the PUC can regulate you. In fact, they already regulate this, and you are not "paid", but "credited" Kwt hours. If you "get paid" you'll probably have to report that as income.

4 - I assume nothing. This fact comes from the PUC. To equal the additional 650,000 homes powered by Power Link, would require 855,000 homes by independent solar units. Not conservative fuzzy math. How much extra power do you generate? Enough to power another home, besides your own? It's accumilative, across several solar homes providing power for one additional. Don't be difficult.

Reardon wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:13 PM:To Focal Point: Gosh, I don't remember, but it must have made some sense to my addled mind when I wrote it! Perhaps the Editors have since removed a necessary precursor post (the new format is not yet ready for prime-time), perhaps it was someone else, or perhaps my short-term memory is worse than I thought. :-)

Reardon wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:20 PM:To Apollo: I have just two words for you: Jimmy Carter.

Karl wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:26 PM:To "Apollo wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:40 PM" I call baloney on your post. Neither can govern, they both play us for fools. The banter between yourself and Reardon is exactly where they want us minnons. The balance swings between Dems and Reps on a cycle and they are very happy with that. All they are good at is collecting money from PACs and granting these groups power through legislation.

Ms M wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:26 PM:Reardon wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:20 PM:To Apollo: I have just two words for you: Jimmy Carter. And the 2 words for you are George Bush - enough said.

Chuck wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:30 PM:>>>Cheny-Bush don’t give a Rat’s derriere about the humanitarian crisis they caused in Iraq and throughout the Middle East>>> What a bunch of liberal sewage. Bush kills terrorists. The humanitarian crisis is created by your friends who blow up churches, markets, hospitals, schools, orphanges etc. And the bigger humanitarian crisis will be this massive commodity price inflation caused by you global warming kool-aid drinkers causing speculation in the commodities (especially your buddy George Soros)

Chuck wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:34 PM:>>The California State legislature is searching high & low for addition revenues>> Like good panty waisted bureaucrats, they dont realize that they have to cut back spending during a recession. Instead they're looking to add more burden to the taxpayer to help fund their diversity package, and overblown salaries, benefits and pensions

Chris to Nick wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:44 PM:I am refering to your blog for 8:13 AM today that is on the letters for yesterday. I was just repeating what the article said and that information came from our military. But as usual you throw out that red herring of saying that I just made it up. I guess that reading wasn't your strong point.

Ron wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:53 PM:Unbelieveable...
You try to do people a solid, provide a little information, and you get "Sorry we have to repeat this..." @12:00 PM. Who berates me for comparing the Democrat Presidential candidates healthcare proposals to those of
Britain or France.
And then, he/she does it: "We pay more in administrative costs for our care than do people even in Britain and France."
I do the comparison because it is a direct corollary between how the Euro's contain cost, and how we do it currently. Further, under both Hillary's & Barack's plans, they do exactly the same thing, in cost control/containment.
Do you deny the government currently under-pays medical providers, as Donald Bentley above? Do you deny that's how it done? This is why France, and other countries are relavent, cause that's how THEY do it, that how WE do it. Understand?
Less cost, means less healthcare. Unless... you pay the provider less, as in France. Clearer now...?
I mean.. really. It's not rocket science.
But, here's what I really think will happen. In both their plans, somehwere in the range of $110 billion in extra spending, I honestly do believe, if it were to happen, that all that would happen is more people being put on Medi-Care, raising the Medi-Care tax rate to cover the extra $110 billion, and they'll call that a day. Everyone's got some form of insurance, the uninsured being placed on Medi-Care. And I honestly think, that's as far as it might go. Just one man's opinion.

Ms M wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:54 PM:Reardon wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:20 PM:To Apollo: I have just two words for you: Jimmy Carter. And the 2 words for you are George Bush - enough said. (Originally posted 1:30PM

to Reardon wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:55 PM:speaking of pairs of words: Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, George Bush. Appollo is right.

stan wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:17 PM:Jean Peterson...I don' think you understand what a gerund is. I think what you meant was that the subjunctive form of the verb "was" which is "were" should be used in a statement of possibility that is contrary to fact. As in "If Obama were a white man, he would not be in this position." A gerund is a verb ending in -ing and acts as a noun. Such as "Swimming is my favorite sport."
Your explaination about a pronoun before a gerund is wrong.

