Apollo wrote on May 25, 2008 8:09 PM:Re: Jack Davis (letter)
Another person who does not grasp the role of the courts!
Davis says he supports gay marriage, but not having the courts overrule the will of the people.
How many times does this need to be repeated so it gets through the thick skulls of the stubborn?
If the "will of the people" votes to bring back slavery or outlaw the Christian faith, would that be OK? The court INTERPRETS the law. When a lesser law (statute) conflicts with a higher law (Constitution), the higher law takes precedence. Period. End of story. You may disagree with their interpretation, but it is interpreting the law to resolve as a contradiction between a statute and the State Constitution.

sdraoul wrote on May 25, 2008 8:13 PM:Martin Giavelli seems to think that his reading and meaning of a letter supercedes that of the author.

The statement was that illegals commit far fewer violent crimes than native born Americans and far fewer than one could expect from a demographic of mostly young men. Those are true incontrovertible statements and no one can refute them.

So why does this man turn the letter’s meaning into something negative?

That's like people pointing to all Italian immigrants during the early 1900s as responsible for illegal liquor, bribery and corruption of entire police departments all so that people could have their cocktails.

Lucky Luciano, Al Capone, Vito Genovese, Joe Bonnano and Frank Bompensiero were "made guys" and oversaw more crime in a month than a million illegals can possibly even imagine. These men were Mafiosos, They were all Italians, many illegal alien Italians. Are all Italians Mafiosos, Mr. Giavelli and do they deserve such labeling?

Jimbob wrote on May 25, 2008 8:24 PM:If we go over to the dark side, 20 million illegals will be deported, and the U.S. will be on the verge of civil war, as well as war with Mexico.

If we do the right thing, we will speed up 30 million temporary work visas allowing Mexican guest workers in the U.S. to vacation and visit their loved ones in Mexico, maintain their ties, and live in hope of one day returning to their home towns and families.

We must also legalize drugs, which will eliminate the Mexican drug cartels which are destroying Mexico, and eventually will bring down the United States.

To Martin Giavelli from Daphne wrote on May 25, 2008 10:18 PM:Clever very clever when you make the following statement regarding Tina Jillings "who wants to "preserve law and order," but passionately defends lawbreakers, some of whom commit murders and other violent crimes." Give me one example of Tina defending anyone who commits a murder or violent crime? One example, please!!!! None right that is just what I thought!! My question to you is how ridiculous can you get? BTW you say "Tina ends her letter, which is an attack on Jeff Schwilk, well Jeff Schwilk and his ilk are always attacking her. I agree with Tina Jillings "I certainly hope the powers that be intervene to preserve law and order." If you defend the Minutemen and their activities than you sir are ... just like them. You are right about one thing Tina Jillings is passionate about preserving the Human Rights, Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights. Say what you will about her but until you write the truth about her you will be ignored and or opposed. Hey Martin have you ever once talked to Tina Jillings, I have and now I am a supporter of her and her cause.

Wake up folks wrote on May 25, 2008 10:36 PM:The right wing crazies are taking over the letters section. Get off your duff, you humanists, and write your pieces now! And thank you for gay marriage. I am not gay but why shouldn't they be able to enter into legal partnerships to pay their taxes, support their kids, etc.? Those opposed no matter what they say are morally opposed. Get over it!

Ron wrote on May 25, 2008 10:37 PM:And how many times do we need to repeat it for people like "Apollo"
@8:09 PM?
Giving rights to a behavior is ridiculous.

Thank you Apollo wrote on May 26, 2008 12:21 AM:For setting them right again. Of course, you will be subject to the wrath of the regular lounge lizards here who few themselves as experts in everything from military tactics to constitutional law, and everything in between.

"I feel" should not be confused so often with "I know"!

Alf wrote on May 26, 2008 4:56 AM:The letter from Martin Giavelli is well reasoned. In my personal opinion, Jeff Schwilk has worked for and earned virtually every critical statement, comment and remark made against him. The points are that illegal aliens are costing us some of the money that could and should be spent on legal citizens and some of the illegal aliens do far more illegal things than cross the border illegally. Any murder or rape or robbery by an illegal is one that would not have occurred were that person not here. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on May 26, 2008 5:04 AM:The letter from Terry Kennedy reminds me of something that I have brought up before - How many, if any, of these full of themselves sdmm have gone out and done the work that the day laborers do? How many have "filled in" for them? My bet is ZERO. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on May 26, 2008 5:17 AM:The letter by Jack Davis shows his lack of knowledge of our government. First, we are a republic, not a democracy. Second, any law, proposition or whatever, that violates either the California Constitution or the U.S. Constitution, if challenged, must be struck down. Even if a law or proposition complies with the California Constitution or the California Constitution is Amended so as to have the law be in compliance, IF that law or state Amendment violates the U.S. Constitution, if challenged it must be struck down. At this moment I do not believe that there is sufficient support to accomplish a U.S. Constitutional Amendment and what support there might be is fading. Regards, Alf.

Jack_D wrote on May 26, 2008 6:25 AM:Re: Apollo's post 8:09 P.M., he says: When a lesser law (statute) conflicts with a higher law (Constitution), the higher law takes precedence." No one, least of all me, disputes that. He is begging the question. What opponents of the Court's decision on gay marriage are saying is that there is nothing in the Constitution about same-sex marriage and therefore the decision should be left to the voters. He simply assumes as a fact--which opponents of the decision deny--that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. That assumption isn't obvious to me, nor was it obvious to Judge Baxter, the other dissenting judges, and millions of Californians.

