Mike wrote on Apr 5, 2008 8:17 PM:Junious Montgomery has a good point, we should skip this democratic election and wait for his easter bunny in the sky to pick a leader for us.

Focal Point wrote on Apr 5, 2008 8:57 PM:Junious Montgomery: Thanks fro bringing the alleged lies of Hillary and Obama to our attention. Where were you when GWB and his administration lied to the American people 935 times?

To Focal point wrote on Apr 6, 2008 2:12 AM:Tsk. tsk. Your bias is showing. Bush is done. The others are not yet.

We're all doomed wrote on Apr 6, 2008 4:35 AM:Ah, but this is not a normal election. We are in the midst of a grand social experiment. We have the first serious black candidate and the first serious female candidate. Who would have thought that would happen AT THE SAME TIME? On the other side an old white guy who is an anathema to many in his own party. Any other time the old white guy would win in a walk. With the war and the economy in the toilet it’s pretty much a toss up. Whatever the outcome things are going to be vastly different from the past eight years, and it’s not going to be pretty. To paraphrase Margo Channing, tighten your seatbelts, it going to be a bumpy ride.

Karl wrote on Apr 6, 2008 4:56 AM:Let's see, Hillary's lies are alleged and President Bush's aren't. Interesting take.

Vista Granny wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:20 AM:Junious Montgomery never makes much sense to an old liberal like me, but today's tirade is plain silly! Divine intervention is just another way of saying your side wins. But he has no side here, just doesn't like anyone. So, Mike makes a good point -- Easter Bunny in the sky? I like it.

Yokozuna wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:21 AM:All politicians lie or at least spin. The only thing we can count on? Karl hitting them straight today.

Vista Granny wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:23 AM:Henry Sanford doesn't care much for public transportation, does he. Perhaps he'll experience misfortune, or grow old some day -- and the buses won't be available. Hope he has enough to pay for limousines. How selfish can one get?

Nick wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:42 AM: As usual, Joseph Grant rants about guns, but comes to the table with no facts, just his personal assumptions. Since he doesn't want to seem to do the research, I will.
There have been at least 11 surveys in recent years on the matter of Defensive Gun Use(or DGU's). According to one study called The National Self Defense Study, there are 2.5 Million DGU's every year, that amounts to about 1 every 13 seconds.
Now compare that with the fact that a fatal accident involving a firearm occurs in the United States only about once every 6 hours. For victims age 14 or under, it's fewer than one a day -- but still enough for the news media to have a case to tell you about in every day's edition.
Source: National Safety Council.
Another comparison is the fact that a criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United States about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities are not completely innocent victims but themselves have criminal records.
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the Chicago Police Department.
Might I suggest that Joseph Grants start doing his research before spouting off about subjects he obviously knows nothing about.
Ask any cop and they will tell you that you are your best defense, not dialing 911 and hoping the cops will show up in time to save you. How do I know? My father-in-law is a Homicide Lt with the Sheriff's Dept and has been in Law Enforcement for over 30 years. His advise is to learn proper firearm safety and handling and carry a sidearm. Funny, I've always felt the same way.
Cheers, Nick.

Focal Point wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:49 AM:To Focal point[-] wrote on Apr 6, 2008 2:12 AM: Of course it is. It is answer to the propaganda from Junious.

Nick wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:49 AM:Some more interesting stats for Joseph Grant.
Here's what a 1995 federal study investigating juvenile crime found after looking at 20,000 randomly selected households:

Relationship between type of gun owned and
percent committing street, drug and gun crimes.
Illegal gun:
Street crimes = 74%
Drug use = 41%
Gun crimes = 21%

No gun:
Street crimes = 24%
Drug use = 15%
Gun crimes = 1%

Legal Gun:
Street crimes = 14%
Drug use = 13%
Gun crimes = 0%

Sure looks to me like legal gun ownership is causing all the crimes, NOT! Why is it so hard for the Anti-Gun nuts to understand that criminals don't care about laws, that's why they are called criminals, they do crime. All restrictive gun laws do is make more law abiding citizens victims. I, for one, don't ever intend to be a victim.
Cheers, Nick.

Focl Point wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:51 AM:Karl[-] wrote on Apr 6, 2008 4:56 AM: Obama was not proved to be a liar. I do not know about Hillary. She is, however, a Clinton. Bush and his administration lies are documented.

