Birdie wrote on May 23, 2008 7:31 PM:PatriciaElliott's letter calls feral cats a "harmless, unobtrusive group."
This is not true! Feral cats are a terribly destructive invasive species, killing millions of native birds and other wildlife every year and contributing to terrible environmental destruction. They need to be removed.

DD Wiz wrote on May 23, 2008 7:36 PM:The published letter from John Carlson demonstrates an incredible lack of understanding about what constitutes a "peer-reviewed" paper in a scientific or academic journal.
The project he cites is an opinion piece, not a published article in a peer-reviewed academic or scientific journal. Less than 1/3 of the "scientists" he cites have Ph.D.'s, and virtually all of those are in fields other than climatology.
This is yet another perfect example of a pathetic IGNORANT victim of the DUMBING DOWN of science education in the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE by the Big Oil Bullies and pushers of our addiction to non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS purchased from dependence on terrorists and dictators.

Why not more Ollies wrote on May 23, 2008 8:00 PM:Allowing criminals like Ollie North to write columns selected by the NCT is a great idea. I can't wait to see coming pieces by Tupak Shakur, Chuck Manson, and maybe even the Duke. Perhaps once a month the NCT can do a "from the criminal's perspective" column. Love it! Keep em coming.

Floyd wrote on May 23, 2008 8:11 PM:Kathleen Murphy, an obvious liberal, puts the usual left wing negative spin on McCain's graduating 894th (out of 899) at Annapolis, to make him look stupid.

Next, she'll try to link him, someway, to Charles Keating, pointing out he's also devoid of moral character.

I don't care! I've still got my Cunningham bumper sticker!

Ron wrote on May 23, 2008 8:49 PM:I couldn't help but notice, another liberal confused as to how the peer-review process works, so let me, as I always do, help him/her out with a few facts on the subject. "Liberal"
{May 23} @PM: Wants to know why this particular moderator {from yesterday} seems to pick & choose certain posts, to either post first, or not post at all. I'm assuming he/she attempted to post, and perhaps was not? I have noticed this too, varying from day to day. So, you see, even I am not immune, and have no insider working for me, or with me at the Times.
And Thus, he/she is frustrated by the "lack of balance." Very keen insight. Let me be of assistance.

QUOTE: "Editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy. The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories. Reviewers {or moderators} tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones.
Letters-to-the-editor that correct major errors in articles are a common indication of peer review failures. Many journals have no procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters. Some do not even publish letters. The author of a disputed article is allowed a published reply to a critical letter. Neither the letter nor the reply is usually peer-reviewed, and typically the author rebuts the criticisms. Thus, the readers are left to decide for themselves if there was a peer review failure." END Quote

Clearer now?

Liberal wrote on May 23, 2008 9:06 PM:Amazing how soon Ron's post at 8:49 p.m. got processed.
What a surprise.

Ron wrote on May 23, 2008 9:24 PM:Don't ya just get tired from this circular reasoning by these lib's? I mean... here we got the Wizzer @
@7:36 PM, yet.. again.. with this same old and utterly tired argument about this scientist isn't "qualified" to speak to climate change, and yet.. I have pointed out, on many occassions that a lead author of an IPCC report had only been a chemical engineer, by training.
Lenny Bernstein, and you can look this up, was the lead author of the 3rd IPCC report, and he had worked for Exxon-Mobil for 31 years. So, you know what wiz? You really need to get off this thing of disqualifying scientists of either who they worked for, or what their background & training is.
Because in my world, that is a double standard.
And as for the Gold-Standard of "peer-review", let us just say, that once again.. I have gone to great lengths to point out the failures in peer-review, the jealousy between authors & reviewers, the censuring of "certain" scientists because their conclusion were at variance than that of the reviewer, who has a stake in the game.
You see, what wizzer, and other's like him don't want you to know, is this.
That in order to "be published" in an elite journal, you must pass the "smell test" of global warming belief. "Belief" being the key word there. How do you think it possible that Lenny Bernstein reached the level of lead author in the IPCC? Not "qualified" as a climate scientist, and clearly his background & training at Exxon-Mobil would have clearly precluded him, per the wizzer's own prerequisites.
"The Game" in peer-review is to get published. In being published, gains you status, and money. You see, a good peer-review process is supposed to work like this: an on-going open discussion of facts and data, promoting a theory based upon those facts & data, and then publsihing it. The next scientist comes with his own facts & data, reads yours, agree's or disagree's, and writes publishing his ideas. This is a conversation, on going, through publishing articles. Much like it is here, you post, I post asking questions about your post, then you post again pointing out my faults, then I re-post writing whatever I write. And this process is repeated. However, just as some get posted, or other's do not, for whatever the NCTimes rules are, or the subjectivity of that particular moderator on that day, decides whether anyone ever see's your post, about my post.
And one final thought here about this ridiculous statement, again.. by the wizzer. It is the Republican war against science, not the CONSERVATIVE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE. You see, I read Chris Mooney too.. anti-intellectual, my eye.

All for tax cuts for the wealthy wrote on May 23, 2008 9:41 PM:Some day I hope to be wealthy and powerful. I'll pay my taxes for now and when I become Rich I want lots of tax cuts.

Now I just need a plan how ow to do this, cause the Lottery hasn't been working out so good for me!

Reardon wrote on May 23, 2008 10:20 PM:The National Academy of Science has published their "Climate Change" 2008, and the site I downloaded from is an educational site so I can't publish the URL, but you can Google it.

I am only half-way through, so I have no comment, but it is available for everyone to read. Don't listen to either side of the issue -- read the non-hysterical analysis.

Agree with it, or disagree with it, the NAS describes the climate change problem, and the problems inherent in doing a scientific analysis.

sdraoul wrote on May 23, 2008 10:21 PM:Kathleen Murphy, question for you: Would you have voted for a bill that included money for the war, benefits for military veterans, and 195 other non-war, non-military goodies for congressmen and their contributors totaling billions of dollars?

Any congressman who voted for that bill is an ignorant fool, stupid and probably taking bribes like Duke Cunningham.

In particular, the James Webb amendment would have given full college tuition to a veteran with just three years of service, thus emptying out our Army and Marines of three-year soldiers and Marines for the same benefits as one with 20 years.

Senator McCain's version, which will become law before the stupid bill has a sliding scale rewarding soldiers and Marines for length of service. This makes sense.

Barack Obama's vote for the stupid bill just proves that his lack of military service, Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe notwithstanding, is the reason he voted for the stupid bill making him appear as stupid as the bill.

Barack Obama claims his "service" as a community organizer qualifies him to be something more than a social worker. I disagree, organizing to fill potholes, representing clients in small claims court and working part time as a lecturer qualifies him to be a legislator not President of the United States.

By the way, claiming that community organizing as "service" is an insult to every man and woman who has ever served in the armed forces of the United States of America.

Absolutely True wrote on May 23, 2008 11:10 PM:Yes, global warming is a fraud..so is the Holocaust, the melting polar ice pack, good efficient government and of course we all know Bush isn't really an idiot either. What world does this John guy live in? Fantasyland?

