Mike wrote on May 3, 2008 8:49 PM:Was this a new letter from Mark Van Aelstyn, or did you just leave the old one in?

sdraoul wrote on May 3, 2008 10:57 PM:Is Mark Van Aelstyn of Poway totally ignorant of the Cosntitution and Supreme Court decisions that state all persons, all people, within the USA are protected by the Constitution?

Or is his racism and bigtory overcoming his support and acceptance for the Constitution of the United Statres?

Aliens and sedition wrote on May 4, 2008 12:30 AM:Poway writer Mark van Aelstyn seems to thinks of “illegal aliens” from Mexico in the same terms as Nazi Germany though of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and non-Aryans as illegals.
So does BLACKWATER, which seems intent on getting a big operation going in Otay Mesa, just three blocks from the border. Are they laying groundwork for establishing concentration camps to round up “illegals” to be disposed of after the dangerous White House criminals generate a public insurrection by plunging this nation into a final war Armageddon in the Middle East?
When Bush launches his next war, Congress will finally start impeachment, and Bush will react by declaring a “state of national emergency” and start rounding up “aliens” and those judged possible perpetrators of “sedition”.
This administration, having carved an irreversible record of infamy and catastrophe already, seems to be plunging headlong into a final destruction so calamitous that it will become the hero of all historic villains.

Alf wrote on May 4, 2008 4:47 AM:I guess "sdraoul" at 10:57PM does not know how to read or comprehend plain English. The first Section of the 14th Amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." is an AND statement. An AND statement is a logical statement in which "a" (All persons born or naturalized in the United States) must be true AND "b" (subject to the jurisdiction thereof) must be true IN ORDER FOR "c" (are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside) to be true. I think in a rational and logical way and read the actual words, something that "sdraoul" seems incapable of doing. Regards, Alf.

getting scared wrote on May 4, 2008 7:41 AM:SAN MARCOS----A family reported that on Friday night four men with guns broke into their home, tied them up and made off with jewelry and an SUV, a Sheriff's Department's sergeant said.

The suspects, described only as Hispanic males with at least two handguns, took a large amount of jewelry from the house and fled in the couple's 2004 white Toyota Sequoia, California license plate 5GEZ292.

getting real scared wrote on May 4, 2008 7:50 AM:A man in his 20s was fatally shot Saturday night in the northeastern section of Oceanside known as the "back gate" area, authorities said.
An Oceanside dispatcher said that the people who reported the shooting were being uncooperative with police, and that police were having difficulty establishing details of what had happened.
Radio reports indicated that police were looking for two suspects, both described as Latino men between the ages of 17 and 22.

Mike wrote on May 4, 2008 8:39 AM:Hope Alf isn't suffering from the delusion that his logical and coherent post at 4:47 AM is actually going to change sdraoul's mind, or stop him from posting insipid drivel.

Do thank him for trying, however.

Yokozuna wrote on May 4, 2008 8:57 AM:"Aliens and sedition" could have a great Sci-Fi novel in the works. Has any of it been copyrighted? If not, some of our resident authors here could make a few bucks.

Quite plain wrote on May 4, 2008 8:59 AM:ANYBODY in the United States IS subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the United States). Unless they have diplomatic immunity.
If illegals in the U.S. were not subject to the United States jurisdiction they could not be arrested for ANY crime including illegal entry.

Stop the Bashing of good Americans wrote on May 4, 2008 9:22 AM:For you whiners that bash this Van Alston guy. Notice that the American Constitution and Bill of Rights is written in English. If you can't read it, you sure as heck don't deserve to benefit from it. As an African American I am angry that the Hispanic community uses the Civil Rights movement for their agenda. My ancestors where force here against their will and sold into slavery from our own African rulers. Mexicans come here freely and are not slaves. It is a slap in the face that they would dishonor our struggle and exploit the civil rights movement for their own gain! Illegal immigrants need to go home and come here legally.