Nick wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:54 AM:More info for Joseph Grant.
"The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place 'on the street.'"
"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns."

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," August 1995.

Nick wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:56 AM:I hope Mr Grant is reading these blogs today. I will continue to bombard him with real facts and the truth.
The rate of criminal misuse of firearms by the hundreds of thousands of persons licensed to carry concealed firearms in Florida is so low as to be statistically zero. In fact, homicide, assault, rape, and robbery are dramatically lower in areas of the United States where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms in public.

Sources: Florida Department of State, Concealed Weapons/ Firearms License Statistical Report and "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," by John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard, graduate student, Department of Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, January 1997.

Ron wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:57 AM:They sure do, Henry Sanford. NCTD, like ALL other mass transit systems never pay their own way, and are subsidized by the general taxpayer. Yes, they do have a blank check, with your name on it. In fact, even in Europe, the so-called "mass ransit dream", even their trains/mass transit systems do not pay for themselves by ridership fee's alone.
They are very heavily susidized by the Government. So, it is a leftist dream that mass transit is the key to uncrowding roads, and it is a farse that it will reduce CO2. All European countries have missed their allocated CO2 reductions for the past 11 years since Kyoto was first introduced.
In fact, in 2005 all fifteen members of the European Union ratified, and has agreed to cut back by 8% from 1990 emission levels by 2010. By January 2007, the European Commission announced plans for a European Union energy policy that included a unilateral 20% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020.
So what are the "results" so far? Not good. So then, they introduced a an emissions trading system {cap & trade, exactly as the Democrats are proposing here} in an effort to meet these tough targets. Quotas were introduced in six key industries: energy, steel, cement, glass, brick making, and paper/cardboard. There are also fines for member nations that fail to meet their obligations, starting at €40/ton of carbon dioxide in 2005, and rising to €100/ton in 2008. Current EU projections suggest that by 2008 the EU will be at 4.7% below 1990 levels.
Did this new scheme help? NO! The results again are very, very poor.
CO2 emissions in the EU grew by 32% between 1990 and 2007. Not reductions, INCREASES!
So what is the goal of these programs, these carbon taxes, and cap & trade schemes if not to actually reduce CO2, hence prevent global warming? Government control of the private sector. And higher prices on everything.
That's it. The question has to be asked, if they, the Euro's are sooo far ahead of us in mass transit & cap & trade, and carbon taxes, and it's still not working, why in the world would we ever want to duplicate that failing system? Because, it's not about reducing anything, it's about increasing control. Government control, as in socialism. Here you have prime examples of social democracies emplimenting every single tool available to them to "supposedly" control CO2 output, and it's still failing. So, again.. the question is why would we want to duplicate a failing system here?
This is why Henry Sanford's observations of empty buses & trains are relevant. And why the NCTD began the Sprinter project knowing in advance, that it would be subsidized at 70% by sales taxes. They knew going in, that this plan, this choo-choo would never be able to pay for itself by ridership. The plan all the while was to have drivers, shoppers, and all other types of consumers pay more than their fair share at the cash register. Talk about a failed system. So, the next time you see the Sprinter chugging down the tracks, spewing all that CO2 into the air with less than a full load of passengers, remember... they planned it that way.

To Frank Thurlow wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:58 AM:Federation for American Immigration Reform is not FAIR. They do not want immigration reform. Immigration reform must be based on actually facts and not exaggerated biased statistics. FAIR does not want compassionate immigration reform what they want is to hurt the immigrants of today. I disagree with their tactics. I don't think we should become a police state against a certain nationality. I think Arizona is a state we do not want to emulate!!! Hate and rascism is not something anyone should be proud of. If you are than perhaps you should pack your bags and move there. If your letter is correct and "they" are leaving there must be plenty of room for those who do not want to see brown skinned folks anymore.

OBSERVATION wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:05 AM:“No one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.” JOHN McCAIN

OBAMACAN wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:05 AM:Kudos to the letter from Don Peck. He is absolutely correct - in trying to Swift Boat Obama, the right is merely making obvious its desperate double standard.
The Republicans and conservatives cannot defend their own guy on issues such as the economy (he admits he knows noting but did peruse Greenspan's book) or the war (his signature issue, but his pledge to keep us there 100 years alienates most voters), and they can't hold him to the same standard as McCain when he solicits political support from racist, demagogue pastors such as Hagee, Robertson and the late Falwell.
In contrast, Obama actually has serious proposals for economic recovery, healthcare, environment, an orderly withdrawal from Iraq and many other vital issues. He can bring people together and actually get an agenda passed.
So what can they bring up against Obama?
Oh, his funny name and what other people (not himself) say.