Floyd wrote on May 23, 2008 11:30 PM:When taxes are cut for everyone, that includes the rich. To hear the liberals talk, you'd think it was only the rich that benefitted from the tax cut. It may be that the liberals think anyone who makes enough money to pay taxes is "rich", which ain't so! That sort of thinking is almost as bad as the public schools screaming that a small budget increase is a "cut". Until we hear something honest from the liberals, it's going to be hard to take them seriously.

OBSESSED wrote on May 24, 2008 2:14 AM:= sdraoul went ballistic and landed way out in left field yesterday about John McCain’s many luxurious houses yesterday (May 22, 2008 9:00 PM). Obviously sdraoul is so obsessed with defending McCain’s great wealth, he completely missed the point of the J. Howard Crews letter. Crews was not denigrating McCain’s wealth and many luxurious homes. He said nothing derogatory about McCain owning luxurious homes. Crews was criticizing Bettie Heldring’s begrudging a black woman having a nice modest home. I see nothing wrong with a black woman having a nice home. Crews was criticizing McCain, however, for calling Obama an elitist. This is a bit hypocritical of McCain, I would say, and very racist of Heldring. And ballistic of sdraoul.
Even if McCain lived in the Taj Mahal, who cares? But McCain should not go around calling middle class Americans “elitists”.

DUMB OR LAZY wrote on May 24, 2008 2:40 AM:= Is McCain Dumb or Lazy? (See Kathleen Murphy letter today). How could anybody get into the Senate after graduating 5th from the bottom of 899 students? I could not believe this, so I checked it out. IT’S TRUE!
If it’s because McCain is dumb, then he is not qualified to be president.
If it is because McCain squandered his academic years, then he is also not qualified to be president. This latter seems to be the case. I notice McCain is very uninformed, and makes guffaws which he has to explain away, or deny he ever made such a statement, whereupon a video is produced catching him in his lie (“faulty memory”). McCain, unlike Bush, does not lie. He “mis-speaks” himself. Mostly because he is so uninformed, especially on foreign affairs.

VOTE for Cunningham wrote on May 24, 2008 2:52 AM:.. He was a war hero, just like John McCain. Hold onto that Cunningham bumper sticker, Floyd! (May 23, 2008 8:11 PM).
BTW, is Charles Keating dead, or is he still in jail?

OBAMA MAMA wrote on May 24, 2008 3:19 AM:--- I see Ron also went ballistic in defense of McCain’s great wealth (May 23, 2008 10:01 AM). Who cares about McCain’s great wealth, just so he did not steal, extort, bribe or legislate any of it. Just so Mr. Keating did not provide McCain with any favors.

Oh, and don’t overlook the latest McCain scam last month. The very ethical Senator championed legislation that will let an Arizona rancher trade remote grassland and ponderosa pine forest here for acres of valuable federally owned property that is ready for development, a land swap that now stands to directly benefit one of his top presidential campaign fundraisers].

Initially reluctant to support the swap, the Arizona Republican became a key figure in pushing the deal through Congress after the rancher and his partners hired lobbyists that included McCain's 1992 Senate campaign manager, two of his former Senate staff members (one of whom has returned as his chief of staff), and an Arizona insider who was a major McCain donor and is now bundling campaign checks.

When McCain's legislation passed in November 2005, the ranch owner gave the job of building as many as 12,000 homes to SunCor Development, a firm in Tempe, Ariz., run by Steven A. Betts, a longtime McCain supporter who has raised more than $100,000 for the presumptive Republican nominee. Betts said he and McCain never discussed the deal.

The Audubon Society described the exchange as the largest in Arizona history. The swap involved more than 55,000 acres of land in all, including rare expanses of desert woodland and pronghorn antelope habitat. A federal forestry official told a congressional committee that he was concerned that "the public would not receive fair value" for its land. A formal appraisal has not yet begun. A town official opposed to the swap said other Yavapai Ranch land sold nine years ago for about $2,000 per acre, while some of the prime commercial land near a parcel that the developers will get has brought as much as $120,000 per acre.

McCain is a little smarter than Duke Cunningham, as you see. McCain does not get a house for the deal. Instead, McCain’s campaign contributor gets many house for the deal. Tit for tat. Quid pro quo. It’s corruption, nevertheless.

Chuch wrote on May 24, 2008 3:25 AM:>>>>Some day I hope to be wealthy and powerful. I'll pay my taxes for now and when I become Rich I want lots of tax cuts.>>>>> Maybe you can list for us some of those precious tax cuts that thatt he wealthy enjoyBe sure to list the AltMin Tax, loss of exemptions, loss of interest deductions, loss of child care credit, loss of education deductions, loss or rental property deductions, loss of economic stimulus rebate. And this as you cheer ... Obama who will tell you he's going to charge each illegal a $2,500 fine, as he makes them eligible for the $4000 earned income tax credit.

Chuck wrote on May 24, 2008 3:29 AM:If I were an oil executive, I would have told Maxine Waters and the rest of the liberals on the committee to shove it, after they let the new liberal policy out of the bag that they intend to socialize American business and take over the oil companies, like the good little commies they are

Tip for he who wants wealth wrote on May 24, 2008 3:35 AM:Get all your friends together and buy a Spanish language television station. By 2020 you'll all be richer than God.

Greenergy wrote on May 24, 2008 5:03 AM:Typical verbose but empty rant from Ron at 9:24 p.m.
When DDWhiz takes the time to check the sources being used by the science deniers, and repeatedly demonstrate the oil funding and other conflicts of interest that explain their opposition to science, all Ron can do is denigrate the scientific process.
That's right! His answer: science and the scientific method is bad and doesn't work!
Well, Ron, if the peer-review process is so terrible, I hope you're not using any of the "terrible" advances in medicine, science or technology that it has produced.

Alf wrote on May 24, 2008 5:36 AM:The letter from Patricia Elliott is a nice letter, it is also quite wrong. Feral cats are not indigenous to the area, they are introduced predators. Introduced how? Introduced by people who let their cat out or dump them. Either way, the cats are predators who hunt to survive and that hunting disrupts the natural balance. By the way, I like cats and have one who resides indoors 100 percent of the time, except to go to the vet. Regards, Alf.

Bill wrote on May 24, 2008 6:16 AM:Delores Feich claims the president ignored the checks and balancews of the constitution when he sent troops to Iraq.

This is hogwash leftist drivel.

He got the votes in congress and only Barbara Lee of Berkeley opposed it.Ms. Lee is the only leftist in Congress with any credibility there.

The Dems only opposed him afterward.

But arent Senators that dont read intelligence reports just as culpable?

The Dems have dirty hands on Iraq.

Obama says he wants to have diplomacy with Al Qaida. Diplomacy involves the art of compromise.

Just what is Obama willing to give up to compromise?

McCain has a winning message there because what people want more than getting out of Iraq is to be safe from terrorist attacks.

The Dems have shown they have no plan there.

more oil exploration needed wrote on May 24, 2008 6:40 AM:i agree with Bilbray. We do need to drill offsh ore. It can be done safer now.

Nick wrote on May 24, 2008 6:59 AM:To Liberal: Quit your whining. The mighty Blog Ed's omit and censor my stuff all the time.
The fact that you think the Blog Ed's favor conservatives is hilarious...lol. Everyone knows that the NC Times and the Blog Ed's have always been a bunch of Left Leaning Lib's.