Van Alstons got it right. wrote on May 4, 2008 9:30 AM:I agree with Mr. Van Alston. Why don't Mexican's demand for a better life in Mexico? Why is Van Alston a Racist because he make a great point. When I here Bigot and Racist it seems that is the way to divert the debate away from the true issues. American's that point out their frustrations about illegal aliens are called names. That is very undiplomatic and childish. And Frankly I'm sure that those who oppose illegal immigration are numb to the name calling. There is absolutely no comparison to Nazi Germany from Mr. Van Alston? It is a bad argument. I have heard Hispanic protestor say terrible things about descendants of Europe , but NO ONE SAYS anything about that!

Alf wrote on May 4, 2008 9:30 AM:You are quite right, "Quite plain" at 8:59AM, as far as you go. In order to be a citizen, a person MUST MEET NOT JUST ONE, BUT BOTH OF THESE CONDITIONS - 1) born or naturalized AND 2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the United States). If EITHER condition is not met, then one is not a citizen of the United States BY THE EXACT WORDING of the United States Constitution. Regards, Alf.

THANK YOU wrote on May 4, 2008 9:30 AM:VanAelstyn speaks for most Americans who are beyond fed up w/this invasion of illegals in our communities. One of the best Letters ever printed in this paper on the subject. It's reasonable, factual and logical and it's the truth. He should be a writer for the NCT's to factually counter the pro illegal alien drivel coming from Sisfuentes, Contreras and others. Thank you Mr 'V'

Flat out fed up wrote on May 4, 2008 9:38 AM:OK, two horrible crimes committed over the weekend my alleged hispanic men. What is the argument for that activist? Cry racial profiling?! Bash Mr. VanAlston, but you can not Change that facts that many crimes are committed by Hispanic males between 17 and 32. American's are afraid for their families and the statistics can not be denied.

El Guero wrote on May 4, 2008 9:39 AM:more yak-yak-yak from sdraoul, citing rights legally guaranteed in the Constitution when it suits him while completely avoiding the matter of millions of immigrants living in the country illegally. I guess you can't blame him, since it's the federal government that picks and chooses which rights it will protect and laws it will enforce, and those it won't. But that doesn't excuse raoul for being a hypocrite.

Reardon wrote on May 4, 2008 11:21 AM:Alf: There you go reading the Constitution, again! In plain English, yet! As if common usage of plain words as they are written, means anything.

When are you going to acknowledge that THOSE IN BLACK ROBES will tell us what those words mean.

You know, THOSE FOR WHOM WE MUST STAND WHEN THEY ENTER THE ROOM. Those whom we must call “HONORABLE.” Those who sit high on a DIAS, ABOVE THE PEONS.

THEY will issue a “RULING” – for it is they who RULE.

(And I'll bet you thought we strive for a classless society.)

Reardon wrote on May 4, 2008 11:29 AM:I keep telling you, Liberals hate the poor!

Note the liberal union supporters who oppose people being able to buy cheaper food in a Poway Wal-Mart!

Liberals love the Right to Choose only in specific areas – just not in picking better schools, or in buying cheaper food. Obviously, food prices, and school selection is not a problem for the rich, only the poor.

Liberals hate the poor. Liberals not only oppose a gas tax holiday, they support HIGHER taxes on gas.

They hate the poor.

hardtack wrote on May 4, 2008 11:37 AM:John Lynn’s well-written piece is long on emotion and short on philosophy. He admits to the obvious – he’s no economist – I’ll give him credit for that honesty.

John paints a word picture of consumer’s as victims. To John, apparently, consumers are like leaves on a pond, being blown in any direction Madison Ave. chooses.
On the contrary, I see consumerism as just another area of personal responsibility.
I see what John calls “corporate greed” as the benefactor that wrote my paycheck all those years while supplying a smorgasbord of products for us consumers to choose from.

As Adam Smith famously said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

If it were not for “greedy” people out to make a buck, America would still be a third-world country. (Not that some people wouldn’t like that.)