He further asks:If the "will of the people" votes to bring back slavery or outlaw the Christian faith, would that be OK?" No, because those things are already outlawed in the Constitution- see 13th Amendment and 1st Amendment. If gay marriage was specifically protected in either the federal or state Constitution, the analogy would be valid. It isn't.
Allow me to quote former Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan:

Legislative enactments should be recognized and enforced by the courts as embodying the will of the people, unless they are plainly and palpably and beyond all question in violation of the Constitution.

Jack_D wrote on May 26, 2008 6:32 AM:One poster said "Right-wing crazies are taking over the letters section." That's just not true. There were at least 3 liberal letters. I'm not sucking up to the NC Times-honestly- when I say they do a very good job of balancing left and right-wing views on their letters page. I would stop reading the NC times if they showed a bias one way or the other.

Greenergy wrote on May 26, 2008 6:44 AM:In yesterday's posts, Floyd made several false statements about me and moderate environmental organizations that fairness demands not go unanswered:
Floyd at 8:35 p.m. still continues to dishonestly try to lump all environmentalists into one bucket.
He says: "So, calling someone an "environmentalist" is now name-calling and an "extremist insult"? Quoting reliable sources about the terrorist activities of environmentalists is not discussing the issue?"
Sorry, but you are backpedaling now.
At 10:10 a.m. you completely fabricated a false quote that does not reflect my views and attributed it to me.
At 5:29 p.m. you specifically linked me to Earth First!, which is an extremist fringe group whose opinions, goals and tactics I do not share. I (and most environmentalists) see environmentalism as the way to improve the quality of life for humans (which incidentally makes the environment better for other species) and reject terror tactics such as setting bombs or fires on construction sites. Most environmentalists do not share the extremist goal of "phasing out the human race" but want to stop the pro-polluter lobby from policies that will do just that, but only through legal, reasonable means.
And comparing the Sierra Club to Earth First! is definitely dishonest. Yes, Sierra Club does oppose Sunrise Powerlink, as many responsible environmentalists do, because it is a 1.3 billion dollar boondoggle designed to enrich stockholders of SDG&E on the backs of ratepayers, and which would cause terrible damage to environmentally-sensitive areas as well as increased fire risk, when that same money could be better used to install on-site solar but, oops, that wouldn't enrich the stockholders, would it.
There can be a reasonable debate on whether or not Sunrise is a good idea.
But neither I nor the Sierra Club has proposed acts of violence or terror against it (or anything else), and your attempt to link us to organizations and extremists that do is just as slanderous as if I were to try to link you and all conservatives to Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph or the Christian Identity Movement.
The only reason you feel compelled to link us with viewpoints we do not share is because you are utterly incapable of responding to our actual views because ours are reasonable and yours are the ones that are actually extreme.

Alf wrote on May 26, 2008 7:07 AM:A headline in "Breaking News" is "Bush calls on Americans to remember war dead". Would that he stopped sending American Troops to "be remembered". To borrow a lyric, "How many deaths will it take till he (GWB) knows, That too many people have died?" It is as applicable today as it was over 40 years ago. Regards, Alf.

Apollo wrote on May 26, 2008 7:27 AM:Re: Ron (10:37 p.m.) and Jack D (6:25 a.m.)
The problem with the anti-liberty crowd like Ron is that they want to micromanage the private lives of others. Let me make it clear: whether homosexuality is an inborn trait or a personal choice, liberty and freedom demand, and the Constitution explicitly requires, equal protection of the law. The state can define marriage as a relationship between two persons, but the moment you specify gender, you have sex discrimination. The rights are inherent to being a person, not a behavior.
Jack D's response is more measured and reasonable, but remains flawed. Equal protection of the law, which prohibits discrimination based on inherent attributes, does directly outlaw distinctions made on gender, an inherent attribute, and many would argue that the same applies to homosexuality.
And he is wrong that homosexuality is not explicit in the Constitution. Please remember which Constitution we are talking about. The case was decided based on the California State Constitution, NOT the federal U.S. Constitution (which is why it is not subject to further review).
The California State Constitution, Article I, Sections 31(a) and (g) specifically outlaw discrimination based on gender and it was under this provision that the court made its determination.

Alf wrote on May 26, 2008 7:30 AM:Watch out, "Jack_D" at 6:25AM, when you quote such things as "unless they are plainly and palpably and beyond all question in violation of the Constitution.", that darned pesky 14th Amendment with its "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Currently, it is illegal to discriminate based on "sexual orientation" and the refusal to allow same sex marriages is being argued as discrimination based on "sexual orientation" which is "UN-equal protection under the law". That argument is quite valid, in my opinion. Regards, Alf.

Pluto wrote on May 26, 2008 7:59 AM:David Spruill is right. I know several lesbian couples who are great parents. Their kids grow up with no daddy, like many kids, and two mommies, which seems normal for them. One couple has two girls who are now seniors in high school, great students, well adjusted, wonderful kids. Being a parent is fraught with difficulty no matter what our sexual orientation. Kudos to all who do it well.

Pluto wrote on May 26, 2008 8:12 AM:Martin Giavelli's last paragraph deserves further attention. He quotes Tina Jillings "I certainly hope the powers that be intervene to preserve law and order" then says: Here is a woman who wants to "preserve law and order," but passionately defends lawbreakers, some of whom commit murders and other violent crimes. How ridiculous can you get?

Tina's comment reflects the fact that - like prohibition and drug laws - our current immigration laws and practices do not conform to reality. Starving people will risk their lives and break laws. Employers engaged in "dog eat dog" competition will break laws to get cheap labor. Laws and practices which do not recognize these realities foster disrespect for laws generally.