OBAMA MAMA - - wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:28 PM:- - Ever since Hillary’s “big win” of Texas and Ohio (Hillary actually wound up losing Texas by one delegate) the super-delegates keep slipping away into the Obama camp. Since the Texas election, 11 super-delegates have moved from the uncommitted column to Obama, and only one to Hillary. The momentum builds. Hillary lost one super-delegate, former NY governor, Eliot Spitzer, will not be going to the Denver convention. Who will the new black governor be supporting? Haven’t heard yet.

esteban wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:51 PM:I would love for troops to be home more than you. But if we leave now, and bad guys fill the power void, THEN our troops have died for nothing. But that wopuldn't matter to you lefty loons. Man, I'm tired of being right. No puns please.

Surfer wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:55 PM:Ron wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:05 PM: On this one, I do agree with Big Kahuna Ron.
We should shoot ourselves for permitting the tax man into cyber space sales. Now, they have the precedent. You know brahs what they will do next.

Reardon wrote on Mar 17, 2008 3:36 PM:Ms. M: Originality is obviously not your strong point, and as to "To Reardon" I have a new policy to never reply to people who have no identifiable moniker on a continuing basis. The “To” identification is a “hit and run” concept except when tagged to a name.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 17, 2008 3:55 PM:The post from "Ron" (12:52pm) continues to demonstrate conservative fuzzy math.
He makes several references to the financing of the solar photovoltaic option, and assumes costs of a second mortgage. Actually, for those who have sufficient equity, it is more likely a full re-fi but, in any case, the funding mechanism is completely irrelevant. (In our case, we got lower payments on a fixed-30, so we not only eliminated the electric bill but also a more favorable house payment. It does not matter if you use cash, credit card, 2nd mortgage or refi. It makes no difference whether one takes out savings or financing and simply pays their account ahead to make their bill disappear. As with anything, financing mut be considered separately from the cost of the SOLAR itself, as all buyers can handle this separately.
As for the issue of not being able to sell back, just to clarify (I think "Ron" does understand this), from month to month we DO get credit for the excess produced, so if I produce more during the winter, spring and fall that can be applied as a credit to use during the summer when we're running the air conditioning. But there is an annual adjustment and if, at the end of the YEAR, we have produced more than we use, then SDG&E just gets to keep that overproduction as a free, uncompensated gift, which is not only unfair but also runs counter to "Ron's" statement, because it actually takes fewer houses with solar to equal the amount from ProfitStink because each house with a full-power system powers not only itself, but contributes to others in the system (without compensation). The actual number would depend on how much excess production is achieved.
In any case, "Ron" did not actually address any of the points in mine at 10:57am, other than to confirm my point about conservative fuzzy math.

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 17, 2008 3:56 PM:The post from "Reardon" (1:20pm) cites Jimmy Carter as the example of a failed presidency.
We can probably agree that he failed to achieve everything he wanted, largely due to opposition and resistance in his own party, blocking what they perceived as a conservative Democrat because of his support for deregulation of some industries (which I opposed).
However, let's examine this "failed" presidency:
In foreign policy, he opposed human rights violations, stood up to dictatorships and brokered a historic agreement for Egypt to become the first Arab country to recognize and accept Israel. This won him a Nobel Peace Prize.
In domestic policy, he is largely blamed for stagflation, but we all know the Fed Chairman has more to do with that and he inherited the Fed Chairman Arthur Burns who had been appointed by Nixon and held office until the last year of Carter's presidency, when Carter appointed Paul Volcker, who served through most of Reagan's first term and turned the economy around, for which Reagan, of course, unjustly got most of the credit.

Ms M wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:01 PM:esteban wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:51 PM: ...THEN our troops have died for nothing...so when do we leave? Our army is broken. If you want to fight a war - let's get ALL Americans involved. The soldiers that have repeated tours cannot do this much longer. So what is victory? How can you win something you should not have started.