THANK YOU wrote on May 4, 2008 11:50 AM:The Haters of America's system of rule of law are out in force today defending the crimes and abuses of the masses of illegals destroying our schools and neighborhoods while at the same time bashing the heck out of common sense and logical explications such as Mr. VanAelstyn has put forth. He's right in suggesting the hatefull activists should take their cases before the Mexican authorties for redress and stop with the constant name calling and bashing of Americans who are understandably at their wits end over this horrible crisis. What is so bad about Americans wanting their immigrations laws ENFORCED and borders SECURED. Someone, please tell us the answer.

Reardon wrote on May 4, 2008 12:23 PM:Hardtack: Please note that the government does not assist the needy in mobile home parks – they ORDER the park owner to assist the needy with ‘rent control.”!

It is a direct transfer payment from one citizen to another – but don’t you understand? In this case, the needy are “your grandmothers.” This is an appeal to what otherwise Liberals call, and decry, “ageism.’

I do believe that ANY mobile home park owner that forced a person to buy in his park with a gun should immediately be arrested – assuming he is not also an illegal alien, in which case he gets a free ride because he is just trying to better himself and his family.

Reardon wrote on May 4, 2008 12:38 PM:On another Blog in this paper, Pluto (or someone using his name) suggests that the recent raid to capture and AGAIN deport returned and previously deported illegal aliens, is wrong.

"Pluto" proposes that those already deported and who return, should only be detained if they are caught in the act of committing still another crime, or that the police and ICE have a valid search warrant.

I wonder if ANYONE also supports this concept? Even the most liberal, civil rights activist?

John wrote on May 4, 2008 12:50 PM:Barack Obama is a thief. He believes the money you earn actually belongs to the government. The more taxes you pay, he believes, the more you will be you need him.

Freedom is a word he does not use. Maybe it is because those who taught him about life, Wright, Ayres, Dohrn, all believe is the State controlling people.

At a time when gas is $4 a gallon, the Feds could help poor people. Instead Barack wants to penalize the poor. He hates the poor and loves the rich, who can afford all taxes. The elitist Barack will make sure you depend on government...he has watched one too many "Survivor" shows and wants to see who can survive government.

Apollo wrote on May 4, 2008 1:28 PM:Re: Reardon (11:29 a.m.)
There goes Reardon again, accusing liberals of hating the poor while he engages in inflammatory hate speech of his own.
I'm a liberal. I don't shop at Wal-Mart; I make a point at patronizing facilities that treat their employees humanely, with a preference for union shops.
I am grateful I can afford this preference, and do not begrduge others who have been driven into economic desperation by the likes of Wal Mart, who create an economy of cheap labor and then respond to the niche of poverty they have created - a vicious cycle created by the anti-union policies of those who seek gain and profit at the expense of working people
Reardon always wants to make it sound like it is the unions that cause economic harm to working people, but the fact is that only when unions assumed a place of economic and political prominence did conditions improve for workers, and only when Republicans successfully sought to undermine unions and roll back union gains did we see workers losing ground economically while CEO's and investors' incomes off the fruits of workers' labor shot through the roof.
Reardon further distorts the issue of vouchers for private school choice. He has no interest in helping the poor, who he obviously hates. He wants private investors to suck free money from public funding with no accountability or responsibility.
To Reardon: please be specific on your proposal for vouchers:
Would it be mandatory that they be accepted as payment in full for tuition?
Would schools be mandated to comply with the same credentialing and curriculum requirements that public funding now provides?
Would schools be required to meet the needs of all students who apply, including the severely disabled and those with special needs, on the same basis as now provided for by public funds?
Or are you suggesting a free ride of unregulated and unaccountable profiteering?
Why does Reardon hate the poor?

Oh John wrote on May 4, 2008 1:31 PM:Which candidate is NOT a thief? Was Bush not a thief? Reagan? Just because your conservatives stole from the future generations instead of from you, I think stealing is stealing, if you consider taxation stealing. Thanks, though, for a taste of what brilliance we're in for come Fall. When another admirable American election season comes around. An informed electorate debating real issues and making wise choices. I'm starting to gag already. Thanks for the preview. Makes me proud to be an American, proud of those who've died for our "freedom" and democratic processes. You are a real role model, showing the youth what democracy means here.