DD Wiz wrote on May 24, 2008 7:43 AM:The post from "Ron" (9:24pm) represents the ultimate attempt to belittle science as he - wait for it - compares the process of peer-review to bloggers arguing about opinions in a local newspaper!
"Ron," we are a bunch of amateurs arguing about OPINIONS.
We are not reporting and discussing carefully-constructed experimentation or observation following strict protocols of the scientific method.
And, no, science is not so haphazard as you think, with two sides to every question. There is no serious "debate" about if the world is round or revolves around the sun in a heliocentric solar system, though once upon a time religious conservatives waged war against these scientific conclusions long after real scientists were in general agreement (consensus).
When science is done right, it reveals facts, and there are not two sets of facts.
In the early stages of examining new data or new phenomena, there may be conflicting or differing conclusions or interpretations of the preliminary data.
On climate change, we saw that 30 or 40 years ago when temperature fluctuations caused differing preliminary interpretations as to whether it portended warming or cooling.
But through time and improved, expanded data, consensus began to emerge and solidify, as in most fields, and this is what we have seen in the area of climate change.
Except for those wanting to preserve the exorbitant profits from the products that are contributing to it.
Since "Ron" has admitted to investing in oil profits, we know what his motivation is.

FACTCHECK wrote on May 24, 2008 7:57 AM:Bill at 6:16 a.m. gets his facts mixed up when he says all the Democrats voted for Iraq except one.
Like so many conservatives, he can't tell the difference between Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda was based, and Iraq, a secular dictatorship with no connection to the religious extremists of Al Qaeda.
For Bill, here are the correct numbers:
In the Senate, all Democrats voted for Afghanistan, 23 voted against Iraq.
In the House, all Democrats except one (who lost next reelection) voted for Afghanistan, 126 voted against Iraq.

Artsyrat wrote on May 24, 2008 8:14 AM: I'm voting yes Prop 98 and no Prop 99. The main issue for me in Prop 98 is the government seizure of property thru eminent domain. Geeze.. how much power do we want our governments to have! Take this away from them and VOTE 98! The other power the government has that is unfair is rent control. Should the government step in and control your income too? It's not fair. I would be very angry if I couldn't sell my art at a price that I chose. By the way, I've never seen rents as high as they are now..it seems that the rent cap really isn't working. Prop 99 folks are just trying to scare renters and mobilehome tenants with this. Most landlords and property owners who have tenants aren't greedy criminals.

Vote YES on 98
Vote No on 99

Greenergy wrote on May 24, 2008 8:27 AM:Typical rambling, hollow rant from Ron at 9:24 p.m.
When DDWhiz takes the time to check the sources being used by the science deniers, and repeatedly demonstrate the oil funding and other conflicts of interest that explain their opposition to science, all Ron can do is denigrate the scientific process.
That's right! His answer: science and the scientific method is bad and doesn't work!
Well, Ron, if the peer-review process is so terrible, I hope you're not using any of the "terrible" advances in medicine, science or technology that it has produced.

As for Reardon's suggestion at 10:20p.m. to read the National Academy of Science report on "Climate Change 2008" we are in agreement that this is an excellent, unbiased digest of the current state of science and I join Reardon in strongly recommending it. Just make sure to download it from the official site and don't depend on reinterpretation by those opposed to scientific integrity.

Submitted 5:03 a.m. - re-submitted 8:27 a.m.with revisions

to Bill wrote on May 24, 2008 8:27 AM:There is some truth to what you say, but mostly you are wrong because Bush & Co lied big-time to Congress and the U.N. The Dems have dirty hands, as you say, because they should have known he was lying, there was plenty of evidence out there. BTW, Robert Byrd, Barbara Boxer and others also opposed Bush. Congress and the media have dirty hands in this, but Bush & Co are the main culprits, deliberately distorted the intel, lied. The Dems have no plan, as you say, because Bush & Co created a hell of a mess, and there's no easy way out.

Focal Point wrote on May 24, 2008 8:30 AM:sdraoul[-] wrote on May 23, 2008 10:21 PM:
I was not insulted.

NICKS TRICKS wrote on May 24, 2008 9:10 AM:To Nick at 6:59 a.m. - actually, you and Liberal are both partially right.
There are multiple blog editors on duty at different days and times.
Sometimes you see DDWiz and Apollo and Solon getting all their blogs posted while you and other conservatives wait (except for Ron whose posts are never delayed); other times you see Ron and Reardon and Raoul getting priority and the liberals don't show up until much later, but most of the time it is pretty even handed.
This is because some of the moderators are not professional enough to set aside their personal biases, which can go in either direction depending on which moderator you get, but most of the others are extremely professional and careful to treat all viewpoints with scrupulous fairness.

Simple one for Ron wrote on May 24, 2008 9:19 AM:So, just to get your lengthy post clear, I think you are saying that the peer reviewed journal is, in fact, quite a lousy way to get information about scientific research, right? That we should be extremely skeptical of such journals because they are, at bottom, vise-controlled by a small group of elites who only pass research that meets their pre-judged views? In other words, science is just another human debate in the marketplace, controlled by power and hardly by fact or logic. So, Ron, if this is true, how can it be that over the years, most scientific ideas have changed considerably. According to your view of this field, that shouldn't be permitted to happen. Elites die and are replaced by new elites that had been vetted by the old ones. No ideas would ever change, and certainly not via data...data which conflicts with the ideas of the elites is not permitted into the journals. Ron, you seem impelled to create an idea of science that is identical to that of a church, an old mission of yours. It is, of course, absurd. If you look at the recent centuries, one thing is perfectly clear: the ideas of a church resist change at all costs; the ideas of science keep changing and progressing. You've really got this wrong at a fundamental level, but of course you'd never admit it. And, since you brought up your proof positive, Prof Bernstein, let me ask you again, as I did so often when you first told us about dear Lenny: what are the backgrounds and qualifications of ALL the members of the international board, not just the one or two that fit your scheme? This too is an example of Ron's core error or dishonesty: science, unlike religion, insists on seeing all the data, not just the cherry picked kind. That's why it progresses and religion (and Ron's ego) doesn't. Still waiting, Ron, for your report on all the board members. I won't hold my breath. ...

Vista Granny wrote on May 24, 2008 9:20 AM:Re: feral cats! Yes, Alf, feral cats will and do hunt birds as well as rats, mice and nasty bugs (lizards taste awful - they usually spit them out). That's why people like Patty Mosel feed them good cat food. Birds are VERY tough to catch -- since cats can't fly -- so a well fed pussy cat seldom downs a bird for a snack. Not so with mice and rats -- they are not only easier to catch, but so MUCH FUN to play with before the cat eats them. The feral cats in question are not reproducing, so will soon all be gone anyway. Anyone feeding the ferals will recognize a new cat dropped there by cruel and unthinking owners. Friendly, tame kitties dropped into a feral colony will either be chased away by the feral cats, killed by the feral cats, or picked up by the person feeding the feral cats. The colony should be left alone.