ORACLE = wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:20 PM:= The markets just closed, and extreme jitters rocked them back and forth. All major markets closed down today, except the Dow Jones managed a small increase. There is a crisis brewing, and the markets reflected that. The DOW was all over the place, WAY down, then up and down and up again at the end.
The slide of the dollar continues: You can now buy a dollar for only 97 Yen, having broken that 100 long awaited landmark; and it now takes $1.57 to buy one Euro. Hope you weren’t planning a trip to Europe this summer. No fancy French restaurants. A McDonald’s hamburger now costs $9.00 in Paris. And yellow gold rose $6.00 today. The only good news was that the price of black gold (oil) fell $4 down to just $106 bbl. Hm-m-m-m-m. Good news? What’s an investor to do with his dollars? Put them in U.S. treasuries, backed by the full faith and credit of the government? How about a 5 year note, at today’s rate of 2.29 percent interest? At the rate the dollar is sliding, you should lose only about 9% a year on you money -- a heck of a lot better than stocks, or your ultimate investment -- your home.
ORACLE hates to bring you bad news, but the Iraq War is not going to be the number one disaster of the Bush legacy. Just when you though it could not get worse -- well, it is about to. Here is what economist Paul Krugman writes in his column today in the NY Times:
QUOTE “O.K., here it comes: The unthinkable is about to become the inevitable.
Last week, Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, and John Lipsky, a top official at the International Monetary Fund, both suggested that public funds might be needed to rescue the U.S. financial system. Mr. Lipsky insisted that he wasn’t talking about a bailout. But he was.
It’s true that Henry Paulson, the current Treasury secretary, still says that any proposal to use taxpayers’ money to help resolve the crisis is a “non-starter.” But that’s about as credible as all of his previous pronouncements on the financial situation.
So here’s the question we really should be asking: When the feds do bail out the financial system, what will they do to ensure that they aren’t also bailing out the people who got us into this mess?
Let’s talk about why a bailout is inevitable.
Between 2002 and 2007, false beliefs in the private sector — the belief that home prices only go up, that financial innovation had made risk go away, that a triple-A rating really meant that an investment was safe — led to an epidemic of bad lending. Meanwhile, false beliefs in the political arena — the belief of Alan Greenspan and his friends in the Bush administration that the market is always right and regulation always a bad thing — led Washington to ignore the warning signs.
By the way, Mr. Greenspan is still at it: accepting no blame, he continues to insist that “market flexibility and open competition” are the “most reliable safeguards against cumulative economic failure.”
The result of all that bad lending was an unholy financial mess that will cause trillions of dollars in losses. A large chunk of these losses will fall on financial institutions: commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds and so on.
Many people say that the government should let the chips fall where they may — that those who made bad loans should simply be left to suffer the consequences. But it’s not going to happen. When push comes to shove, financial officials — rightly — aren’t willing to run the risk that losses on bad loans will cripple the financial system and take the real economy down with it.” END of QUOTE , but Krugman had much more to say. But that’s about as much as I can digest for now.
It’s ain’t good out there.
Submitted 1:07pm Re-submitted 3:19pm

Floyd The Scientist wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:31 PM:If the NC Times has an opening for a full-time blog editor, I'd like to apply for the position provided I get a WHITE LAB COAT as a perk. And I promise to be fair, balanced, and non-judgemental in my editorial work as I evaluate all the wild-eyed, lunatic postings that are submitted daily by the various screwball bloggers. Impartial! That's me!! Sign me up, already.

question for esteban wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:43 PM:Can you tell us in a clear way what conditions would have to be for us to say that our mission in Iraq was really accomplished so that we can leave? For example, the government now is headed by Shiites who have an excellent working relationship with Iran. If Iraq were unified and this government, with its strong alliance with Iran and its suspicion of our ally, Saudi Arabia, were in place, would you feel like that was a good enough situation for us to leave? Do you feel that before we left, we would have to have permanent military bases in Iraq, whether or not the Iraqis wanted them there? Do you think, as the Iraqis do, that they should be in charge of their own oil, or that the wells should be developed by "international corporations" as Bush wants? What IS victory in Iraq, esteban?