DD Wiz wrote on May 4, 2008 1:52 PM:The post from "hardtack" (11:37am) tries to have it both ways. He wants to quote Adam Smith, while repudiating the economic doctrine of capitalism first articulated by Smith in his famous tome, "On the Wealth of Nations" (London, 1776).
While it is true that Smith correctly recognizes the role of enlightened self-interest in motivating competitive entrepreneurial decision-making, Smith also recognized that, without a framework of protective regulations to prevent the excess of what he called "unbridled opulence," that the system would be skewed. In other words, Smith does understand that self-interest motivates economic contribution, but does require limits to prevent it from spiralling out of control He did promote entrepreneurial capitalism, but modern "conservatives" who want to gouge on others conveniently forget the rest of the story.
Specifically, they forget things such as rent control and progressive tax rates, both of which are famously endorsed by Adam Smith.

Woulda been a loser wrote on May 4, 2008 2:07 PM:Can you imagine what would happen if old Abe Lincoln ran today? Ugly. Gangly. And those speeches! Clear. Articulate. Intricate. He'd be labeled a liberal phony, pretending to be so smart and multisyllabic. Can you picture what Rush, et al would do to him? Our founders designed a country in the days before tv, radio, and the internet. If those things had been around, I bet they would've agreed to keep the monarchy.

But DD at wrote on May 4, 2008 2:11 PM:Adam, schmadam....don't you see that all you're proving is that Adam Smith hated the poor? Or maybe proving that the modern conservative is not really the American he pretends to be, not really a child of the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason. That he is a representative of that other thread in American lore, "every man a king". And like a king, these conservatives want it all to be run for their personal gain, want to decree the law, want to destroy any of their neighbors that stands in his way. Yeah, that's what the founders had in mind, along with Locke, Smith, and the rest.

Apollo wrote on May 4, 2008 2:17 PM:Re: Reardon (11:29 a.m.)
Reardon hatefully repeats yet again his inflammatory accusations about how liberals "hate the poor."
Reardon tries to make it sound like it is the unions that cause economic harm to working people, but only when unions assumed a place of economic and political prominence did conditions improve for workers, with those gains only reversed when Republicans successfully sought to undermine unions and roll back their advances.
Reardon's statements on school vouchers are overly simplistic. He wants private investors to suck free money from public funding with no accountability or responsibility.
To Reardon: please be specific on your proposal for vouchers:
Would it be mandatory that they be accepted as payment in full for tuition?
Would schools be mandated to comply with the same credentialing and curriculum requirements that public funding now provides?
Would schools be required to meet the needs of all students who apply, including the severely disabled and those with special needs, on the same basis as now provided for by public funds?
Or are you suggesting a free ride of unregulated and unaccountable profiteering?
The question Reardon repeatedly directs at liberals about hating the poor should more appropriately be directed back toward himself.

Oh Please wrote on May 4, 2008 2:19 PM:Reardons Posts: Day after day, week after week and sometimes by the hour, the bloggers are treated to the mickled false drivel. Liberals do not hate anybody. We even have affection for Reardon. Come give us big hug. LOL LMAF

Alf wrote on May 4, 2008 2:26 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 11:21AM, silly me! The 9 Judges in Washington are, theoretically, supposed to be the ultimate protectors of the Constitution. I know that they do not please many people, myself included, sometimes. Very shortly we will get to see whether they bow to political pressure or do their jobs as it has to do with the Second Amendment. No matter how they rule, many are going to be displeased, to say the least. The Renaissance Pleasure Faire was a feast for my eyes, ears, psyche and belly and Mrs. Alf also had a fyne tyme. Huzzah!! Regards, Alf.

bogie wrote on May 4, 2008 2:59 PM:Raoul quoted

"Or is his racism and bigtory overcoming his support and acceptance for the Constitution of the United States?"

You my friend need to peek into the mirror occasionally.

Your acceptance of illegal immigrants into this Country without prejudice is very telling.