Raoul wrote on May 24, 2008 9:23 AM:From today's NY Times QUOTE WATERLOO, Iowa — In temporary courtrooms at a fairgrounds here, 270 illegal immigrants were sentenced this week to five months in prison for working at a meatpacking plant with false documents.
The prosecutions, which ended Friday, signal a sharp escalation in the Bush administration’s crackdown on illegal workers, with prosecutors bringing tough federal criminal charges against most of the immigrants arrested in a May 12 raid. ENDQUOTE I would be interested in hearing what sdraoul thinks about these arrests. Is the police being fair? Are the charges trumped up? Do those arrested deserve to be imprisoned? Do you disagree with this shift in Bush's policies?

snerd wrote on May 24, 2008 9:38 AM:Do you honestly think the editors give a fig about the opinions being broadcast on this tiny, insignificant blog? Do you guys realize the editors have actual jobs? You know they have a paper to put out? I think the five or six people and their avatars who blog here have a sense of their importance that far outstrips their actual influence. Relax. Enjoy seeing your works in print and know that no one reads them, and no one but you cares.

jvc wrote on May 24, 2008 9:41 AM:Oh, what fond memories I have of Waterloo,Iowa! I use to jog from Cedar
Falls, Iowa to Waterloo along highway 20 for a total of 7 miles!

GFN wrote on May 24, 2008 9:50 AM:To "Raoul", 9:23 am...there are no illegals in the USA according to SDRAOUL, so this story didn't happen; it's the leftist NY Times! These workers did not use false social security numbers either; they were real numbers of real people, just not the workers, so no crime...no mis-spelled words; just typos.

Reardon wrote on May 24, 2008 9:56 AM:SNERD has swerved into the truth.

Roger wrote on May 24, 2008 10:07 AM:Suspect snerd at 9:38 AM is right about NCT's monitoring of posts here. This would have to be the ultimate drag, not unlike the cops you see, from time to time, out there in the middle of the street, filling in for broken down traffic signals.

To Birdie wrote on May 24, 2008 10:19 AM:PatriciaElliott's letter calls feral cats a "harmless, unobtrusive group."
This is not true! Whites are a terribly destructive invasive species, killing millions of Native Americans and other wildlife every year and contributing to terrible environmental destruction. They need to be removed.

Asteroid wrote on May 24, 2008 10:38 AM:Poor Margaret Wernett reminds me of my liberal neighbors. About a month ago during a conversation in which they were swooning over Obama, Bill Moyers came up. I asked them what they thought of Bill OReilly and they both got pale and almost hyperventilated trying to out-excoriate each other. See, apparently with liberals such as Margaret; it’s not the message that matters as much as the delivery. OReilly’s an in your face, passionate guy, were as Moyers is a chatty, affable, Mr. Rogers person, as we saw with the Rev. Wright pseudo-interview. I wonder if Moyers will be interviewing Rev. Hagee. Probably not, but let's all sing Kum ba ya with Margaret, it'll make her feel good.

Floyd The Scientist wrote on May 24, 2008 10:50 AM:Now, now, Ron isn't denigrating the scientific process. He's objecting to "junk science", which is the misuse of the scientific process. As you know, there is a political consensus that we should "do something about global warming" -- but there has been no explanation about what we should be doing about the climate change on Venus, Mars, and now Jupiter. Why, in just a few short years we'll probably discover with alarum that -- gasp! -- now Saturn is involved! And all because of the Sport Utility Vehicles on planet earth!! What'cha wanna bet the liberals will stage a sit-in at a terrestrial Saturn plant that makes SUVs as their form of protest when that happens?

Alf wrote on May 24, 2008 11:01 AM:Hello Moderator - What happened to the NCT letters from the 22nd? Please let us know. Thank you in advance. Regards, Alf. [Editor's note: NCT is looking into it and we will have the letters back up as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience.]

Ron wrote on May 24, 2008 11:03 AM:Given the fact, that as of yet I have not read this particular charge about McCain, and any poosible favors he may have bestowed on SunCor Development, or Steven A. Betts. But, as I am a very prolific reader, of all materials, I can & will assure my good friend "OBAMA MAMA" @3:19 AM look into these lastest charges. As Democrat House Speaker Tom Foley once said about the world of politics, at least, from the Democrat end of things, QUOTE: "It is not the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge(s)."
Although I am not a full flung McCain backer, as even on this page, I've called him McPain or McLame, for his willingness to go along with obviously liberal and illogical legislation. But, given the 3 knuckleheads running, he does impress me as being "the lesser of three evils."
But a couple of things about your "facts" at first glance seem, well.. a bit like reaching to me.
I mean... you spend quite a bit of time explaining to us about how he has somehow violated nature or something. Your post is repleat with references to the Audubon Society, rare expanses of desert woodland and pronghorn antelope habitat. First thing that strikes me is that perhaps you are anti-growth?
Have you been to Arizona lately? That place is growing like crazy! In fact, when I was last there I thought I had read in a local paper that they were the 5th fastest growing State. Especially the Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe area.
As to "under valued" land. $2,000 an acre for srub brush seems about right to me. Just because a forestry official thinks the land is worth more, is irrelevant. Heck, between you & he you guy's might believe the land is worth far more, simply because of "rare expanses of desert woodland" and "pronghorn antelope."
In your mind, it's worth a million an acre, But.. on the market, $2K an acre seems about right to me.
And your comparison to prime commercial land, is just flat out ridiculous, and confirms you kno nothing of how real estate is priced.
We could talk about Harry Reid, and his purchase of "scrub brush", until he sheparded an earmark to build a extension of highway closer to his scrub, thus raising the price of the land. We could discuss the $1 million he made?
But, it does seem to me that reaching back into 1992 for his THEN campaign manager, and FORMER Senate staffer's.. seems like a bit of a reach to me.
And especially to say & compare this now to a "Duke Cunningham" kind of scandal, when not all of this has been aired out, yet. And you even say, McCain did not get a house, or anything else for the deal.
So where, exactly is this "Tit for tat?" This "Quid pro quo?"
But, that's the luxury of making the charge, before all the evidence is in, right? This kind of reminds me of John Murtha saying our troops were killing Iraqi's in colld blood. Now, that they have been exonerated, he's a mute.

I salute jvc wrote on May 24, 2008 11:03 AM:I can only imagine what the wind was like on your Iowa runs. Good for you for toughing it out.

sdraoul wrote on May 24, 2008 11:04 AM:Ignorance is absolute. When did I ever say there are no illegals in the USA? Of course there are. They are here in that status because the idiots in Congress took so much money from labor unions that they can't see their way to solve the problem with a simple work permit program like Mexico has.

When I worked there I paid $40 every six months and paid my Mexican taxes.

If we had a similar system here where an employers sponsors the worker there would be so few illegals the 18,000 Border Patrol agents could earn their bloated salaries and actually catch people.

Of course there are illegals here. They shouldn't be illegals, however, because they could all be legal and productive in full sunlight if stupidity didn't rule Congress, the Minutemen and all other immigrant bashers.

Remember this, if these were all Scots, English, Irish or Norwegians, would the antis even exist? Probably not… The fact most are Mexicans or Central Americans and are mixed bloods and Indians are the principal factors why they are so hated.

Immigrant bashers have been with us in this country since the 1830s when Irish Catholics were the targets. Today it is Mexicans. In between were the Italians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Greeks and Russian and Polish Jews. Little has changed in the past 150 years, thanks to ignorance, which is absolute.