Floyd wrote on May 26, 2008 8:12 AM:Greenenergy is really jumping to conclusions, projecting his own beliefs onto me in an effort to deny the reality of the situation. The restated quote ("When people quit exhaling, we will reduce our carbon footprint. To save the planet, people must stop breathing. There should be no new breathing at all! All funds slated for breathing should be spent on something else.") demonstrated that your initial claim was extreme and untenable. Your claim that all environmentalists are peaceful was demonstrated to be untrue using reliable news sources. Your claim that the Sierra Club is linked to extremists is not supported by my postings -- it is your belief, and your belief only. The statement "Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Sierra Club is actively interfering with the Sunrise Powerlink in an effort to prevent us from receiving a desperately needed source of new energy needed for current and future needs" says absolutely nothing about terrorism and it is dishonest for you to claim tht it does! If you have to misrepresent your opponents to win the point, then you've already lost the argument and you might as well admit to it.

MISSING LINK wrote on May 26, 2008 8:41 AM:The letter from Glen Holzhausen refers to a May 22 letter, but when I clicked on the link, it proved to be a dead link.
I notice that the May 22 and 23 letters are not included on the list on the main letters page.
Is this EVER going to get fixed?
As for the point in the letter, good observation! We need to keep our heads while all about us are losing theirs in panic and paranoia over $4 gas, resorting to simplistic "solutions" such as more drilling and more pollution to make things worse instead of stimulating the economy and lowering operating expenses by implementing cleaner new technologies.

Greenergy wrote on May 26, 2008 8:50 AM:Floyd continues at 8:12 a.m. to fabricate misrepresentations of my views because he cannot respond to my actual statements and positions.
He again makes up false statements to attribute to me, referring to my "claim that all environmentalists are peaceful." Please cite the date and time of the post where I said this; I have not.
In any case, the environmental community is one of the most peaceful there is, consisting primarily of backpackers, birdwatchers and scientists, as well as people who just love the outdoors and want to preserve the best environment within which humans can thrive.
I do not consider Earth First! or other eco terrorist groups to be legitimate environmentalist groups.
And yes, your reference to the Sierra Club was a direct reference to Earth First and eco terrorists, because it was given as an explanation for why you accused me of positions I do not hold.
You accused me of advocating the Earth First! position that disdains the existence of the human species.
I hold no such position.
On the contrary, my position is to defend the environment against the pro-pollution lobby of people like you who want to destroy our climate and environment which will result in the extinction of the human species as well as many others.
I am the one who is pro human. You support the polluters seeking to destroy our grandchildren's earth for the sake of a few short-term dollars.

Still a simple question wrote on May 26, 2008 10:03 AM:There are several important ways that gay couple is barred from things that a hetero couple attains under the law. These are consenting adults. Can someone justify why this should be the case under the law? You are allowed to have any opinions or feelings about homosexuals that you wish. Your church may choose not to recognize or marry gay people if it wishes. But why, under the Constitution, does the female bride of a man get all kinds of permissions to do things that a male "bride" of a man doesn't? I have never heard any sensible argument to perpetuate this particular kind of legal second-class citizenship. No one on this space has ever addressed this question in a rational manner, other than to say "we don't like gays".

Go Green wrote on May 26, 2008 10:43 AM:You go, Greenergy! Way to stand up to those right-wing bullies!
One small faux pas to correct - when you refer to "the polluters seeking to destroy our grandchildren's earth for the sake of a few short-term dollars."
It is more than a few dollars.
It is billions!
Go solar, get an electric car, and smile and wave as you drive past the four dollar gas stations!

Cal wrote on May 26, 2008 11:18 AM:Great letter from Merrill Edelstein on Brian Bilbray's election strategy. I noticed in today's Opinion Section that he has become the un-republican clean water dude. Op-ed pablum for his base.

Jim wrote on May 26, 2008 11:47 AM:Today is Monday, May 26, 2008, Memorial Day, a of remembrance of those members of the military who have died and those serving to preserve our freedom as many of us sit at home on this holiday. I opened my newspaper this morning and observed that there were no flags, banners, stories on the front page indicating that this is memorial day, even though most us know it is. I paged through the sections looking for any coverage of this holiday but found none until I read the editorial written by the news staff as follows: "A day to reflect, to remember, and to salute....." as the progresses to list various members of the military serving us today across the the world.... then this comment caught my eye: "And most likely, few if any will remember this is Memorial Day." Well, is this an editorial error that not one word or flag appears in this newspaper today on the front page or elsewhere in this newspaper to remind those of this day or to inform those who may not know that today is a special day where we pay respect to the military or, maybe this newspaper has followed a quite trend that has now sterilized Memorial Day just like Christmas, Easter, and Spring break. Is it now politically incorrect to make reference to Memorial Day on the front page as it may now be considered too 'American' and someone or a group may be offended by an American holiday? Happy Memorial Day!

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 11:47 AM:It just gotta love it when a liberal tries... tries to use logic to explain thier nonsensical positions. Once again, we are given the excuses, and that's really what they are excuses... From our good buddy "Greenergy" @
6:44 AM that he/she is not one of these ecko ... organizations, but a
moderate environmentalist.
It is rather interesting, and quite telling.. don't ya think that when those who do the actual fighting in the courts are the ecko-groups, and when they win big, such as removing available water from Children, their actions are also praised by these so-called moderates. Or are we to assume that you are mute? When important issues affecting the human end of the species is given second class status, while a fish is given the priority? Much like these so-called "moderate" Islamists and Muslims who "say" they are apalled by the acts of a few, and yet... we hear nothing. They don't protest, they don't openly say their piece, they are mute.
If it is true that you are a moderate, then may I suggest to you, you need to get behind the wheel of the bus, because.. quite obviously, it is no you or your fellow "moderates" who are driving the bus. That's number one.