Focal Point wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:07 AM:Worse than bear scat Yep. The fired CEOs are laughing and rolling in dough all the way to a solvent bank.

Nick wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:11 AM:Is anyone suprised by these facts? They should be, maybe it's because the TV networks are deliberately not telling you about them.
According to a January 5, 2000 special report by Geoffrey Dickens, Senior Media Analyst of the Media Research Center, "In 1997, criminologist Gary Kleck estimated that over 2.5 million people a year defend themselves from an assailant or burglar by exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. Yet how many times did television networks report such acts? In the past two years, out of 653 gun policy stories, exactly 12 times. By making a blockbuster story out of several school shootings—while leaving out the millions of times citizens use guns to stop crime each year—they presented a very misleading picture to the average viewer that firearm use brings more harm than good, and thus should be limited or even banned."

The study further went on to document that instead of reporting on firearms in anything approaching an objective manner, "In 653 gun policy stories, those advocating more gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control by 357 to 36, or a ratio of almost 10 to 1, while 260 were categorized as neutral. Anti-gun soundbites were twice as frequent as pro-gun ones—412 to 209—while 471 soundbites were neutral. Gun control advocates appeared on the morning shows as guests on 82 occasions, compared to just 37 for gun-rights activists and 58 neutral spokesmen."

Sure sounds like media bias to me, how about you folks?

DD Wiz wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:13 AM:The post from "Ron" (8:57am) shows typically backward conservative thinking on what mass transit should be all about.
There are three objectives: making transportation more affordable for those most financially disadvantaged, promoting a cleaner (and more energy-independent) environment, and getting traffic off our congested freeways to benefit those whose schedules and needs do not lend themselves to utilizing public transportation.
People who forego their cars do so at some degree of inconvenience, but in doing so help the rest of us by reducing pollution and reducing traffic congestion. For this benefit to us, we should be providing them with an incentive. "Ron" cites a bunch of statistics that I'm not going to bother to check, despite his past history of citing inaccurate numbers, since they don't matter. So what if those of us who benefit from clearer air and freeways subsidize 70%? We should subsidize it 100% and encourage more ridership. Let them ride the buses, Coaster or Sprinter for free! That will benefit those of us who are determined to stay in our cars.

Nick wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:17 AM:This should make "The Whizzer" happy...lol. One of these studies was "Peer-Reviewed".
Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.
Cheers, Nick.

Ron wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:27 AM:No.. Trent Hamlin.. What's Worse than bear scat is all the whining by people like you over how much anyone else makes. This stereo-typical liberal rant about how much individual's make is envy, jealousy, and hate on display.
For those who don't know, back in the 70's, Congress already addressed this high CEO pay issue, and they capped it.
The corporations wanting to get the best people, the best & brightest to run their companies found a way around the regulations, i.e. stocks.
Ultimately, in the mind of the liberal is the idea that only the Government can make it right, make it fair.
All evidence is to the contrary.
Everytime they stick their little leftist fingers into something, they create artificiality into the market, they create displacements, and dislocations. As in offering stocks as a replacement for salary.
Another example, campaign finance reform. Did this regulation cap the money, or reduce the amount of money in campaigns today? No! We saw the appearance of 527's, and today we have even more money.
What about defined pensions held mostly by unions? They created the Pension Guaranty Corporation to "help" the little guy from being burned by companies going bankrupt & not paying on pensions. How has that turned out?
Well, at last count, the PGC is underfunded, in short, they lack the money to pay on only .45 on the dollar, "as planned." Again, "they planned" to pay only .45 on the dollar, and now they can't even guarantee that.
This is exactly what happens when you breech the Constitution, you get all these private sector people lining up at the Government trough. Or I could simply use the same tired arguement used by leftists: "Our Founder's simply did not foresee the complexity" of our financial markets, and this is a "Living Constitution" fix.
How do you like them apples?
This is "the" problem with Living Constitutional fixes, once the Constitutional wall has been breeched, it's anybody's call as to whether you like it or not. It really just depends on your version of fairness. And that is as subjective, as it gets.