I would hope that your conscience forbears your true feelings for those who would break the law to this great nation.

Rauol, look into the mirror and see who is the bigot/racist ...

Floyd wrote on May 4, 2008 3:01 PM:Here are some responses to consider about vouchers: "Would it be mandatory that they be accepted as payment in full for tuition?" Nope. They could be applied towards the cost of tuition. There should be no "tuition control". In a competitive environment, schools will be established that provide a quality education at the voucher amount ($10,000 is what the public schools get, the voucher should be no less).
"Would schools be mandated to comply with the same credentialing and curriculum requirements that public funding now provides?" Credentialing doesn't guarantee a good teacher. In fact, when the public schools can't find enough real teachers, they issue bogus "emergency credentials" to any warm body they can get to meet the letter of the law while violating the spirit of the law. "Would schools be required to meet the needs of all students who apply, including the severely disabled and those with special needs, on the same basis as now provided for by public funds?" This one-size-fits-all concept used by the public schools has been shown to be unworkable. Allowing schools to specialize in college prep, business, remedial education, English immersion, and other special needs would raise the overall level of education. "Or are you suggesting a free ride of unregulated and unaccountable profiteering?" The competitive environment, which allows the parents to choose the best school, is much more rigorous than bureaucratic control. If the school doesn't deliver, they'll have no students! The public schools won't go away, but allowing competition will make them more responsive to the parents and the taxpayers which will lead to better education for all students.

The poor and education wrote on May 4, 2008 3:06 PM:Reardon wants us to believe that the education offered in the inner city is far, far worse than the education offered to the same population at the turn of the 20th Century, the good old days before the liberals and their poor-hating came along. He wants us to believe that if it weren't for unions, all those jobs wouldn't be shipped overseas...no, Americans would be working for a buck a day, again, like in the old days that the poor thrived so much in. Reardon has become the new model Chuck: find a slogan and repeat it despite rebuttals and evidence. Another conservative in love with his own ego and its juvenile idea of being clever.

Funny that wrote on May 4, 2008 3:26 PM:Funny how all the economists agree with Barack Obama regarding the gas tax and even the American Trucking Association has said NO THANK YOU. It seems that Reardon, Hillary and McCain know better. Well, you know those who don't agree with Reardon are ALWAYS WRONG.

To Mark and Melinda wrote on May 4, 2008 3:41 PM:"Why don't these activists go to Mexico and protest the Calderon government and call them names, and leave us Americans alone?" I think that Bill Flores, Claudia Smith, Enrique Morones and Tina Jillings are Americans too!! Just because they disagree with you does not mean they are not Americans. I think they are the epitome of Americans because they understand and excercise their First Amendment rights. Just because you don't agree with them does not make them not as American as you or I. Why should they go to Mexico and demand that Human, Civil and Constitutional rights be respected? This is their country and this is the country they expect better from. So keep on rocking you guys have my support because this is America. We are not some third world country.

Hey Alf wrote on May 4, 2008 3:52 PM:Wow I always agree with Alf except today. The 14th Amendment also states that ANY PERSON in the jurisdiction is protected by equal protection and has the right to life, liberty and property. Sorry Alf but you are wrong today.

Ill Vouch for That wrote on May 4, 2008 4:04 PM:Floyd at 3:01 p.m. admits the real truth about school vouchers.
No accountability.
No responsibility.
He dismisses as "one size fits all" any standardization of requirements.
He and Reardon want to create an illusion of how superior private schools are, when they get to cherry-pick motivated students from financially-secure families, while dumping poor, inner-city, disabled or those with special needs onto the public schools and then point the finger of blame and ridicule the public schools who use public money to treat public education like a public policy issue instead of a chance to profiteer by misappropriating public funds for private gain on a non-competitive, highly selective basis where all the cards are stacked in their favor.
Conservatives give lip service to the "free market," but what they really want is free money from the public trough - it is not about reward for economic risk taking, but only about sure things, guarantees and crony favoritism that would make an insider trader blush.