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 12:03 PM:Further, it should be noted to "Greenergy" @8:50 AM, was it not the Sierra Club who fought so vigorously to prevent the free flow of drinking water to Southern California's Children?
So clearly, you can make-up all the terminology you like, but bottom line here is they, and other ecko groups fought side by side to protect these fish, at the expense of people.
So, while you may lament being called an extremist, or you may detest being linked to certain groups, the point is: They have acted in concert with one another for this particular cause, and that makes them soul mates, in regards to Delat Smelt, at least.

Chris to Jim wrote on May 26, 2008 12:27 PM:How much longer do we have to hear all that blather about our troops killing and destoying the poor indiginous people in Iraq in order to preserve our freedom. Enough already.

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 12:29 PM:The bottom line here for "Greenergy"
@6:44 AM, and other's to consider is this: What does your viewpoint promote? And in concert with those viewpoints, what particular actions, that you see as good, harm the human species? I know I am harping on this water vs. Delat Smelt thing, but I believe it is very, very relevant to the discussion. Because, at it's core, it shows a blatant disregard for the life of a human, while profiting a fish. It is too easy a game to play to say, well we disagree with that group over there, when your fighting a solution to the problem, a desal plant locally. It is dishonest, it is schizophrenic, and it shows a complete lack of interest in the humans which also live on this planet. This si where the environmentalists go wrong, they attempt to attribute to animals a type of right, and then they pursue a "balancing of rights" between all living things.
Nature doesn't even work that way. But, they have this idea in their minds of the world as a kind of garden, for them to maintain. Now, not really knowing or understanding true Nature, they attempt to impose their vision of nature.
And it really is puzzling to me, when I cross a person who is both an environmentalist & a believer in Darwinism. In that particular case, they tend to view mankind as a type of interloper, and at variance to the environment. A destroyer of sorts.
Totally, irrational, and illogical.

hardtack wrote on May 26, 2008 12:37 PM:What we have here is a failure to distinguish. Today, it happens to be the failure to distinguish between "rule of law" and "majority rule." In recent days, some have been accused of failure to distinguish between "climate" and "weather" – while others fail to distinguish between "contribute to" and "cause" – "poverty" and "pauperism" – "equal rights" and "equal outcomes" – "consensus" and "science" – "fame" and "importance" – "schooling" and "education" – "tax cuts" and "handouts" – "welfare" and "charity" – "illegal" and "felony" – "unions" and "job security" – " trade imbalance" and "economic loss" – "non-intervention" and "isolationism" – "democracy" and "liberty" – and "religion" and "Christianity."

The conundrum is this: Do bloggers fail to distinguish in order to obfuscate; or does the obfuscation already exist in their mind, resulting in their inability to distinguish?

Stephen wrote on May 26, 2008 12:39 PM:Merrill Edelstein's letter is a bunch of hogwash. The majority of Americans do not want any form of amnesty for illegal aliens. Unless we adopt a ZERO tolerance towards illegal immigration, we won't have a country. As for a civil war or war with Mexico, you must be kidding! If we ever have another war with Mexico, that country will cease to exist. Their police and military don't even believe in their laws or the corrupt political system that governs that country. We must inact the SAVE Act, cut out all freebies, and enforce our immigration laws. If you are an illegal alien, go home and come back LEGALLY or not at all.

Reardon wrote on May 26, 2008 12:41 PM:Apollo: Exactly why is there a limit to "two people?"

Like previous bans on homsexuality, "two people" is a cultural proclivity. More than "two people" works fine in other cultures.

Would you support more then "two people" (assuming consenting adults) in the interest of human liberty?

Apollo wrote on May 26, 2008 12:42 PM:Re: Ron (11:47 a.m. and 12:03 p.m.)
Amazing even for Ron!
He is actually trying to make the claim that using proper legal channels (the courts) to settle disputes and enforce environmental safeguards that benefit all of us, is the equivalent of eco-terrorism?
As for the attempt to compare it to moderate Muslims, actually that is a good analogy.
Greenergy had already noted how inappropriate it is to equate the majority of law-abiding, responsible environmentalists who want to make the world better for humans and other living things, with eco-terrorists by noting it would be just as wrong to compare the millions of law-abiding, sincere, responsible conservatives and Republicans, who may be wrong but are not terrorists, to right-wing militaristic hate groups that commit terrorism.
And it is also just as wrong to compare the millions of moderate Muslims who, yes, do speak and write against terrorism (even if Ron doesn't see it on Fox or Limbaugh) to the tiny minority of extremist terrorists.

to Jim wrote on May 26, 2008 12:45 PM:"Happy Memorial Day" is not so happy to those who have lost loved ones in WW1, WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, current 5 year war, etc.

In their memory, we remember them, and we are fortunate to be alive in America.

Reardon wrote on May 26, 2008 12:52 PM:Greenenergy: Please enumerate all of the alternative energies that SOME environmental obstructionist group, local or national, has NOT opposed?

esteban wrote on May 26, 2008 1:03 PM:Jim, sadly, you are right. Lefty's will not acknowledge Memorial Day. Unless you call cheering for the deaths of US troops "acknowledgment". They've already declared war on CHRISTMAS, now Memorial Day, and 4th of July is next. The only days the anti American left enjoy are Gay Pride Day and Ramadan. God bless the USA!