Apollo wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:53 AM:Re: Ron (9:27 a.m.)
Again I find myself rubbing my eyes in disbelief as I find common ground with Ron.
Yes, we agree that broad over-interpretation of the Constitution, breaching its "wall" of protection, is dangerous.
We must return to the original intent of the founders, who supported the right of the people to be secure in their homes, broad civil liberties and personal freedoms, individual privacy, and a "wall of separation" between church and state for the protection of both.
Reinterpreting the Constitution to allow warrantless searches, holding American citizens seized in American cities for years without bail or charges, "signing statements" to create a Constitutionally nonexistent line item veto, and officially-sanctioned "faith-based" initiatives are not emblematic of a "living" Constitution - they are its death knell.
Thank you, Ron, for this important reminder.

To Diane Conklin wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:57 AM:The Community Alliance for Sunrise Powerlink is not phony. In fact, the Co-chairman, Ruben Baralles, has a lot of experience with energy issues. After all, before his present position, he was a member of the Bush/Cheney National Energy Policy Development Group.

Ron wrote on Apr 6, 2008 10:05 AM:Thanks "DD Wiz" @9:13 AM, for validating everything I've said about radical liberals from the gate.
The old wizzer says: "...making transportation more affordable for those most financially disadvantaged..."
Well, we got that one accomplished, with 70% of the cost to run this choo-choo being paid by those who'll never use it. Just like a lib, welfare for people, when we've already paid $488 million to build the thing, and now... you want us to continue to subsidize it. Thanks for making my point.
What have I told you about this guy?
He IS a radical. He wants everyone to believe he's a centrist Democrat, but when it all boils down, he's right out of the Marxist template.
You know... the sweat of many, many brows who don't ride this thing will pay for that. I think those people who are already struggling under the massive amounts of taxation to pay for this huge welfare state, might like to keep just a little more. You know... to maybe be able to afford health insurance, an extra tank of gas, maybe pay their light bill? Oh, but I know... you and your ilk KNOW BETTER than them, so you need to tell them what to do. Right? It's good for them to pay for something they'll never use.
Besides, It was my idea to have the first 488 million rides on this choo-choo be free. You know.. to be fair.

Reardon wrote on Apr 6, 2008 10:25 AM:In view of the recent three “DD Wiz Airline Bankruptcies,” (caused by high fuel prices, exacerbated by refusal to drill known existing assets, caused by DD Wiz et al) – perhaps DD will support 100% subsidy of airlines, After all, AIRLINES ARE MASS TRANSIT!

Reardon wrote on Apr 6, 2008 10:38 AM:Yes, Ron – you read DD correctly. To liberals, “mass transit” is a social experiment. They will try to sell it on economics, or traffic, or CO2, or ... Anything that supports or promotes individuality, like “personal transportation” is an anathema. ANYTHING you can think of that has the word “mass” in it is supports their love of the collective. (Just so long as the masses don't get TOO close!)

alfredo wrote on Apr 6, 2008 10:42 AM:I really enjoyed the Perspective section in today's paper. Peder Nordby's column on the front page really takes the cake. John Webster's cartoon and the parade of letters excoriating the the big boondoggle spun by Sempra as the Sunrise Powerlink. To import solar power to San Diego is absolutely like hauling coal to Newcastle.
I don't know how long the coal in Newcastle will last but our sunshine is estimated to last only about 5 billion years.
And the article in the business section about solar lighting is very good and timely also.