Pluto wrote on May 4, 2008 4:10 PM: Alf should present his interesting theory to the U.S. Supreme Court, which (up till now) has historically agreed with sdraoul on this issue.

Pluto responds wrote on May 4, 2008 4:21 PM: to Reardon @12:38pm. Your restatement of my comment was slightly off. I wasn't suggesting that ICE doesn't have the right to detain and arrest people for immigration violations. And yes, most police agencies support and follow the concept I put forward (that local police shouldn't detain and arrest for purely immigration violations) because that's how they get the cooperation of the 12 million witnesses and victims of crime who are here without documents. Changing the status quo will result (among other things) in open season for criminals on people without documents because they won't report crimes. Also, police agencies don't have enough resources to enforce the laws for which they are responsible. They don't want, aren't trained for, and can't handle enforcing immigration laws as well.

to Bogie pm wrote on May 4, 2008 4:26 PM: You say you concerned about "those who would break the law to this great nation". Does that mean you are working to impeach Bush & Cheney? Or are you only concerned about dark skinned and powerless lawbreakers?

Pluto wrote on May 4, 2008 4:33 PM: Did Stop the Bashing @9:22am actually say "As an African American I am angry that the Hispanic community uses the Civil Rights movement for their agenda"? News flash: Civil rights aren't just for African Americans! And one more thing, Mexican-Americans didn't cross the border - the border crossed them.

Oh Floyd wrote on May 4, 2008 4:59 PM:What faith Floyd has in the marketplace, even in education. The troubles with this view are, for starters, while the market sorts itself out and the good schools and bad schools and all in between are explored over time by the buying public, years of childrens' education is going on. Second, as with health care, instead of a "bureaucracy", the consumer will pay for marketing, which, the health care business tells us, is FAR more costly than that evil bureaucracy. Third, did you know that 7 of 10 new businesses fail? That doesn't sound better than current schools to me. I agree that the current state of our education system is not good, but I wouldn't hold up the holy marketplace as the fantasy fixer in the sky. Instead, I'd look at our society, its values, its philosophy. This is what our educational system is a mirror of. We want instant gratification, entertainment, and more and more money. Turning over the education of our kids to corporate entities that will promise the world and give us entertainment and give themselves more and more of our money sounds really dumb. It doesn't work in health care, nor in paramilitary contractors, and it won't work in education.

Funny that is right wrote on May 4, 2008 5:02 PM:It's been terribly sad lately to watch Reardon's posts go south. He used to argue rationally, with some flexibility, even admitting errors at times. Alas, he's become just another propagandist: relying on spin, rigidly not budging from his favority slogans-du-jour, abandoning his education and principles. Let's hope the old Reardon returns. He was much more interesting.

sdraoul wrote on May 4, 2008 5:17 PM:What hypocritical knowledge-deficient people posted to day in response to me. The most ignorant is Alf.

For his benefit and those who have never understood the Constitution, here is the position I take:

The word "people" is used three times in the first four amendments, not "citizens."

In the 5th Amendment, the word person is used twice, not citizen. And, it says "nor shall any PERSON...be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law..." The word citizen appears nowhere in the 5th Amendment.

The 6th Amendment uses the word "witnesses" not citizen "witnesses.”

In the 9th and 10 Amendments, the word "people" is used, not citizen.

Finally, in the 14th Amendment not only are the words "All persons born or naturalized" definitively used to define natural born citizenship but the 14th clearly states that all PERSONS are covered by equal protection of U.S. law; to wit:

"Nor shall any state DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NOR DENY ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."

How my Constitutional Law professors are proud. They taught me to read and study the Constitution and to research relevant court cases that interpret the document.

Brittanicus wrote on May 4, 2008 5:21 PM:American's are finding by reading the unsuppressed media, that illegal immigrants are as Bush stated,'jobs Americans wont do..?' This is no longer the case, because predator employers are hiring cheap foreign labor, 'for many jobs Americans would certainly do. The major reason is that big business, can undercut wages and offer no benefits. No health care, no workers compensation. Why should they? Taxpayers will cover all cost's? We need the pending federal SAVE ACT (H.R.4088) It's our last chance before the next AMNESTY! If you read forums, bulletin boards, you will soon learn of many citizens whose jobs have been taken by illegal aliens.