Don't settle for that, Floyd! wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:48 PM:Blog editor? I have a better idea: you should edit and run the science section. This would make your lab coat an automatic perk. You claim to know what science is and isn't better than the many thousands who are getting paid as such and who have world-wide respect. Who better than you to set the science section of the NCT aright?

Ms M wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:01 PM:Reardon wrote on Mar 17, 2008 3:36 PM:Ms. M: Originality is obviously not your strong point...LOL you are too funny! Are you the blog editor? How do you know who actually posted first? I am the first to admit on THIS site I am often posting challenged LMAO. Sometimes it takes forever to get an update on this blog. But whatever, your negative critique of my response was really not necessary.

Don't worry, ORACLE wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:39 PM:By the time this is posted (or maybe later) you will be corrected for even suggesting that Paul Krugman, Princeton economist, has anything important to tell us. You see, Krugman (by his own admission) is a liberal. To many who post here, this invalidates and even disproves anything that he says at all. (These folks are afraid to actually look at Krugman's columns during the "run up" to Iraq. They'd find that he, like many liberals, had it right. There's actually proof of this now.) So if Krugman says anything disquieting, it's nice to know that because he is a liberal, he is incorrect. This is the level of thinking that these folks (who vote!) rise to. What're you gonna do?

DD Wiz wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:46 PM:The post from "Ron" (12:52pm) continues to exemplify math that doesn't seem to add up.
He makes several references to the financing of the solar photovoltaic option, and assumes costs of a second mortgage. Actually, for those who have sufficient equity, it is more likely a full re-fi but, in any case, the funding mechanism is completely irrelevant. (In our case, we got lower payments on a fixed-30, so we not only eliminated the electric bill but also a more favorable house payment -- hardly additional "cost").
As with any purchase, financing must be considered separate from the purchase itself, as individual buyers handle this differently. It does not matter if you use cash, credit card, 2nd mortgage or refi. Cost of money is different than the cost of products or services. It makes no difference whether one takes out savings or financing to eliminate their bill with solar or simply pay their account ahead to make their bill disappear.
As for not being able to sell back the overproduction, just to clarify (I sense "Ron" does understand this), from month to month we DO get credit for the overage produced, so if I produce more during the winter, spring and fall months, that excess can be applied as a credit towards the summer when we're running the air conditioning. But there is an annual adjustment and if, at the end of the YEAR, we have produced more than we use, then SDG&E just gets to keep that overproduction as a free, uncompensated gift, which is not only unfair but also runs counter to "Ron's" statement, because it actually takes fewer houses with solar to equal the amount from Powerlink, because each house with a full-power system powers not only itself, but contributes to others in the system (without compensation). The actual number would depend on how much excess production is achieved.
In any case, "Ron" did not actually address any of the other points in my 10:57am post, other than to confirm my point about conservative fuzzy math.
Posted 3:55pm; reposted 5:46pm with edits

Cluck wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:52 PM:Bush kills terrorists. What a bunch of conservative sewage. You don't credit for killing the terrorists you create. Remember, terrorism has grown under this president and this administration and this foray into Iraq. Those are the facts. I think they do care about the mess they created, in that it's too bad it happened but we felt it needed to be done, kind of way. Kind of like in that Ted Knight in Caddyshack kind of way, "I sent boys younger than you to the gas chamber; didn't want to do it, but felt I owed it to them." Thanks anyway. But sorry, this cowboy shoot em up yeehaa gonna kills us some terrorists deputy dawg wild wild west image is beyond absurd at this point. It's down right queer. And um, what are they doing about the domestic terrorism occuring on an ever more recurring basis? Remind me again, do you have to a bomb strapped to you and be praising Islam to be a trerrorist? The christian white kids shooting up schools don't count? And the presidents number 1 job is protecting us from the terrorists? When asked about the economy he goes on to say that he did what he did to protect us from the terrorists? Well, then you're failing at that. I'll take my chances with the terrorists. Live free or die, as they say.