Ron wrote on Apr 6, 2008 11:00 AM:Well, I'm glad to know we CAN find some common ground, "Apollo" @9:53 AM.
It is troublesome, to me as well, that we now have a government who would attempt to reach inside my own bedroom to adjust my thermostat, for my own good.
But this is what happens when you try to "help" those you believe need help, and violate the Constitution to do it, as liberal tend to do.
You create interest groups, and once begun, it's very, very difficult to turn them back.
And actually, if you look back into history regarding reinterpreting the Constitution to allow warrantless searches, holding American citizens seized in American cities for years without bail or charges, "signing statements", you find Woodrow Wilson & FDR. Although, Lincoln was the first President to violate habeous, throwing "Copperheads" into jail for protesting against the Civil War.
Talk about a "Unitary Presidency", these two men {Wilson & FDR} were the closest to a fascist type government we have ever had. And as I've said, it helped latter President's build upon the previous actions. In essence, it is the slow boiling frog theory, slowly, over time, it becomes the norm. Add to that, a total abdication of civics in public education, and people are not aware of their rights, then only the personalities are relevant.
I agree, We must return to the original intent of the founders, who supported the right of the people to be secure in their homes, broad civil liberties and personal freedoms, and individual privacy. But, I fear these men in the current political environment would be looked upon as even worse than Republicans on the issue of "caring" about people. On the issue of tax fairness, again, they would be viewed like they were from Mars. And they would be astonished to see how big, & bloated, and intrusive this current government is. On the left, they would be typified as "haters" of the poor. As to "the Wall of seperation" between church & state, I think you need to read other founders, than Jefferson for the full flavor of all the Founders thoughts. Quoting just him, is just so disingenuous. In fact, you really should read about the Supreme Court justice who pulled that quote from Jefferson, in order to mead out his anti-Catholic sentiments. Hugo
Black was a pretty reprehensible justice, appointed by FDR. While he is considered a "literalist", and his tendency was a strict textual analysis, he was an activist when it suited him.
Black consistently opposed the doctrine of "substantive due process" and believed that there was no constitutionally-protected right to privacy.
Not to mention the guy was a member of the Robert E. Lee Klan No. 1, a branch of the Ku Klux Klan in Birmingham, AL.
And the whole reason FDR appointed the guy was to reverse previous decisions on New Deal programs. This was part of the FDR "court stacking" to change the method of interpretation of the Constitution, thus breeching the wall.
You can not simply state, as many lib's love to do, that I love this breech, but hate that one. Again, it is subjective.

Question wrote on Apr 6, 2008 11:10 AM:What does "…#8220" that I see in so many letters mean? If you've clarified before I apologize because I did not see it.
Thanks

Ron wrote on Apr 6, 2008 11:13 AM:But... "Reardon" @10:25 AM. You know what the come back answer to your question is, right? From a lib?
Let the Government run it!
They will blame the private sector for those airlines failing. PLUS!!!!
They have the "de-regulation" card still to pull out. It will be said, that they are failing precisely because they have been deregulated.
It's just soooo predictable, they always say we need MORE GOVERNMENT, never less. MORE TAXES, not prioritizing spending.
You know, it just occurred to me, you know how the wizzer always like to talk about "bubble-up" in economics?
But they won't bat an eye when one of their favorite lib Congress people want to raise the gas tax by .50-.78 cents a gallon? Or speak of creating a carbon tax with huge implications on the poor, or a cap & trade system to further restrict already struggling industries who employ, literally thousands, hundreds of thousand of blue-collar Americans. Never in their leftist dreams do they consider what these actions will do to the lowly coal miner, or the guy who works the oil derrick, or a Big Three line mechanic.
They have their ideology, and that's what really counts. Lay-off's at the airlines? de-regulation. That will be the response. That.. or Big Oil.
Like I said, they have their talking points, but really nothing beyond that. Certainly, no facts.

Walt wrote on Apr 6, 2008 11:31 AM:Referring to "NCTD Blank Check", and Vista Granny. Of course society has decided to subsidize heavily a public transit system for the few who do not drive. But why monster buses when demand is so low? With the exception of San Diego's only successful transit line downtown to the Mexican border, vehicle average occupancy is only 25%. That's no better than private autos, including those pesky SOV's transit obsessed activists keep yelling about. Even though each bus needs to pay a driver, there's no reason small buses or vans can't be used off peak.Future automated vehicles on narrow guideways will save fuel and land while providing nearly automobile quality rides for both drivers and non-drivers. Unfortunatly NCTD, and MSA priority is to take over travel growth from autos rather than emphasize service for non-drivers. After 20 years spending over 1/3 of total transportation funds, they've absorbed less than 2% of total travel. Yes it's time to re-examine how to do the baseline job right. One question: If about 30% do not drive for whatever reason apparently including Vista Granny, why do only 5% OF THOSE show up using mass transit taxpayers are providing at high subsidy? BTW: SANDAG website has excellent ridership statistics for all lines. Costs take more digging.

supporter of way to reduce the state budget wrote on Apr 6, 2008 11:31 AM:to a way to reduce the state budget, right on. i agree 100 0/0, now how does one get started on this? reality --- would the disfunctional state of calif. do this? i would love a response