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 1:07 PM:
But, finally....
"Greenergy" @6:44 AM repeats the same misinformation about the Sunrise Powerlink. First of all, the link will provide clean, renewable energy from solar, wind and geo sources, exactly what the environmentalist crowd say they want. Since most of these power plants are built in out lying areas, we need to plumb the power to come in to the city. And this is where the double-talk, the ecko-speak begins. For out of one side of their mouths they say they want renewables, but out of the otherside, they shout STOP!
They have deluded themselves into believing that if we spent the $1.3 billion on rooftop solar panels, we could replicate what the Powerlink would do, without damage to "sensitive wildlife" areas. That is not true.
In order to achieve the same power output, we would have to spend $20 billion, and place slight more than 800,000 solar panels on private homes.
Those are the facts, and it is completely dishonest to say, or even suggest that spending $1.3 billion on private solar panels would exactly produce the same power as the Powerlink.
Second, the $1.3 cost of the Powerlink to individual power users would cost each user approx. $2,000 each over time.
To place solar arrays on your home would cost, in the low range, about $20,000 each.
Third, I resent this line of argument that asserts the Powerlink is a $1.3 billion dollar "boondoggle."
As if, it is only the so-called
"responsible environmentalists" who have a valid point of view here. Tell that to the hundreds, and thousands who had to deal with brown-outs & black-outs during the last power crunch.
And it also belies the true motive here: the stockholders of SDG&E.
There is a type & kind of anti-capitalism at work here. Now, if this money were handed over to their buddies in the alternatives crowd, they'd be happy. Even if that money had to be taken by force, it would achieve their goals. Which it seems to be the "perfered" method, as stated by their candidates. This is why I always refer to them as the Stalinist Left. Whatever it takes, even by force, they will achieve their goals. Even if it costs you more, in taxes, in cost, in inconvenience to you, the rate or taxpayer. It simply does not matter, they want their utopia.

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 1:22 PM:OK, I lied... one more thing...
about "Greenergy" @6:44 AM post.
He/She says: QUOTE: "There can be a reasonable debate on whether or not Sunrise is a good idea." END Quote
No there can't, your mind is made up.
To take a quote from Al Gore: "The debate is over." At least, on your side.
And this is a continuation of the liberal/enviro/whatever else they are calling themselves today double-talk.
On the one hand, they want to appear as reasonable, rational, open people.
But they are totally closed minded to any other point of view, and they will achieve their goals, their utopia, at any price. And this is the heart of the problem, if a particular solution does not meet all of their criteria, they will attempt to defeat it. If it does not fit into their concept of "the Utopia", they will fight it at every level. In their minds, YOU will have a solar panel on your home. YOU will buy an electric car. YOU will plug that car into your home. And YOU wil not have renewable energy pumped into San Diego by a power line because it will enrich certain people they hate. Keep in mind, these stockholders they hate, are average, everyday, regular Americans simply trying to make ends meet, get to work, feed their kids, and make a living. Again, most of the stocks held are by private citizens, not some evil corporate interest groups. Regular people who have invested their retirement monies into renewable energy within the SDG&E/Sempra framework, attempting to save for their futures.
All good and noble causes. But in the mind of even the so-called "moderates", they are evil, and need to be stopped, at all costs. I say, with you guy's, the debate is over, cause you won't have one.

Chris to sdraoul wrote on May 26, 2008 1:49 PM:So what do you think about the fact that this Moses never existed. It was fabricated in order to indoctrinate the Israelites. So since this whole thing was fiction how can you contnue to make the case that the Zionist have a right to come into a land their ancestors never knew and kick out the people there and take it over.

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 1:51 PM:And I really need to address this comment from our good buddy "Greenergy"
{May 25} @1:14 PM. We are once again introduced to yet another liberal interest group: the "True liberals."
Apparently, we conservatives are somehow exploiting them, and promoting some kind of a false choice, between people & the environment? Is that what I hear you saying?
He/She then says: "There will be no economic success (even for oil stock investors) if there is no world to sustain us." And once again we are treated to the emotionalism of the left.
The false choice being placed before the American people is by the left, and the environmentalists around the world.
I mean.. listen to what they say, beginning with: "The debate is over."
In the liberal leftist mind, the debate IS over, and every possible means necessary will be taken to preserve the earth. Now, I have no problem with reducing pollution, but what THEY want to do is reduce it to the point, that we will have to reduce nearly 80% of all energy usage activites in order to achieve the 0.7 reduction in total global climate temperature. Even Bill Clinton said: "In order to meet the goals, we will have to slow down our economy." So, let's all stop pretending what the outcome will be, shall we?
With nearly 70% of all our food goods delivered by diesel trucks, what is the liberal/environmentalist solution to this particular problem? How would they suggest we off load nearly 15 million shipping containers imported to this country each & everyday? No, we get this simplton talk about plugging your electric car into your solar panel house. We could talk about bio-diesel, but we are years away from a solution to that. So, what do we do in the mean time, to prevent sending billions of dollars overseas to those who want to kill us?
We again, get the talking points, we go solar, build dams, geo, wind power, and other such nonsense. These things will not solve the transportation of our food, which accounts a huge amount of our national GDP, or the jobs these trucking firms provide.
I would strongly suggest to you, they are just repeating phrases they have heard, with nothing behind these statements. They have bought, so strongly, into the panic created by people like Al Gore, they are literally open to any baloney these people are saying. It is a type of group think, with no individual thought to the problems that face us all.

jvc wrote on May 26, 2008 2:01 PM:Reardon: why are you not in Denver?