So according to Ron wrote on May 24, 2008 11:06 AM:How in the world will we ever know if global warming is NOT happening? Such information cannot get into the journals. Unless the oil companies sponsor the research that might find such data, there'll be no funding for any such research. How will we find out?? From science? Ron says this can't happen. There will have to arise a Cool Pope to overthrow Hot Pope Gore, to market the idea and make up facts the way Gore did, according to Ron. Only the Cool Pope can save us. Let us pray for the coming of the Cool Pope.

to snerd at am wrote on May 24, 2008 11:12 AM:Ha, ha. To snerd; I enjoyed reading that comment. I see you're reading them.

McCain and the media wrote on May 24, 2008 11:14 AM:A lot of people claim that McCain usually gets a free pass from the mainstream media. We're about to find out. Because it's already clear that the stories are there to be explored. McCain and lobbyists. McCain's changes of mind. McCain begging for endorsements by religious figures and then running like heck when he learns what they've actually said. McCain moving to AZ, seeing a fast track to the Congress. McCain's sources of spending, past and present. McCain's political deals over the decades. Then we'll see MSM heroes tossing questions to McCain and Obama in their debates. This should be good, but will it be? Will McCain be allowed to repeat "POW" indefinitely? Will he be challenged when he talks about the success of the surge? Stay tuned!

Ron wrote on May 24, 2008 11:17 AM:Well, this is hardly a reponse to my well thought out attempt to explain what the peer-review process has suffered recently. Given the fact, that many "elite journals" have already "decided" th debate is over. I would suggest my good friend "Greenergy"
@5:03 AM read seriously some of the "editorials" written by one such jouranl, Science. It is not I, nor these other fully qualified scientists who are saying they will no longer accept opposing views, or contrary evidence. It is those reviewers at Science, who have declared this. And they are but one such journal. Perhap if my good friend did a bit more reading, he would come to the same conclusion as I, for it is there, in black & white.
At just look at the reasoning to reject "the science?" Is it based on data, or facts? NO!
QUOTE: "...the sources being used by the science deniers, and repeatedly demonstrate the oil funding..." END Quote
As i have said, even the oil companies have very qualified scientists, and basing your rejection of their evidence by simply who they are, or where the funding came from, is not honest.
It shows your closed minded bias to not even consider other facts or data, and you preclude yourself from other information. But.. this is what the believers do.
Like the religious nuts they claim they hate, and oppose. They act just like them.

hardtack wrote on May 24, 2008 11:23 AM:Don Steigerwald gives us half the story . . . perhaps due to the 200-word limit, so maybe 14 days from now he will give us the other half of the story. The dueling messages from the two parties are: "Change" and "Stay the course." Profound! Just the information we need to cast an informed vote. The irony is, partisans are actually persuaded by such sloganeering.

hardtack wrote on May 24, 2008 11:25 AM:Paul King is right on Prop 98, and so in Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto’s point that the profound difference between our economy and Mexico’s is "legal title" property rights – that includes the right to negotiate rent, and well being secure in property title. Yes on Prop 98, absolutely.

hardtack wrote on May 24, 2008 11:29 AM:Kathleen Murphy offers interesting insight regarding Barack Obama’s law school background. However, it would have been infinitely more impressive had she been able to say: Economist, James M. Buchanan once described Mr. Obama as “the best student I ever had.”

Which brings me to Joe Martin’s letter. I think Joe might benefit by reading some of James M. Buchanan’s stuff. I believe Buchanan won the Nobel prize for his work in the area of public choice and price theory.

Hooray Snerd at wrote on May 24, 2008 11:31 AM:You are my hero. Thanks for giving them a reality check.

Ron wrote on May 24, 2008 11:46 AM:And yet again, we have the circular reasoning by my good buddy Wizzer @
7:43 AM. No, wizzer I'm not belittling the science, I'm questioning the process by which we achieve our facts.
The peer-review process in recent years has been taken over by jealous reviewers, who have conflicts of interests, as they all vy for the same grant money, and getting published is what get's you noticed.
An honest peer-review process is much like this page, not exact, but similar, in that, people are allowed to post, and then another poster can debate the previous posters conclusions. It is an open conversation about the evidence & the data. Posing one theory, conclusion, possibility to another.
This is what science really is. It is the ability of other scientists, regardless of who funds them, or their backgrounds, to compete in the marketplace of ideas. These "gatekeepers" see to it, in the current process, that only certain papers get published. These other scientists then must publish somewhere, so they go to less than elite journals, the wizzer then excludes, because they are not elite. It's completely a strawman argument. You must publish in "these" journals, then when they can't honestly get published, they say "SEE", not peer-review in a well-known and "accepted" journal.
And this is "The Game" all these guy's play. They purposely exclude certain scientists work, because they disagree with who they work for, or who funds them. Never mind the actually science they produce. They are excluded from the process by virtue of who they are.
Just look at any of Green's or wizzer's posts. They are repleat with Big Oil this, or filthy fuel that. The problem is, they automatically, and by knee-jerk reject any other possible evidence or data, because of the source. and that, anit science. That's either political partisonship, or religious.
I tend to lean towards the religous explanation.

esteban wrote on May 24, 2008 12:12 PM:Kathleen Murphy, can you PLEASE tell us what Obama has done in the Senate that is substantial? So he gives a good talk. So what? Talk is cheap.

BACKWARDS wrote on May 24, 2008 12:13 PM:Floyd at 10:50 a.m. has things backwards again.
There is a scientific consensus (general agreement) that human activity is contributing to climate change.
There is not a political consensus about what to do about it.

Ron wrote on May 24, 2008 12:38 PM:I already gave you the "housing guy",
I don't know what else you need there.. "Simple one for Ron" @
9:19 AM. And I'm not skeptical of science, in fact, I use science everyday in my business. So, as much as you guy's like to get hysterical about calling people like me, anit-science, flat-earthers, or deniers. Just so ya know, I'm a huge believer in science done right. I always crack up when wizzer tells me to stop using things that science has brought us, if I don't believe in science. The scientific method is one that is designed to be questioned, it is meant for those with opposing views to test, and poke holes into other's theories, if possible.
But if the mainstream of science has shut itself down to any new incoming opinions, theories, conclusion, data or facts. That particular scientific process is broken.
I think I could clear this up for you pretty quickly. In fact, let's look at Big Pharma and the FDA. Do you think it's possible to have "favorites" within this framework? You bet you do. Is science sometimes a victim of this made-up process? You bet!
So why is it so hard to believe that another process within the scientific realm as not be compromised?
I'll tell you why. Because within the leftist environmental movement is this kind of bestowing upon the scientists a kind of preisthood status. As if, they are infalible, and honest as a preist.
That is until we found out some were pedophiles... But I digress.
It's as if, you guy's can not visualize them as people, struggling like the rest of us, with all our own personal conflicts, needs, wants & desires.
And as to "pre-judged views?" It is not my side who mandates that any evidence gathered by "suspect" scientists not be considered by logical analysis of data & facts. It is your side, my friend, who precludes objective science by who does it.
As to the "qualifications" of Prof. {Lenny} Bernstein and others who worked on the IPCC reports. You obviously have a clear disagreement with your buddy wizzer. Because on this very page, he has openly said: "The IPCC is a political body, and not a scientific body." I simply stated that many who sat on the working groups were not, they themselves, "qualified" climatologists, and he agreed with me.
But, in short, it is not I, nor those who question this science who are
in error or dishonest, or cherry-picking. We are asking why the process is not open to those with dissenting views, and why they are forced to publish in less than elite journals, where then you can snarl your nose, and say: SEE! Not properly peer-reviewed!
And you really must answer the question, as to why... one such elite journal, Science.. has seen to it to publish editorials, which say: "The debate is over." It shows their debate on the subject is over, without considering any other evidence or data.
Now, how is THAT science?