Asteroid wrote on Apr 6, 2008 11:31 AM:Thank-you Frank Thurlow for your infomative letter. Thank-you "to Frank Thurlow, 8:58am" for proving once again that any discussion regarding the illegal alien topic will be met by the self-loathing left with the usual vacuous charges of racism, white vs. brown, anti-latino crud. I have a suggestion for you. The mayor of San Francisco has just begun an ad campaign inviting illegal aliens (immigrants as he and you put it) to come to his city where they will be received with open arms and access to all city services ( the ones that the local US citizens fund). Why don’t you pack your bags and move to San Francisco. You can join hands with the mayor and chant KumbaYa as the exodus arrives.

snerd wrote on Apr 6, 2008 11:41 AM:Ron is an example of the American know it all giving his opinions of Europe while never spending more than a few weeks on the continent. The European mass transit system is FABULOUS. The people there know that their taxes help subsidize the system and believe they are getting their monies worth. A perfect example of one of the things that government does well. I have lived in Europe off and on for years and I hope you will believe me that Ron has absolutely no idea what he is talking about when it comes to what people think and do on the continent. It's like his take on the European healthcare system, which to a European would be laughable.

hardtack wrote on Apr 6, 2008 11:44 AM:Personally, Don Peck, I prefer the term “Borked” to “swift-boated.” Borked, you may recall, is when the Senate denies a judicial appointment to the bench because the judge under consideration is either too activist, not activist enough, or too partisan to suit a particular activist, partisan Senate majority. “Borked” has a better sound to it – a more sophisticated, political genesis. “Swift-boated” has too much of a schoolyard, liar-liar-pants-on-fire connotation. In my opinion, if one wants to be an activist, partisan then be all you can be – and do it with class. That’s all, I’m out of cliches.

to Reardon wrote on Apr 6, 2008 11:49 AM:So you don't think that someone who lives on government welfare, like yourself, and at the same time rants about government spending for other things, is just a little hypocritical. And please don't use your military service as an excuse. You never served in combat, so you had a regular job just like the rest of us. Plus, didn't he government pay for your college education? And yet you're a libertarian? Stunning!

hardtack wrote on Apr 6, 2008 11:58 AM:Good column by Rich Lowry today. I hope some the regulation-happy bloggers on this venue took the opportunity to read it. Moreover, I hope Adlai Stevenson was wrong when he said “people only read that which confirms what they already believe.”

DD Wiz wrote on Apr 6, 2008 12:30 PM:The posts from "Ron" (10:05am) and "Reardon" (10:25 and 10:38am) are just oh, so predictable!
Out comes the name calling whenever they can't discuss issues at a substantive level. "Marxist" or "collective" or "social experiment."
How about the public ("we the people") dealing with public policy issues.
Oh yeah, the conservatives want the government out of public policy issues and only meddling in people's most private personal matters.
Environment, climate, energy independence and traffic congestion are all public issues that are rightly within the public purview to deal with. And where these matters have been addressed, in many cities around the world, there are excellent public transit systems.
Dealing with public issues cannot merely be dismissed as "social experimenting." It is better to solve problems by attracting compliance through incentives than the heavy hand of punitive, reactive measures, which should be reserved as a last resort.
As for "Reardon" suggesting that air travel is "mass transit," he is comparing apples and fruitcakes. Notwithstanding the many corporate bailouts (corporate welfare) governments have bestowed on corporations, the fact remains that airlines are private, for-profit corporations and mass transit districts are non-profit public agencies.
Is "Reardon" suggesting that corporate, for-profit airlines be replaced by a public agency?
Who's the radical?

OBAMACAN wrote on Apr 6, 2008 1:45 PM:Hardtack at 11:44 prefers the term "Borked" to "Swift Boat" and that is appropriate when it matches the situation.
Bork's nomination was rejected based on an honest assessment of philosophical differences based on his actual writings and statements. A Republican president tried to ram a nominee through a Democratic Senate who clearly was too far to the right for them ideologically.
One can argue which side of that divide is right or wrong, but the fact is that the rejection was based on an honest and accurate evaluation of viewpoint.
In constrat, the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry were based on pure lies, which have been well documented. In fact, many of those who appeared in the ads did not even serve on Kerry's ship, and some had previously made statements honoring Kerry's heroism before they were seduced by the Swift Boat liars into changing their stories.
(In other words, they were for Kerry before they were against him.)
The attacks on Obama, lacking in fact or substance, are based on lies, not honest differences of viewpoint. They distort Obama's clear rejection of his pastor's few off-topic extreme statements (about politics instead of theology) and try to pin them on Obama himself.
Hardtack shows his hypocritical double standard, by ignoring the racist religious demagogues who McCain sought out for political, not religious, support.
As for sounding like "liar liar pants on fire," well, yeah, that is exactly how the Swift Boat propagandists came across. Excellent choice of words, Hardtack!

alfredo wrote on Apr 6, 2008 1:56 PM:So why does "hardtack" read Rich Lowry's column? I think he has just proved that Stevenson was right. Although I don't believe Stevenson invented the saying.