Floyd wrote on May 26, 2008 2:02 PM:There's no question that environmentalists seeks to harm society while claiming to be peaceful: The Audubon Society filed suit to prevent the operation of the Altamont Pass windmill farms that provide needed green energy. The Sierra Club filed suit on behalf of the delta smelt to cause our current water crisis. Here in San Diego we have environmentalists opposing needed infrastructure projects for desalinated water and green power from the desert. If you do not identify with the destructive goals of the environmental movement, don't call yourself an environmentalist and don't support them -- it's really that easy.

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 2:05 PM:I very sincerely want to thank all of the Veterans today, for your dedication, your service, and the devotion you have given to our country.
Without your steadfast guardianship of our country's freedoms & liberties, surely we would not have the quality of life we enjoy today.
For those who have lost loved one's in the defense of our great nation, we are eternally grateful to their sacrifice, and you are in our hearts and prayers today. No greater love does one man show for another, than to lay down his life for his brother.

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 2:10 PM:No! "To Martin Giavelli from Daphne"
@10:18 PM. That is NOT what Tina Jillings does. Now, what she likes to talk about is "mail-order" brides and other such nonsense. As if that, were part of the discussion. Again, the diverting from the facts, when you absolutely have no case.
Aren't liberals grand?

Greenergy wrote on May 26, 2008 2:14 PM:Confessed oil investor Ron at 11:47 a.m. and 12:03 & 12:29 p.m. still doesn't get it.
My point was about an earlier blogger, yesterday and today, who attributed at least two false quotes to me of his own invention that do not accurately reflect my views, and wrongly tied me to an extremist eco-terror group.
I did not dispute that moderate groups such as Sierra and Audubon do have deeply-held beliefs they are committed to, and campaign vigorously for those views. Those views, however, are not what the other blogger described, and the means of campaigning is through public relations campaign, activism, legal and peaceful demonstrations and utilizing appropriat legal channels.
You may disagree with those views, and I'm sure you do, and may even find them extreme to you, but they do not include seeking the "phasing out of the human species" as the other blogger claimed.
And Reardon at 12:52 p.m. asks me to enumerate "all" of the alternative energies that SOME environmental group has not opposed. C'mon, Reardon, I am not going to even try to compile any kind of comprehensive list ("all") just because you try to order me around, nor am I going to try to speak for anyone other than my own views, and not anyone who might label themselves an environmentalist. However, I do not know of any opposition to photovoltaic solar or biodiesel (the recycled cooking oil, not ethanol) or hydrogen fuel cells or geothermal, nor am I aware of any general opposition to wind, although specific project at specific sites have been opposed. But again, I speak only for myself, not those who may disagree with me or criticize moderates for less aggressive efforts than they feel is appropriate.

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 2:16 PM:I'm curious... "Wake up folks" @
10:36 PM. You suggest in your post that you are a "humanist." i.e. QUOTE:
"Get off your duff, you humanists..." END Quote
What is YOUR take on this debate about Delta Smelt vs. drinking water for our Children?
Which side do you take on this issue?
I would assume that since you identify yourself as a "humanist", you would naturally come down on the side of "the Children?"

esteban wrote on May 26, 2008 2:16 PM:Chris, the only ones killing innocent Iraqis are the Iraqis themselves. You are so anti American that you don't rate and your opinion doesn't count.

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 2:26 PM:No worries there "Jack_D" @6:32 AM.
This charge, or panic is always sighted by the "hand-full" of liberal activists who occupy this page. And quite obviously, he/she is not understanding what I, and other's, have cited on this very page, in relation to peer-review.
On any given day, it is obvious to me, that more than one moderator operates the review process of this web page.
I suspect this because, on certain days, it appears to me that more of a liberal bent is seemingly given the priority, as I have written a post about a particular liberal post, and my post is not posted. Although, I may have attempted re-posting it several times. Assuming, of course, I'm abiding by all the NCT rules, there should be no reason not to post mine, except for bias on the part of the moderator.
Yet, on other days, I get posted more often, and they scream. Go figuire.
I think sometimes, it comes down to the sujective call by the moderator on that particular day. I don't have a problem with that, I completely understand it is their page, and I must abide by their rules in order to post. And it is a part of the peer-review process, these lib's all claim to love in science, yet.. when practised here, they whine.

Apollo wrote on May 26, 2008 2:33 PM:Re: Reardon (12:41 p.m.)
Reardon asks why marriage should be limited to two persons.
I didn't say it should. I was not discussing should's or should not's, but what is Constitutional. The California Constitution specifically prohibits discrimination based on gender. It says nothing about number of people.
This would be a legislative, not judicial question.
As long as males and females are treated completely equally (i.e., both polygamy and polyandry allowed, or any mix), and only consenting adults are involved, no children, I frankly wouldn't care what anyone else does that doesn't affect me or infringe the rights of others.

DD Wiz wrote on May 26, 2008 2:46 PM:The post from "Ron" (1:07pm), one of several rambling rants that bear no relation to reality or actual issues, particularly repeats a point he has raised before, and which I have called him on previously.
He again repeats the absurd notion that it would cost $20 billion to provide the same power output through solar as with Sunrise.
No, "Ron," once again, the equivalent cost in solar is ZERO.
Remember, the 1.3 billion is only for the transmission lines. There is essentially no such equivalent for solar because it is produced on-site. No new transmission lines.
NONE of the 1.3 billion for Sunrise Powerlink goes toward the actual generation or production of energy, whereas if you spent that on solar, ALL of it would be going to actually creating energy. And no new transmission lines, remember, ON SITE.
And all the new power is generated during the peak hours of need.
And because there would not be a need to construct any new power lines, no sensitive environmental habitat would be impacted, nor would there be increased risk of fires from downed lines, like the ones that forced me and a million others to be evacuated last October.