ORACLE = wrote on Mar 17, 2008 6:14 PM:= The markets just closed, and extreme jitters rocked them back and forth. All major markets closed down today, except the Dow Jones managed a small increase. There is a crisis brewing, and the markets reflected that. The DOW was all over the place, WAY down, then up and down and up again at the end.
The slide of the dollar continues: You can now buy a dollar for only 97 Yen, having broken that 100 long awaited landmark; and it now takes $1.57 to buy one Euro. Hope you weren’t planning a trip to Europe this summer. No fancy French restaurants. A McDonald’s hamburger now costs $9.00 in Paris. And yellow gold rose $6.00 today. The only good news was that the price of black gold (oil) fell $4 down to just $106 bbl. Hm-m-m-m-m. Good news? What’s an investor to do with his dollars? Put them in U.S. treasuries, backed by the full faith and credit of the government? How about a 5 year note, at today’s rate of 2.29 percent interest? At the rate the dollar is sliding, you should lose only about 9% a year on you money -- a heck of a lot better than stocks, or your ultimate investment -- your home.
ORACLE hates to bring you bad news, but the Iraq War is not going to be the number one disaster of the Bush legacy. Just when you though it could not get worse -- well, it is about to.
Submitted 4 times.

Reardon wrote on Mar 17, 2008 6:16 PM:DD: Jimmy Carter was a fellow Annapolis graduate and a fellow submariner (so he started out with my emotional support), but even with that there is not enough lipstick in the world to change that pig into anything but a lipsticked pig. My roommate at USNA was Carter's Military Aid (the first in our class to make Flag Rank), and at the time was the first and only military aid EVER to request a transfer from that position. Rationalize all you want -- if you don't remember the reasons for "malaise" I'll enumerate them for you.

Brian A. wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:03 PM:Esteban, I have to hand it to you. You would no doubt go down with the ship! Keep defending Bush and worshipping cops gone wrong.

Asteroid to OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:21 PM:Thank you for defining or explaining what constitutes racism. Basically, Geraldine Ferraro’s crime was that she, not being a person of color herself, had the temerity to voice an opinion regarding a black person without facing the continent of Africa and genuflecting. Hence racism.

to question for esteban wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:43 PM:Are you kidding???? You really expect esteban to actually clarify his rhetoric??? LOL
He'll just keep spewing what Rush tells him to.

Ms M wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:02 PM:Asteroid to OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:21 PM Thank you for defining or explaining what constitutes racism...Unfortunately statements made about race are considered racist and not what they really are - ignorant!

Ms M wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:08 PM:I wonder how much the CEO's of the companies that WE are bailing out have made in the past few years. Why don't the shareholders demand that they return the millions that they made over the past years. If they would return the millions in bonuses (unfortunately their stock is worthless) and pay that they obviously did not earn - it would make me feel a lot better. But hey that's life. I wonder if those CEO's are throwing back a few and laughing all the way to the bank. Should they not be held responsible - oops silly me it must not a crime to bring our financial market to it's knees. Look out folk - we ain't seen nothin' yet.

hardtack wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:11 PM: “ORACLE” (@ 4:20 PM), I guess the Community Reinvestment Act passed in 1977 under President Jimmy Carter, designed to address allegations of the economically logical, free market practice of “red-lining” low-income – i.e., sub-prime – borrowers was all the fault of the free market system. Believe what you will; many non-partisan economists claim that the CRA put banks between a rock and hard place. They had to either loosen their lending standards and accept the inevitable financial consequences or incur fines. This mindless, persistent beating-up on the “free market” gets to be kind of weird – like raging against freedom, itself.

Surfer wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:15 PM:Chuck wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:30 PM Bush does not kill terrorists. He did not have the gutts to fight in Vietnam although allegedly a skilled fighter pilot. No, what he is good at is sending our young men to be killed and maimed in Irag. We are nearing 4,000 dead. That is not sewage. That is fact. Dude.