Alf wrote on May 24, 2008 12:44 PM:Well, "sdraoul" is at it again in his 11:04AM post. He has the unmitigated gall to ask "if these were all Scots, English, Irish or Norwegians, would the antis even exist?". All the while he ignores the fact that the Scots, English, Irish and Norwegians crossed our borders, entered our country, legally, a difference that he chooses to ignore. Apples (legal immigration) and oranges (illegal immigration) are two separate and distinct things, yet "sdraoul" does not, will not and seemingly can not distinguish between the two in this "discussion". If he refuses to make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, his posts are meaningless. Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on May 24, 2008 12:55 PM:Hey.. "esteban" @12:12 PM. If your looking for something that is substantial. I would point you to the Obamaman's own website, where he states he planned to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.
That will win him votes in San Franciso, and perhaps Oregon. But, he will lose big time the votes he needs in the bible Belt, as he already lost big in both West Virginia, and Kentucky.

Oh raoul wrote on May 24, 2008 12:57 PM:Instead of using Obama as your poster boy for the idiots who voted for this GI bill, why not tell us about the credentials of some of the other Senators who voted for it, including more than 20 Republicans. Are any of them vets? Oh! Why Jim Webb is a Vietnam vet. Funny how your loyalty to military men only extends to those who agree with your politics. Is Webb stupid? Semper Fi, raoul. Your loyalty to those who serve, as you did, is awe-inspiring.

asteroid wrote on May 24, 2008 1:00 PM:Ferral cats, pussy cats, call them what you like, but if they keep messing in my yard they're gonna be missing cats.

Greenergy wrote on May 24, 2008 1:01 PM:Ron at 11:17 and 11:46 a.m. tries to defend his earlier rants against science by explaining all the flaws in the "process," but doesn't explain how he got to know so much more than all the real scientisits, except, of course, for all those oil investments that make him oh, so objective!

raoul does have a point wrote on May 24, 2008 1:04 PM:Like I always say, raoul approaches sanity and intelligence when he talks about immigration issues. On wars, foreign policy, and politics in general (never mind factual history), he loses about 50 IQ points and becomes a juvenile without morality. But when he talks about how much trouble "illegal immigration" would be considered if the "illegals" were white Euros, I must say that I agree with him. I only think back to WWII. Contrast how Japanese-Americans were treated with how German-Americans were treated. The assumption was, I guess, that the German-Americans blended in with what we tended to think of as "real Americans" better than their Japanese-American peers. And, I'd add, more Americans shared the Nazi anti-semitic beliefs of Hitler, as well as Hitler's anti-Communism. The Japanese were considered much more "alien" and therefore "savage"...much as today's Latinos are dehumanized. Interesting to think about.

good idea Reardon...unfortunately wrote on May 24, 2008 1:08 PM:Thanks very much for the pointer to the National Academy of Science's discussion of GW. I appreciate your statement that they might be objective. Sadly, should they come down on the side of Gore, the usuals here will simply dismiss them as tools, doubt their credentials, their intelligence, and even the practice of science. For these people, the conclusion that they want determines all. They are the ones who don't allow evidence to the contrary. And we don't have to make fancy arguments to try to show this: just read their posts and there it is, in living color. I suspect they will not bother to read this discussion by NAS in fear that they might learn some of the reasons why scientists believe that GW is real, regardless of what else it says. They depend on NOT knowing this, so that they can repeat their claims that the whole enterprise is bogus. Thanks anyway...I'll certainly look at it.

Ron reaches a new low wrote on May 24, 2008 1:19 PM:In the interests of exalting his own puny view of things, Ron has hit a new all-time low: he makes the claim that this blogspace is more objective than peer reviewed scientific journals. I think we all need to take a moment, stand, remove our hats, and be silent. We need to contemplate his claim deeply, turning over in our minds all that this implies about our world from Ron's perspective. If there is another person here who would even consider reading a Ron post after this, I wish you'd identify yourself so that I can skip your posts as well. I can see, however, why poor Ron wants to insist that a space where lies are considered just fine as claims of truth is appealing. It suits his purpose and morality perfectly. As for me? Dumb as I may be, I'll stick to the scientific journals, thanks. G'bye Ron...you are a strange, strange dude. LOL

OBAMA MAMA wrote on May 24, 2008 1:30 PM:... Can esteban (or anyone) PLEASE tell us what McCain has done in the Senate in the last four years that is substantial? Don’t list “McCain-Feingold”, which has been eviscerated and become ineffectual. So McCain gives a good talk. So what? Talk is cheap, and McCain spends half his time spinning explanations of what he “really meant”, or denying he ever said things which are fully documented on video and in print.

Cheap wrote on May 24, 2008 1:30 PM:Kathleen,"Talk is cheap". esteban should know!LOL

ELITIST McCain wrote on May 24, 2008 1:34 PM:.. The fact that McCain’s old man was an admiral in the Navy won junior many special favors. A lot of his fellow compatriots who fought in Vietnam make the same claim about McCain. He was born on third base, and thinks he hit a home run.

OBAMACAN wrote on May 24, 2008 1:36 PM:Esteban at 12:12 p.m. dismisses Obama's many achievements, which are all part of his public record, because he is too lazy to check it out which he can easily do by going to Obama's web page.
Although he is new in the Senate, he already has a record of leadership and achievement.
Just a few highlights:
-Co-sponsored w/ Republican Tom Coburn an open spending reporting on the Internet so taxpayer can monitor govt spending.
-Sponsored ethics reform in lobbying.
Led effort to enforce payment of veterans disability benefits that the Bush-McCain cabal reneged on.
-Traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to work on non-proliferation and resecuring of weapons.
-Is actively pushing reforms for alternative fuels and higher auto fuel standards.
His record of leadership and achievement in the state legislature is even longer (just like Abe Lincoln who served in the same body) and full policy proposals can also be found on his extensive website, available for anyone who is serious about understanding the record.

To Snerd wrote on May 24, 2008 1:36 PM:At 9:38AM, I thought we were having an earthquake this morning, and then I came across your post and realized it was only a few rather large egos falling. Good Stuff Snerd!

To OBAMA MAMA wrote on May 24, 2008 1:41 PM:So You won't or can't answer the 12:12 PM post!?!?!? Go Figure.

Floyd The Scientist wrote on May 24, 2008 1:48 PM:A general agreement, or consensus, is not science since science is about fact. A typical fact would be: dogs give birth to dogs. In contrast, a general agreement is political and sometimes dogmatic. A typical consensus would be: dogs evolved from non-dogs. Our very own DD Wiz has frequently demonstrated that it is reasonable for non-scientists to ignore the political beliefs of scientists since he has repeatedly rejected my rational presentations right here in the blogs even when I'm wearing my WHITE LAB COAT and even though my postings have been reviewed by my peers prior to submission. You can trust me on this, for I am a scientist.