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 2:47 PM:Yes, "Apollo" @12:42 PM, even I can cobble together a cognative thought, from time to time. LOL
And NO, I am not trying to suggest
that "using legal channels to settle disputes and enforce environmental safeguards that benefit all of us, is the equivalent of eco-terrorism?"
What I am suggesting is that it is done with little, or no thought, as to the possible outcomes a successful decision may provide. As in the case of preserving water for fish, and stopping that same water from being used as drinking water. They knew what the outcome would be, to the humans, that is. They knew before they pursued it, and they did it anyways.
And then, to add insult to injury. When an alternative is offered, such as a desal plant, we are again assaulted by these same groups.
I think my question is fairly obvious.
Where are you guy's? Oh sure, i know you "say" you are reasonable, and all that other stuff. But, when the rubber hits the road, where are you guy's? I would expect to see you on the side of those who want to build a water plant, and openly side with us. Don't just give us the lip service here, on these pages. But, go to court, spend your money, and help us get this thing built.
That would seem to me to be the difference. Because if you don't, if you are silent, you are exactly like the Muslims who watch these things happen, and do nothing. Now, either you are open and willing to compromise, or your not. I think we need to see a little foot work on yur side, to prove it. I know it would certainly help my opinion of your side, if you did.

Oh Ron there you go again wrote on May 26, 2008 2:50 PM:Your post of 2:05pm shows how ignorant people are of American holidays, and how insincere they are about their attitudes towards living veterans and those who died in the service of their country.

November 11 is the day to thank us vets, if you must, but sometimes I can't help but feel the thanks from people who never served is self-serving and patronizing...especially if in the past they are judged the character of service of someone, merely because they do not agree with their politics...but of course Ron, you never uttered a word about the character of John Kerry's service have you Ron (and search your soul, because I'm not saying that you possibly may not have verbalized it on these pages).

This day marks the rememberance of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. Why someone would use this day to first thank veterans, and then almost in passing remember the war dead is beyond me, but certainly not missed by me.

snerd wrote on May 26, 2008 3:00 PM:Once again, Ron, the bloggers here barely care what your opinions are, do you honestly believe the editors do? They have a paper to put out. They are nice enough to provide a FREE blogosphere where the five or six people who read this can see their names in print and feel like they are having some affect on the civic dialogue when in actuality they are just preening for a world that could care less.

Focal Point wrote on May 26, 2008 3:05 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on May 25, 2008 8:13 PM:
One murder or any felony committed by any citizen, resident or by any illegal person is one too many. It is especially so as the illegals should not be in this country. If they had not been here, more Americans would be alive today.
Comparing the experiences of the Italians et all is apple to oranges. By the way, there is a Mexican Mafia.

Reardon wrote on May 26, 2008 3:09 PM:To Apollo: It was you who used the term "two people."

Greenenergy: I was not ordering -- please check my post -- I "ask(ed)" What I want to know is how we get to photovoltaic in Minnesota, everyone driving electric cars, or eat sufficient french fries to fill all the existing trucks of the world, without first going through a transition period of FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS?

(Which, I submit, will require that we drill EVERYWHERE to get through the transition, unless there is no end to the pain you are willing to inflict on the poor!)

Focal Point wrote on May 26, 2008 3:10 PM:esteban[-] wrote on May 26, 2008 2:16 PM:
Al opinions count. Need to face the fact, that we have killed innocent Iraqis. It happens especially during guerrilla and urban warfare. That is a fact. Another fact is that it was not planned. It was not policy. It was not intestinal. That does not help the survivors of the civilians killed.

Floyd wrote on May 26, 2008 3:22 PM:To get 1,000 Megawatts of electricity, rooftop solar would cost no less than $6 billion while the Sunrise Powerlink ($1.3 billion) and the Solar generating station (approximately $2 billion) would be less than half the price. Rooftop solar remains uneconomical as a viable means of providing power on a large scale.

The Day got complicated wrote on May 26, 2008 3:26 PM:As a lifelong liberal, I find it absurd and ignorant for people like esteban to make obnoxious claims about what I believe. I take the deaths of our people in the military quite seriously and observe this holiday in kind. I have schoolfriends on the Vietnam memorial wall. I understand the meaning of the day and think hard about it. I believe that many of those who are in the military volunteer to defend their country and completely salute this motive, this desire to risk everything for something so noble. At the same time, because I read and think, I know that our troops have not been used to defend the nation since WWII. It would be like having people in your HS work their butts off to make the football team, to give it all for the honor of the school, and then learn that the coaches had the fix in for most of the games. The feelings you have for the players is based on their motivation and hard work. But in the larger view, something stinks. Because I DO honor the troops and their motivations, I insist that our government treat them with the utmost honor, using them ONLY to defend the nation, and treating them magnificently when they're injured or when their tours are done. I have nothing but contempt for the administrations that exploit these great Americans for other reasons. See? I get it. I suspect you may not, however. My feelings of sadness for those who died in the military after 1945 is, I'd bet, more genuine than yours, because I suspect you don't understand how tragic these deaths really are.

sdraoul wrote on May 26, 2008 3:35 PM:Chris states that "Moses" didn't exist. Well, Chris, maybe Hammurabi didn't exist either. The Old Testament serves several functions, Chris, one is as literature, another is as the "Book" for Jews, Christians and Muslims and another is as history.

When you make gratuitous assertions like Moses didn't exist, you can't get away with that baloney.

Millions of Iraqis haven't been killed by Americans, millions of Arabs were not disposssed by the Jewish state and Jews lived in Israel for thousands of years before an Arab was born.

Carthaganians are not Arabs, Moros are not African blacks and native Jews -- descended from Hittites -- occupied Israel before Muhammed was born and long before he dreamed up Islam.

