Floyd wrote on May 26, 2008 7:34 PM:Thank God for clear thinking Americans like John Matthews!

Focal Point wrote on May 26, 2008 7:46 PM:Let Israel attack Iran: The Soviet Union has fallen. I suggest that the Israeli/USA treaty needs to be reexamined and downgraded by negotiation. Israel should receive our support in geo politics, military supplies and loans. The lives of American armed forces should not be jeopardized. The existence as a nation is not necessary to the world or national interest of the USA.

Focal Point wrote on May 26, 2008 7:51 PM:Only the president's dogs are off limits
Obama does not owe an apology to anyone for defending his wife. The FDR quote should be put into the context of belittling the criticism of Mrs. Roosevelt. It just shows that the letter writer thinks more of dogs than the his fellow female American citizens who happen to be the wife of a candidate. Elections should not be an excuse of rude behaviour.

Roger wrote on May 26, 2008 8:01 PM:Darrell Beck is right, the Constitution is pretty neat, except for that pesky habeas corpus part. Sure glad they got rid of that.

Oh Please wrote on May 26, 2008 8:12 PM:McCain Slams Obama: I Want To "Educate" Him On Iraq: Oh really. Don't stop with him. Please educate the millions of the rest of us.

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 8:21 PM:You know... every once in awhile you run across one of these lib's who think they've got this whole thing all figuired out. You know the one's I'm talking about, right? People like our own Gary Goldman today! He would like to try his hand at a kind of cost-to-benefit analysis between the cost of driving your personal vehicle, and mass transit. OK, I'm game.
So, let's compare!
Let's include the cost of your vehicle, interest paid on the loan, the maintenence, insurance, registration, licensing, both driver & car, smog checks, etc.
Now due to the complexity of the costing out, let's just go through each item in this list, and see if it also applies to public/mass transit, shall we? Yes, we shall!
Not only did we have the cost of the vehicle with the Sprinter, but we also had to lay out the tracks. All 35 miles of em, costing some $1.39 million per mile, including the train(s).
Interest paid on the loan, very interesting and keen intellectual insight provided to us by Gary Goldman. Now, Gary.. what do you suppose the cost of $488 million over the next 30 years will cost?
Maintenence, hmmmmm? Since I don't own a train, I don't know. But, as I see it, both car & train need maintenence, so that's an on-going cost for both, so that's a wash. But, since the train is publically owned & operated, a mechanical error would be big trouble for the choo-choo, I'd say the cost of maintaining the trains costs tons more.
Then we get to insurance, Yes... what does it cost to insure the Sprinter?
And didn't they just hit someone? Registration? Hmmm, not sure. Licensing, probably of the driver, and probably on-going training required to show to the bean-counters & bueracrats of driver instruction, safety, and safe operating practises.
As to smog checks, probably they have to run within a pre-defined CO2/Carbon output, even if it's a 19th century choo-choo.
But one area the average car driver is not exposed to, whereas the train is.
Ecko-lawsuit abuse. How many times has this train been sued since it opened? 2, 3, or more times? Costing more than a million dollars already, in less than 6 months of operation? What does this say? Are we to expect to have these enviro groups fund their own general funds by taxpayer sales taxes?
Oh, yes! I almost forgot the best part!
While in a car, which you purchase, you can expect a pay off date. You know.. 24, or 36, or 48, or 60 months down the line when you finally pay the bank the last payment. However, in the world of mass transit, that is publically financed, this is not true. No, the cost of those who do not ride the train pay 70% of the total operating costs, even though they may not spend one minute on the choo-choo. This is a never ending cost. How many years has the San Diego trolly been in existence, and NOT ONE YEAR has it ever broke even. NOT ONE! This one won't either.
It was designed, financially, that at full capacity riders would pay only 30% of the cost, while non-riding taxpayers would pay the greater share of 70%. Hardly a bargin, Gary. But, thanks for asking!