Apollo wrote on May 24, 2008 2:08 PM:Re: Obamacan (1:36 p.m.)
Actually, on paper, Obama has more "experience" than Abe Lincoln.
People did not vote for Lincoln for experience, but because of his judgment, and because he was such an eloquent speaker.

esteban wrote on May 24, 2008 2:23 PM:Obama Mama, I'm not pimping McCain, so you won't hear me defending him and his liberal causes. But he is the lesser of the three evils, with Obama being the worst (most socialist).

Asteroid wrote on May 24, 2008 3:01 PM:Here’s another way to ask the ludicrous question that SD Raoul and other open border anarchist put forth so often; “Remember this, if these were all Scots, English, Irish or Norwegians, would the antis even exist?” Let’s suppose the invasion was from the north, predominately white Canadians as opposed to the south, predominately brown Mexicans and South Americans. Would SD Raoul and his buddies be defending their right to enter our country illegally, swamp and bankrupt our Emergency rooms, overwhelm our education system, crowd our prisons and jails, drive down wages, etc, etc... ?

Reardon wrote on May 24, 2008 3:04 PM:As I have noted before, I believe we are in global warming, and I SUSPECT that man has SOME negative impact – what I object to is Global Scaremongers who would turn our economy upside down to have little impact, since China and India are being ignored, as are most of the developing world.

I am also looking for “projections” by science to be measured in public against observed data, so we can ALL see where the data matches and where it does not. I do not like people publishing their conclusions, without the underlying data. IPCC PROJECTIONS are FAR lower than Al Gore’s PREDICTIONS, and neither will match observed data – of course scientists make many projections (scenarios), and the Scaremongers take the “worst-case scenario” and make that their political Best-case scenario.

If you read the National Academy of Science 2008, you will see that their conclusions are for global warming (duh!), and man’s contribution for it – but their caveats per page amount to the usual scientific concern about the measurement of data, and the quality of computer projections.

The Argo system of remote ocean robots has APPARENTLY found no increase in ocean temperatures in the past five years, but that it new data and not yet the subject of peer-reviewed articles and certainly not included in IPCC or Academy of Science data – but it is a case where observed data does not meet the Academy projections (extended) on page 7 of their report. NASA spokesman for Argo says it is just a temporary hiatus from measurable global warming, and that is probably true, but it is also a cause for questioning the scaremongers and their “sky is falling” tactics.

The earth is far more capable of taking punishment than the scaremongers suspect.

Alf wrote on May 24, 2008 3:33 PM:To the editor who responded to my 11:01AM post, Thank you. Regards, Alf.

Rons moonwalking wrote on May 24, 2008 5:11 PM:You know moonwalking? Going backwards but trying to look like you're going forwards? That's Ron at 12:38, where he says how much he loves science. Earlier today, here's what he said about science, QUOTE The peer-review process in recent years has been taken over by jealous reviewers, who have conflicts of interests, as they all vy for the same grant money, and getting published is what get's you noticed.
An honest peer-review process is much like this page, not exact, but similar, in that, people are allowed to post, and then another poster can debate the previous posters conclusions. It is an open conversation about the evidence & the data. Posing one theory, conclusion, possibility to another. ENDQUOTE In other words, science USED to be done right, but it's been taken over! If it were done right, journals would be open conversations, kinda like this blog. In other words, NOT PEER REVIEWED, just open to debate. Gang, it's time to stick a fork in Ron: he's done. LOL So many people, including many who are actually scientists, have pointed out Ron's errors or misstatements (as lies are called these days). How many times has Ron ever said, "Hey, guys, I seem to be misunderstanding something here about how science works. Would you tell me where I might be wrong?"? That, my friends, would be a set of words that would indicate humility and the admission of error, things not in our pal's moral vocabulary. As I said, stick a fork in him, he's done.

El Guero wrote on May 24, 2008 5:26 PM:What preposterous claims are made by those who seek to equate (as 'sdraoul' and others do) early 20th-Century Irish, Italian, Polish, and Japanese immigrants with 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants from Mexico and Latin America. The hostile sentiment against Japanese-Americans during WWII was due mainly to the fact that Japanese migrations were limited to towns up and down the West Coast (unlike European migration which was far more widely distributed throughout the eastern seaboard and MidWest). European immigrants arrived with closer cultural ties to one another and to previous waves of mostly Anglo-European immigrants. So, yes, as Pluto ('raoul does have a point' at 1:04) says, "The Japanese were considered much more 'alien' and therefore 'savage'." But not because of race, only because Japanese culture was unknown and "alien" to a vast majority of other Americans.

Once settled, Japanese and European immigrants alike began to assimilate to Anglo-American culture far less reluctantly than millions of Latin Americans today who really have no desire to 'melt' into the American mainstream. It's far more likely that the hundreds of thousands of European and Japanese immigrants of a century ago would have risen up together to oppose today's illegal immigrants than to have shown them any sympathy.

DD Wiz wrote on May 24, 2008 5:36 PM:The posts from "Reardon" (10:20pm) and "Greenergy" (8:27am) find common ground in recommending the National Academy of Science booklet (found in its entirety in ".pdf" format on their webpage) "Climate Change 2008."
I enthusiastically concur.
I also join in the caveat from"Greenergy" that readers view it for themselves, and not take the word of others who try to misquote it, take it out of context, or simply misstate its contents.

Interesting point El Guero wrote on May 24, 2008 5:55 PM:The issue of immigration from the south is so fascinatingly complex, isn't it? One huge question is "do they want to assimmilate?" Well, in one sense, it's trivial because the fact of the matter is that their kids ARE assimmilating just as those of previous generations of immigrants' kids did. But the reason I'm finding this more interesting is that unlike prior immigrants, those from Mexico and Central America do not have natural barriers between them and their countries of origin. Euro- and Asian immigrants, especially pre-air travel, left their old worlds behind in ways we cannot even fathom. There was no possibility of easy travel to and from the old country. This is a different situation, and I'm saying this without making any value judgments about it, it's just a geographical fact. An important one that might have large effects on the rates of assimmilation. At the same time, "assimmilation" is not really the right word. It assumes that there is an "American way" that immigrants in time become. But immigration and assimmilation are really two-way things, America changing as new groups and their cultures influence it as well. So even though neighbor status might slow assimmilation, it might (already is!) leading to more Latino influence on America, which IMHO is a good thing. Fascinating to watch this evolve, isn't it?

sdraoul wrote on May 24, 2008 5:56 PM:Alf and Asteroid manifest more than ignorance. My challenge is would these antis even exist if all the illegals were white Northern Europeans. And to the poster who said that all white Northern Europeans who came here came legally, that's apples and oranges. There were no restrictions ever on Northern Europeans.

Restrictions were put on in 1924 and were pretty much limited to Italian Catholics, Greeks, Polish Jews and Catholics, Russian Jews and, of course, anyone from Asia.

There were no restrictions on English, Scots, Irish, German, Norwegian, Swedish, Danes, or French immigrants as long as they were Protestant, as was almost all of the Congress. They could come as they please.

Note two things: Italian prisoners of war in SD County were allowed to leave their "prison" and socialize throughout San Diego. At the same time, the same people in charge didn't allow Negro soldiers stationed in Campo's 10th Cavalry base to socialize throughout San Diego; they were only allowed to eat, stay or drink at 5th and Market.