Moses existed and he led his people out of Egypt. It is recorded in the Bible -- for whatever that by itself is worth -- and as importantly in Egyptian records.

I'll leave it to others to document ...

OBSERVATION wrote on May 26, 2008 3:36 PM:Bush and McCain:
"May 25, 2008 -- John McCain is ratcheting up his presidential campaign, but one person you won't see by his side is President Bush.

The Republican hopeful's campaign has asked Bush, who will be stumping for the Arizona senator next week, to scale down the events - and they are planning to move the appearances behind closed doors."

to Reardon on polygamy wrote on May 26, 2008 3:37 PM:I know you probably raised the issue of polygamy as a kind of smirk, a "what next?". But because of the gay issue, it's true that the meaning of "marriage" as a legal event is now on the table. Since we, as a culture, seem at the moment to pretty much agree that "consenting" and "adult" must be part of the deal, it is ligit to ask about "homosexuals" and "how many?". Each warrants intelligent discussion. But we have to be clear, first, what we are discussing. We are NOT talking about "in the eyes of God", whatever you might mean by that. We are ONLY talking about: what changes in one's legal status come from being wed? Must we have benefits for people who choose to wed compared to single people? Should there be something like filing jointly for tax purposes? Should a partner change his/her status as a resident in the US if the person is visiting this country depending on a wedding? There are many such questions, and each deserves discussion. Then, to whatever degree we decide that getting married (or whatever the legal status-change is called) accrues benefits to someone, we have to be able to decide also who can BE a spouse. Again, this has NOTHING to do with the religious institution of marriage...NOTHING. Comprende? It's a very interesting set of questions, and we should respect these questions. Most of our traditions have been based on an incurious and unquestioning more or less quasi-Christian framework. But the US is not a Christian theocracy, and we shouldn't be surprised or upset that people who do not fit into that unquestioned habitual framework aren't just taking it any longer (as women didn't take the denial of suffrage, etc). Muslims and some mormons might insist on polygamy...why shouldn't they? Homosexuals are insisting that they have as much right to be legally committed to another person as straight people have. Why shouldn't they? Societies change as conditions change. That's how it always has been. Something to celebrate, IMHO. Few of us would want to live just as, say, the American people of 1780 did. Bring on the present, I say.

SIck game McCain on Iraq Bush and Obama wrote on May 26, 2008 3:54 PM:So today McCain says the mistakes in Iraq have sickened him. (I guess the yahoos here like esteban would call McCain a terrible name for this remark, since it's exactly what liberals say about Iraq.) He says this so that people won't think he is a solid Bushie on the invasion/occupation. Then he criticizes Obama for never having been to Iraq. This is a comical remark, since McCain was the guy who made the world's phoniest claims about his trip to Iraq, his stroll in the marketplace there, his assertion that it was safer than an American marketplace, his lie-by-omission that he was surrounded by troops, vehicles, and helicopters at the time. Then, on his most recent trip to Iraq, he need Lieberman to tell him who the enemy was. So visiting Iraq has not been, er, McCain's greatest showplace. He dares Obama to visit Iraq with him. He better hope Obama doesn't take him up on it. Obama, you see, might insist they do it honestly, with lots of dialogue and Q&A there, and discussion beyond slogans with the folks in charge. Not the kind of thing McCain would really want. Or his handlers. LOL Doesn't it make you proud when a presidential nominee so casually insults so many people and does it with such buffoonery? Gotta love it.

DD Wiz wrote on May 26, 2008 4:35 PM:The post from "Floyd" (3:22pm) shows he still does not understand the simplest basics of the electricity issue when he repeats the same error that "Ron" made at 1:07pm.
No wonder they think Sunrise Power Stink is such a great idea. They don't have the slightest idea what it is! To repeat:
NONE of the 1.3 billion for Sunrise Powerlink goes toward the actual generation or production of energy, whereas if you spent that on solar, ALL of it would be going to actually creating energy. And no new transmission lines, because it is produced ON SITE.
And all the new power is generated during the peak hours of need.
And because there would not be a need to construct any new power lines, no sensitive environmental habitat would be impacted, nor would there be increased risk of fires from downed lines, like the ones that forced me and a million others to be evacuated last October.

Bill wrote on May 26, 2008 5:00 PM:There are some clear equal protection issues in the gay marraige issue that the peoples initiative fails to address.

Jack Davis is so wrong on this that my head is spinning.

Do your homework Jack.

Or else I might think that you dont know Jack....Jack.

The reason the 13th ammendmant exists is because the states rights argument lost in the courts. It wasnt all decided on the batlefield in the Civil War. Issues of constitutionality are to be decided by the courts and this, in no way, infringes on anyones rights.

The will of the people isnt an issue here.

The consitutionl legitimcay of the law and equal protection are.

What if we had an election and the state of California voted that anybody names Jack Davis should be thrown in prison? Or denied something?

Would that be alright just because the people voted it in?

By the way Jack, I was against gay marraige for a long time until I recently researched the laws on civil union and marraige. I mistakenly believed that they offered the same rights and protections but found out that they dont.That is when the equal protection issue became obvious so if it isnt obvious to you, it only tells me you havent done your homework.

Either that or you dont understand the system the framers installed because this is nothing more than that system at work.

I agree there are activist judges but this isnt a case of judicial activism.

This is a case of America being America.

I also expressed concerns about the rights of the church being infringed on as well if some greedy gay couple and a crooked lawyer should ever hook up.

What a goldmine for lawyers that will be.

I was concerned about shakedown lawsuits like we see with the ADA.

Believe me that is coming.

This will pit a churches ri