Reardon wrote on May 4, 2008 5:45 PM:Apollo; Ahh, yes, Washington D.C. public schools are so good that good Liberal Hillary sent her own daughter to Sidwell Friends private school! Liberal Obama’s children attend the University of Chicago Lab School, a private school!

Only the poor attend public school in the inner city, and liberals don't want THEIR children rubbing elbows with THEM!

In California, the amount spent per student yearly now exceeds $11,000! That is the amount of a voucher I would propose in California. You would be hard put to find a public or private school that costs more.

In the beginning, I would support using vouchers primarily for public schools, and phasing in the use for private schools.

As to credentialing – please do not get me started on that subject. As you know, I was a prof. of computer science, and you may not know that my second masters (which was FREE), was aborted by me half way through because of the lack of academic rigor in the program. An Ed. D is not worth the paper it is printed upon.

IF we are to have government-run credentialing in California, I suggest we turn it over to the State of Massachusetts. They appear to know how to do it!

Imagine wrote on May 4, 2008 5:46 PM:What if, instead of the actual history of Obama and Rev. Wright, Obama had had no pastor or church. Instead, let's imagine that Obama, in a very public fashion, had actively sought the endorsement of Wright...or of Farrakhan. Do you think that he would then be given the same treatment that McCain has gotten in his relationship to people like Falwell or Hagee? Of course not. Anyone who doubts this is simply lying. How do I know? McCain's relationship to Hagee COULD be evaluated on its own merit instead of constantly comparing it (when the issue comes up at all) to Obama/Wright. Even if Obama's relationship to his guy is "worse", is there anyone in town who is even wondering what McCain's relationship to Hagee, exactly as it is, says about HIS character? Of course not. But let me ask: what does Obama/Wright have to do with McCain/Hagee? Nothing, of course. Each should be examined and judged on its own. But the so-called liberal media is only examining one of these.

Reardon wrote on May 4, 2008 6:14 PM:Pluto: Did I correctly state your sentiments in my 12:38?

Cindi wrote on May 4, 2008 8:41 PM:Mismanagement is not the word for what NCTD is doing. They are taking public transportation dollars, buying land, and building an empire of commercial and residential buildings on land adjacent to the rail tracks. This is called "Smart Growth" and has already been shown to be a failure in Washington State. Please attend one of the upcoming meetings and send a message to NCTDE (E for Empire) that we need transportation, not more density that will eventually become blight.

Apollo wrote on May 4, 2008 10:14 PM:Re: Reardon (5:45 p.m.)
It is amazing how, in post after post, Reardon simply distorts and misrepresents the facts. If this is what it takes for him to make his "points," then they must not be worth much.
He criticizes Hillary for sending Chelsea to Sidwell Friends, a private school, but fails to note that all the years they were in the governor's mansion in Arkansas, Chelsea had gone to public schools.
The security issues for the daughter of the president, or even the daughters of U.S. Senators in urban areas such as Chicago, are unique and cannot be compared to those in other situations.
If Reardon cannot grasp the security and logistical issues involved, then let me ask him if he believes that Secret Service protection should be withdrawn from Bush and Cheney.
Nothing in his "post" addressed the serious issues I raised regarding the problems with vouchers of public money for private for-profit schools getting fat off tax dollars at the public trough, while being held to an entirely different standard completely lacking in accountability or responsibility.

dave from oceanside wrote on May 5, 2008 5:06 AM:The Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment, although it has generally been assumed that they are. Congress possesses the power to exclude such children from US citizenship by legislation. Such legislation is often proposed by individual members of Congress but has never been passed into law. It is time to push our representatives on this issue and clarify illegal immigrant children are not citizens.