Dwayne wrote on Apr 6, 2008 2:18 PM:One way to reduce the state budget is to eliminate unnecessary and duplicate programs. The vehicle smog test program is budgeted for a billion dollars, for example, and is no longer needed. There is also no reason for a Cal-OSHA when there is a Federal OSHA: eliminating an entire department will save multiple billions of dollars!

alfredo wrote on Apr 6, 2008 3:23 PM:Right on, Dwayne! The Federal meat inspection program works really, really well.

OBSERVATION wrote on Apr 6, 2008 4:38 PM:"The deaths raised to at least 4,018 members of the U.S. military who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

Surfer wrote on Apr 6, 2008 4:41 PM:Asteroid: Dude, look like no one took your bait this time. but, keep trolling for them left leaning liberals. To bad you pearled today. Adios Amigo

sdraoul wrote on Apr 6, 2008 5:05 PM:Obama nuts, please. Obama decided long ago that he would follow a radical path to power by allying himself with phony pastors who preach hate, not Christianity and crooks of the normal Chicago persuasion.

No one need say anything about Obama other than when he graduated from Harvard Law, he could have joined the Navy, the Marines, the Army, the Air Force or the Coast Guard as a legal officer. He could have joind the U.S. attornmey's office or the Justice Department. He could have become a San Diego City Attorney.

He did none of these things.

He made his politcal bed and now he must lie in it.

It is not "Swift Boating" to point out that he chose to associate with a radical leftist community organization known throughout the Western world as a radical leftist organization invented by Saul Alinsky.

Barack Obama had his chance to serve his country and he chose not to. It is up to intelligent independent voters to vet him and his associates before they even consider voting for him.

I vetted him two years ago and he fell short.

The final nail in his closed mind is the outright lie he utters every day about John McCain.

McCain said we might be in Iraq for a hudnred years as we have been or will be in Korea, Japana and Germany. Obama lies when he says the McCain wants to wage war for 100 years in Iraq. It is a lie and every intelligent person says so including the New York Times.

Anyone who says different lacks the ability to reason.

Karl wrote on Apr 6, 2008 5:08 PM:I think I have an idea for a good start to budget problems in Sacramento and Washington DC. Kind of like the truancy fine for kids in Oceanside except for our lawmakers. I propose that we fine them every time they miss a vote.

At 250 a pop we could be in to the millions very soon. I would include the folks that punch in a buddies vote while their buddy is not there. That way we can double pop them.

OBAMACAN wrote on Apr 6, 2008 6:54 PM:SDRaoul at 5:05 p.m. assures us he "vetted" Obama two years ago and, surprise, surprise, this local Republican character assassin found that he "fell short."
What a surprise!
Boy, SDRaoul finds Obama "fell short"! Wow, that sure is convicing!
He says it is not "Swift Boating" to point out that someone else said some stuff he disagrees with.
Is it "Swift Boating" to point out that John McCain sought out for POLITICAL (not religious) support the endorsements of Hagee, Robertson and the late Falwell, whose statements on gays, 9/11, Catholics and others are far worse than any of the comments from Wright that were taken grossly out of context by Swift Boaters.

hardtack wrote on Apr 6, 2008 7:14 PM:alfredo, as regards your 1:56 PM, since you know nothing about my reading habits, you know nothing about which you speak. OBAMACAN, as regards your 1:45 PM, . . . well . . . let’s just say I’m reminded of a quote by Santayana: "Life is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel."

OH PLEASE! wrote on Apr 6, 2008 7:14 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Apr 6, 2008 5:05 PM:
LOL LMAO. We do not care what you think about our candidate. You are just one of those little rightie conservos who blog here to compensate for your inferiority complex. None of your other post have any credibility and neither does this one. Good Night.