Question for Reardon wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:34 PM:Good point about Carter's man, your roomie, quitting his post. Shall we review the record of generals (and similar ranked officers) who've stepped down from the Rummy-Bush admistration? Tell you what: wait a year or two. When they've left office and/or when more of the Pentagon higher-ups retire, pay attention to what they say and write about being military during the neocon years. Of course, if McCain wins, there'll be even more to that story.

I don't know, Surfer wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:36 PM:The other day Bush waxed downright poetic about the romantic job of being in the military now, helping Afghanistan become a modern democracy. Bush said he was envious of the men and women who are getting to participate in this heroic drama. I think it was a head's up: after his term in office, he just might sign up for combat duty, the duty he longed for in Nam but couldn't get, no matter how he tried. Stay tuned!

Brian A. wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:45 PM:Paging Mr. Esteban. Please rationalize the latest cop on citizen shooting.

Apollo wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:48 PM: Re: Reardon (6:16 p.m.)
You offer to enumerate the reasons for Jimmy Carter's malaise, but DDWiz actually did it. He explained it clear enough for me to follow.
Liberal Democrats obstructed the objectives of a centrist and Carter was hamstrung with the Federal Reserve Chairman he inherited from Nixon/Ford.
In the areas of foreign policy where a President has more singular authority, he earned a Nobel Peace Prize.

OBAMACAN wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:54 PM:-
Asteroid, you missed my point about Ferraro. Her offense was not stating an opinion about a person of color. It was making a statement about race that made race the defining character in a situation where it clearly was not.
Unlike Ferraro, whose moment of fame was clearly because of her gender, Obama is a highly-achieved person of stunning character, abilities and outsider experience who is where he is despite his race, not because of it.
Making something about race that was not about race, which is what Ferraro did, is racism.
Ms M's statement about whether the statement is racist or ignorant does not require a choice.
It is clearly both.

SIMPLICITY wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:02 PM:-
To Apollo at 8:48 - that is an incredibly concise summary of DDWhiz at 3:56.
The Whiz should hire you as his editor. Seriously!

Reardon wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:25 PM:To Question for Reardon: My "roomie" (we called them our "wife") was the closest military man, day after day, to President Carter. (Here let me put to rest the story that Carter was a nuclear submariner -- in fact there are a lot of stories that he was a submarine commander. He was neither...he resigned from Nuclear Submarine School to return to his farm, because of family health problems.) Anyone who thinks that all military people are conservative, and that all (or even most) are Republican -- before or after service -- is sorely mistaken. Personally I think people's political (and sexual) proclivity are both influenced at birth (some strongly, some weakly), so there are Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal individuals throughout military. Please, do not make assumptions about military people's political beliefs. My closest submarine commander was left-liberal, but not so much that he did not once ban me (briefly) from discussing politics in the wardroom.

SOLON ... wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:53 PM:… How absolutely contemptible of Reardon to refer to a US president as a pig. Perhaps he is ignorant how offensive this is to Jewish people who respected Jimmy Carter, the only president who put his whole heart into bring about a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Shameful of you, Reardon (6:16 PM)

SOLON ... wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:06 PM:… The ROMANCE OF WAR … In a video conference last week to U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Mr. George Bush told the troops QUOTE: “If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed … It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger.” END QUOTE
NO. I do NOT know. This man is a total insensitive IDIOT! Bush had his chance when he was young, to go off and fight in the romantic jungles of Vietnam, but he got his daddy to pull strings to get him into a champagne unit, the Texas Air National Guard, so he could go shoot alligators in the swamplands along the gulf of Mexico, and do his romancing Stateside. What an insufferable hypocrite!

Nick wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:06 AM:Last time I checked "SOLON", we are in a Free Democracy where you are allowed to criticize the President and call him names if you like. Saying that "Reardon" is offending Jew's by calling Carter a pig is way out there. Stop reaching and try something tangible.

esteban wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:01 AM:Brian...I can't yet because I don't know what happened. Apparantly you do right?