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 8:51 PM:I really have to agree with Darrell Beck, in praising the absolute "genius of the Founding Fathers and the greatness of the Constitution and Bill of Rights."
And Thank God for the silent majority, who simply want to go to work everyday, spend time with their families, pay their bills, and live without interference of a massive, overly intrusive Nanny government.
As I have said before, I believe the founders would not recognise our country today. Not because of our technology, nor because of our advances in our standard of living. Although, they would be amazed by both.
No, rather they would not be able to understand how we got so far afield with taxes, and a huge regulatory government which has sipulated that at some point, they want the right to regulate the thermostat inside your own bedroom.
But one thing I am sure they would object to is the idea of our Consitutional system as a "suicide pact." Where all manner of behavior is excused by what used to be known as liberals. And those same liberals now openly question the very cultural and traditional norms that made this country special and great. Our founders simply would not recognise them, at all.
Because, this new group of liberals, are not liberals at all. Whereas our Founders were individualists, those like Crews are collectivists.
They have throughly departed from our Founders and their classical form of liberalism. In the Founder's sense, liberalism is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. It includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as found in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Thomas Paine and others.
This new group? They anit liberals our founders would have anything in common with, at all.

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 8:53 PM:Vote yes on 98 and no on Prop. 99.
Thank you Fred Schnaubelt!

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 8:56 PM:Well said Arnold Forman!
"William Dreu... garbage he writes..."
No kidding!

Focal Point wrote on May 26, 2008 9:02 PM:Darrell Beck: LOL Darrell is back with his ludicrous opinion. Beck does not have the acumen a put on when he reads one. But, do not worry. Big Bush is really listening or is he?

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 9:04 PM:Good insight today by John Matthews. How does your particular political candidate salute the flag?

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 9:10 PM:And thank goodness she finally said it, Leon Smith!
I think we finally see the dividing difference between Sen. Hillary Clinton
and Sen. Barck Obama. At least one of them is willing to use "all means necessary." I almost fell off my chair when I first heard it, but I totally respect her for saying it, and praise her for stating the obvious.
That leaves the Obamaman in the Chamberlin camp. The pity of inexperience.

Johnny wrote on May 26, 2008 9:12 PM:Ron and Floyd... You DO realize the letter from John Matthews is sarcasm don't you?

Ron wrote on May 26, 2008 9:17 PM:Ronny - you were really loaded for bear when you emptied both barrels at Gary Goldman. I read his letter and couldn't tell he was a commie liberal until I saw your insightful rant. Wow! So much rage against anyone who dares to suggest that public transport might have benefits. Your mean streak is showing big time Ron and it is not pretty. Not pretty at all.

OBAMACAN wrote on May 26, 2008 9:18 PM:Floyd at 7:34 p.m. and Ron at 9:04 p.m. aren't bright enough to realize that John Matthews was writing tongue in cheek. He was ridiculing the silliness of those who make such superficial criteria the basis of their vote, and some people here are not even bright enough to recognize simple satire!
And by the way, Obama does salute the flag and even leads the flag salute.
The video is on YouTube and I've seen it.
The only way the conservatives can try to win is by lying and Swift Boating.
Marketing over substance.
Oh well, worked for Bush.
And Wal-Mart.

Bill Clinton (1992 age 46):
When the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope.

Ron on sentence wrote on May 26, 2008 9:23 PM:...every once in awhile you run across one of these lib's who think they've got this whole thing all figuired out. Or... every day Ron thinks he has got this whole thing all figured out - and he writes volumes to let us know about it. Thank You encyclopedia Rontannica!

To Ron and Darrell wrote on May 26, 2008 10:09 PM:Darrell Beck discusses the "silent majority", like it still exists. It is a relic of the late 60s to mid-70s.

Ron, with his neverending jaw-flapping, proves the contention that, probably due to easy venues to be heard, today's conservative blabbermouths are hardly "silent"...but, the good news is, that in reality, neither are they the "majority".

Ron fell for it too wrote on May 27, 2008 3:51 AM:One can usually measure intelligence by the ability of a person to distinguish the facetious, sardonic and sarcastic from rigid iteralism. You can also measure intelligence by how literally a person interprets the Bible. You can also usually measure intelligence by one’s ability to catch a joke.
Well, seems Ron (8:51 PM) is just as gullible as Darrell Beck (Letter today). He totally failed to grasp that the letter by J. Howard Crews (May 11) were totally facetious and sardonic, mocking the radical right wingers' arguments. The facetious comments of Crews were precisely a mockery of the fascist Bush regime which has destroyed the Constitution. Sorry, Ron. You fell for it, just like Darrell Beck.
Subtle insult, nuance and the facetious vs. inflexible, rigid literal thinking of the right wingers.