So, the 1924 mentality that shut down legitimate immigration from Southern and eastern Europe and left wide open Northern European immigration.

There were so many Norwegians here in 1900 that over 200 Norwegian language newspapers and magazine.There were also many Swedes, yumpin yimminey.

Alf wrote on May 24, 2008 6:11 PM:Well, "El Guero" at 5:26PM, what I pointed out in my 12:44PM post is the distinction that must be made between legal and illegal. I believe that most people would object to massive influxes of any nationality if they came here illegally. One can not honestly compare the legal immigration of Irish, Italian, Polish, and Japanese with the illegal immigration (border crossing) of the people from south of the border who are mostly Mexican and from other Latin American countries. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on May 24, 2008 6:17 PM:I'll make one thing very clear, "sdraoul" at 5:56PM, I don't care about the specific country of origin, if there were a massive influx of ANY nationality coming here illegally AND abusing the systems here, I would be as vehement as I am now. Get off your high "everyone who is anti-illegal hates Mexicans" horse, it's a one-trick pony that is worn out and works no more. Regards, Alf.

The illegal issue wrote on May 24, 2008 7:05 PM:At one time, marrying someone of another "race" was illegal. In some states, adultery is illegal even as we speak. There are, and have always been, laws that come to be seen as unjust or even plain stupid. If an amnesty law was passed, giving a pass to all who've immigrated here, ending the entire discussion of "legal or illegal", where would you stand on those who came when it was against the law? Would you think that people who'd married before the laws against "racial mixing" were repealed (i.e., people who "passed") should still be prosecuted because when they wed, it was illegal? It seems to me that this is the litmus test for racism: if, agree with it or not, a general amnesty law was passed and signed, so that no immigrant was "illegal", would you be cool with them all? If not, it couldn't be because they were "illegal". So why, then? Their using public schools and emergency rooms? Same as any other American? Hmmm.

Lost Letters wrote on May 24, 2008 7:22 PM:OK, I share Alf's appreciation for the editor who responded to his 11:0 a.m. post inquiring about the lost letters from May 22 and promising that you're working on it.
But now, while the prior links still work for 5/23 and 5/24 (today's) letters, they are no longer being included in the main letters webpage indes.
What is going on? It is getting worse, not better.
Nothing for 5/22, 5/23 or 5/24! Only for the Californian!
C'mon! The North County Times is the vast bulk of your subscribers.
Some of us do want to be able to go back and review past letters and web comments.
A little respect for your loyal (but long suffering) subscribers, PLEASE!
FIX IT!!! (Sooner than later, PLEASE!)

El Guero wrote on May 24, 2008 7:28 PM:To Interesting point, you put your finger on the big obvious difference between the early 20th-Century immigrants and the largely Latin American immigrants of today: a land bridge. Because there is relatively easy travel back and forth over the border, as opposed to crossing oceans, Latin Americans, I believe, feel less pressure to assimilate, especially in terms of language. For this reason, plus the fact that because of proximity to their homelands their commitments to stay are not as firmly fixed, they are what I would consider casual or reluctant Americans, less willing to trade old ties for new ones, which I also believe is an attitude that in many cases they transmit to their U.S.-born children. IMHO this is not a good thing for the nation.

And to Alf, I believe this attitude is also true for a higher percentage of legal Latin American immigrants than even today's European immigrants, the few that there are.

Bill wrote on May 25, 2008 6:04 AM:OK so I was confused.

None of that changes the fact that they approved it.

So the Armed Services Committee doesnt have the same intel as the President?

Yes he does.

The Armed Service Committee hands down reports to its sub-committees and it finds its way down to every one in Congress. All that is left out of the reports is the classified stuff.

Sorry but that dog wont hunt.

Thats a pure cop out since Hillary admitted that she didnt read the reports.

But nobody told me the Dems plan to fight terrorism or what Obama would give up in his negotiations.

Not one word on that huh?

Those are legitimate questions but not one Democrat has an answer.

Cindy wrote on May 25, 2008 9:23 AM:Best Friends magazine (May/June 2008) has an excellent article, The Truth About Feral Cats. This article provides the facts: Almost all feral cats taken to a shelter are killed b/c they are not adoptable, The best thing we can do is Trap/Neuter/Return and provide long term care, The cats are in the area b/c of a food source (usually humans) and do not feed on birds or small animals. Get educated!

Apollo wrote on May 25, 2008 9:29 AM:Re: Bill (6:04 a.m.)
No, Bill, the Armed Services Committee does not have all the same intl as the President, whose executive branch produces the material that is provided to them. Usually, they are comfortable trusting the president, but that does not always turn out to be valid, does it.
Even so, the info was there. It was in the National Intelligence Estimate that many of the senators voting for the authorization (including, sadly, Hillary) didn't even read. However, owing to the fact that many Democrats did vote for Afghanistan but against Iraq, it does show more Democrats could tell the difference of where the terror threat came from, and your "confusion" on it, like McCain's (remember Joe Lieberman having to whisper the correction in his ear), shows you and Bush/McCain cannot.
And please understand, Bush's own weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, said there were no WMD in Iraq and was widely ridiculed by the right-wing hate talkers. The U.N. weapons inspectors, first Hans Blix and then Mohammed El Baradei, reported the same thing. Our friends the French and Germans, who joined in the first Gulf War, were not fooled on the second one, and were soundly ridiculed by the righties (remember "Freedom Fries"?). The world was not fooled! Many Democrats, both in and out of the Senate, were not fooled!

Alf wrote on May 25, 2008 10:41 AM:Sorry "Cindy" at 9:23AM, cats were, are and always will be predators, hunters. They will hunt birds and other small animals whether or not they are fed by humans, this includes house cats, feral cats and wild cats. For those who believe that feral cats do not hunt and kill birds and other small animals, I have some Florida Everglaciers for sale! Even domestic cats will bring home "presents" if allowed outside. Regards, Alf.

John wrote on May 25, 2008 12:41 PM:Jack Senik was right on the money when he said we need to fight smarter in Iraq. One of the critical tools our soldiers have used in Iraq are funds from the Commander's Emergency Response Program, CERP. Few in congress understand this program, thus they hamper it with harmful restrictions. San Diego voters have the chance to support Mike Lumpkin, a congressional candidate who understands the importance and intricacy of this program.

It is sad that so few realize the fact that conventional warfare just won't work on its own in Iraq. I am always pleased to find someone who "gets it."

John

Re Feral Cats wrote on May 25, 2008 2:20 PM:LAPD is using the feral cats to rid their stations of rats and mice. Not a bad idea. Also, yes, cats that are well fed by their owners will definitely hunt if let outdoors. I have two cats who are neutered, they are indoor/outdoor cats. Come in at night so as not to become dinner for the coyotes. However, occasionally they are out at night and bring me presents in the morning. Gophers, rabbits, lizards, mice, an occasional bird. They don't eat them, just play with them, then kill them. Feral cats can be a problem if they are not vaccinated against disease. Yes, they become feral because uncaring people throw away their pets or fail to have them spayed or neutered.

To Cindy wrote on May 25, 2008 2:59 PM:Class is in. Lesson #1 - Good try Cindy, But you said "Get educated," For blog talk that's another way of saying, "I'm smart, Your dumb so take your best shot." You will always get a response.