Moneybags wrote on May 5, 2008 9:58 AM:Why does Reardon at 5:54 p.m. hate rich people?
Doesn't he understand basic economics? Rich people fuel the economy, create jobs and set a standard that others can aspire to.
And here is a simple fact that I understand is difficult for some people to wrap their brains around:
People who have more money can buy more things. There! Isn't that simple?
That includes things like additional security, additional fire protection and even private education.
The fact that someone can afford to go beyond the minimum standard provided to the general public does not mean they are against ensuring access to public services.
Both Clinton and Obama both support public schools.
Both Clinton and Obama have risen from modest means to achieve great wealth and success.
Both Clinton and Obama emulate the American Dream of achievement through individual effort and effort (to work both harder and smarter).
This kind of class envy and attacking those who work hard and make something of themselves is exactly what is destroying our society.

Peter wrote on May 5, 2008 11:06 AM:Grant seems to be trying to raise a public safety concern, but from his letters over time I have the impression it is more about his personal safety. He seems to have an irrational fear of firearms owners who might get upset, and is completely unwilling to accept that anyone other than police or security personnel can appropriately use a firearm for self-defense. However, what easily upset legal firearms owners has to do with deaths in Chicago is a stretch even for Grant. Chicago’s problem isn’t the number of guns, it’s the number of criminals. The criminal population in places like Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C. is emboldened due to local and state legislation that has left those vulnerable to crime least likely to be armed. Fees and licenses sold to the public as safety measures have helped place the purchase and practice of a firearm for home protection out of the financial range of those most at risk to be attacked in their homes.

Well said Moneybags wrote on May 5, 2008 11:41 AM:Moneybags
[-] wrote on May 5, 2008 9:58 AM:

Ironically, if our country were run like the socialist nation that both Clinton and Obama espouse, neither would have the riches that they enjoy today!

In sum... wrote on May 5, 2008 1:41 PM:If you support any kind of taxation whatsoever, you are a socialist. This makes the vast majority of Americans socialists. Maybe the strict anti-taxation people should reconsider the proposition that they are the real Americans. Maybe they should consider that they are radical outliers, who happen to be unusually selfish, and who think that when most of their countrymen are in trouble, 'more for me!". Historically, if capitalists had behaved in a more humane way, a way more considerate of the general welfare, the socialist impulse would never have gotten a toehold in the US. All the so-called socialistic programs have been a response to the brutality of unregulated capitalism and its infinite greed and hatred of its fellow man.

EconoGuru wrote on May 5, 2008 3:13 PM:How sad to see the comments at 11:41 p.m. and 1:41 p.m. by individual(s) who have so little understand of basic economic theories, such as socialism.
Anything they don't like is just called "socialism" no matter how little (namely none) relationship it has to the economic theory of socialism promulgated by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels.
Neither Clinton nor Obama proposes anything that bears the slightest resemblance to socialism, which means communal (public) ownership of the "means of production."
Both Clinton and Obama are perfect examples of the success of individual effort and hard work in a regulated market economy that protects equality of opportunity for all, including the disadvantaged, or those of any race or gender.
In contrast, John McClone is a perfect example of the Republican path toward success: marry someone rich.

Social Dependency wrote on May 5, 2008 4:36 PM:EconoGuru
[-] wrote on May 5, 2008 3:13 PM:
How sad to see the comments at 11:41 p.m. and 1:41 p.m. by individual(s) who have so little understand of basic economic theories, such as socialism.
Anything they don't like is just called "socialism" no matter how little (namely none) relationship it has to the economic theory of socialism promulgated by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels.
Neither Clinton nor Obama proposes anything that bears the slightest resemblance to socialism, which means communal (public) ownership of the "means of production."
Both Clinton and Obama are perfect examples of the success of individual effort and hard work in a regulated market economy that protects equality of opportunity for all, including the disadvantaged, or those of any race or gender.
In contrast, John McClone is a perfect example of the Republican path toward success: marry someone rich.

Reply to EconoGuru: Are you suggesting that it is the "Republican path" that keeps individuals from obtaining the education and/or training that would make them more successful within a free market system? This is not about economics. It is about the responsibility and freedom that each of us have to pursue the lifestyle to which we aspire.