Reardon wrote on Apr 6, 2008 7:16 PM:To To Reardon: Although I have made it a new policy to no longer reply to anyone without a name, but since your attack was personal I’ll make an exception. On the macro level, I don’t know a libertarian who does not support government providing national protection. You don’t know Jack about my service record, and what you guess is wrong. On the micro level, I saw combat in Korea as an enlisted man, and “in country” in Vietnam. (I receive a small “Agent Orange” disability); and if you think serving 10 years in submarines is “another day at the office,” I have news for you. Most people could not serve an hour on a submarine – much less 10 years!

Yes, the taxpayers not only paid my “college” they PAID ME TO GO! I COMPETED for Annapolis, Coast Guard Academy and West Point against the best in the nation, won appointments to Annapolis, West Point and the Coast Guard Academy, and graduated from Annapolis after entering with a competitive Congressional nomination, a competitive Fleet Nomination (since I was an enlisted man;) a competitive Senatorial nomination, and a competitive Vice-Presidential nomination. (I also had nomination from the Naval Academy Athletic Association.)

Not bad for a REALLY poor kid who was orphaned at 5, and had to sleep in the same bed as his grandmother until he was 12, because it was the ONLY bed. We lived only in apartments, and never owned a car. (That’s right, DD. “Mass transit.”)

Do you have any more wrong assumptions? (I think it is a good thing you don’t have an identifiable name.)

Brian wrote on Apr 6, 2008 7:33 PM:to To Reardon @11:49. So that's how you get him to go away! Guess the truth shall set us free. LOL!

Reardon wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:36 PM:Terrific timing, Brian!

Just Curious wrote on Apr 6, 2008 8:56 PM:sdraoul seems upset that Obama, upon graduating from Harvard Law School, when "...he could have joined the Navy, the Marines, the Army, the Air Force or the Coast Guard..." didn't.

Just curious, did you hold George Bush and five deferment Dick Cheney to this same standard?

Cindi wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:01 PM:You are right about the empty buses. The train and the new schedules are not working. The only thing that is Sprinting is the passengers. It is not proving to be quicker to take the train since few are making their connection. Add this to North County Transits failure to allow realistic time for the buses to traverse their routes, during high traffic times, so that they usually run late, or drivers that run early when the passenger load is light, and you get a useless system. Many have had to quit their jobs because it is no longer possible to drop off the kids at daycare travel to work, work, and then travel back to daycare before it closes.
How many times can you be late for work and still keep your job. Leave early, you can only leave as early as the first bus. Yes there is a large community that really need the bus. They are the people who serve your food, clerk in your stores, clean your houses, care for your children, and any other low paying job you can think of that allows you to live a higher lifestyle. Take the buses away and watch the prices rise as low priced workers are no longer able to get to work and end up on the dole. We agree on one thing. NCTD needs to be run by people who have to use the buses to get to work. Then maybe we will have a useful system.

Mike wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:05 PM:I'm so confused.

Just when you had me convinced Obama was a Muslim, you tell me he's been sitting in a Christian church for the past twenty years (listening to some pastor who suspects black people haven't been getting a fair shake in this country for quite some time).

Does this mean he isn't really a Muslim?

Karl wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:33 PM:Bravo Reardon.

Karl wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:36 PM:
"Oh Please", believe me this is constructive criticism and is not intended to disparage you in any way. I would suggest to you that you lose that handle of yours. I cringe just seeing it. It sounds like you are whining before you even start.

OH PLEASE! wrote on Apr 7, 2008 6:53 AM:Karl[-] wrote on Apr 6, 2008 9:36 PM:
It makes you cringe. Thanks for the posetive feedback.

Vista Granny wrote on Apr 7, 2008 8:16 AM:Hey Walt! A person can find good reasons for public transit and even welfare without using either. As for European public transit, I lived in Europe years ago, had lots of money at the time, and used the trolleys and trains because it was so much easier than driving. It's all in your point of view, you know.

Mary wrote on Apr 7, 2008 9:51 AM:to Delores Welty....prove your facts/statements.

alfredo wrote on Apr 7, 2008 10:20 AM:In response to hardtack on Apr 6, 2008 7:14 PM: Had you really been interested in pointing out a good conservative column you could have mentioned George Will's on the same page as Rich Lowry's. George will is a much better writer. But, I suppose the subject matter might have been a little inconvenient to draw attention to.