LOL Rons palaver wrote on May 27, 2008 4:17 AM:-- Ron’s long monologue about the Constitution is particularly sanctimonious and high sounding because he directs it toward the facetious letter of J. Howard, written as a scathing mockery. Otherwise, much of what Ron says would be serious. Oh, well. How is one to react when the Lord High Minister of Constitutional Law (Ron) expends so much erudition at a facetious letter.

Floyd wrote on May 27, 2008 7:10 AM:And you think the followup from the other Floyd was serious?

Floyd wrote on May 27, 2008 7:20 AM:DD Wiz seems to think that rooftop solar power will meet our needs, apparently forgetting that the electrical demands of high-rise buildings far exceeds the generation capacity of the roof. A $1.3 billion Sunrise Powerlink would connect us to a $2 billion solar electrical plant out in the desert that would, together, cost far less than the $6 - $20 billion rooftop solar would cost. There's no question we need the additional power, since frequent calls for conservation occur during the critical summer months.

Roger wrote on May 27, 2008 8:00 AM:Was a real hoot to hear about the "silent majority", in Darrell Beck's insipid letter. Suspect he's getting nostalgic for the Nixon "law and order" years. As Ron has demonstrated, these sheep are no longer silent, though they're further than ever from being a majority.

DD Wiz wrote on May 27, 2008 8:20 AM:The post from "Floyd" (7:20am) continues his recent habit of thinking that building up straw men of his own creation and then knocking them down is a clever debate strategy.
Over the last few days he has repeatedly put words into others' mouths that were easier to respond to than what they actually said, and today he is doing it to me, when he says that I claim "rooftop solar power will meet our needs, apparently forgetting that the electrical demands of high-rise buildings far exceeds the generation capacity of the roof."
In fact, he misrepresents what I have said, and then misrepresents the facts.
I have noted the huge amount of rooftop space that could be used to capture free energy from the sun, but goes unused. This is on houses, garages, carports, apartments and many other commercial buildings. It is true that not all buildings, such as high rises, have sufficient roof space to generate their entire need, but it is also true that many more buildings (including most houses) have more than enough space to produce far more electricity than they consume, especially during the peak demand periods such as hot, sunny days of heavy air conditioning use.
I have not proposed immediately dismantling the existing energy infrastructure, but only an alternative to the wasteful, profiteering Sunrise PowerStink boondoggle proposed to further enrich already wealthy investor elites. Most of the time we have adequate electricity. We need to expand the supply for peak periods, which "Floyd" notes coincide with periods of maximum free solar energy, and diversify the bottlenecks.
SDG&E profiteers' suggestion: add one more bottleneck, with all our eggs in just a few energy baskets so that if one goes down (probably causing a massive wildfire in the process), the whole system becomes immediately strained. And because each power line is "all or nothing," there is no relief at all during the entire five years of construction, whereas with decentralized solar, as each unit comes on line, we have a steady increase in the supply beginning immediately. Better alternative: millions of local, de-centralized, on-site points of production such that if one goes down it is barely a blip in the system. But of course, those who seek to profiteer off centrally-controlled power are terrified by this.
Further, the cost estimates Floyd offers for both local, on-site solar are grossly overstated based on current values, and the costs for SDG&E's centralized alternatives and ongoing production are greatly understated. The lack of honesty here boggles the mind.

Diving cost decisions wrote on May 27, 2008 8:34 AM:Gary is right, all costs should be considered when deciding to purchase personal trasnportation or go public. He did not bring up the loss of productive work or family time during public transport since most people would increase their commute times significantly. Just like fixing my residence I weigh the cost/benefit of my time against potential savings when doing repairs myself instead of paying a professional. In the end I am the only one to decide which mode gives me the most benefit and family itme at the end of each day.

Floyd wrote on May 27, 2008 9:22 AM:My cost estimates for rooftop solar are based on quotes received from several local companies, which makes the $6 billion (minimum) estimate accurate. If the $1.3 billion Powerlink and $2 billion desert solar plant is an example of "profiteering", then $6+ billion for rooftop solar is a ripoff of vastly higher proportions. To provide the energy we need and minimize any imagined profiteering, avoiding rooftop solar as the solution is the smart decision.

Ron wrote on May 27, 2008 9:40 AM:Again, the mind reading by the lib's is just fasinating! "Ron" @9:17 PM says:
"Ronny - you were really loaded for bear when you emptied both barrels at Gary Goldman. I read his letter and couldn't tell he was a commie liberal until I saw your insightful rant. Wow!"
Yeah, Wow!
Did I say "commie liberal?"
No, I said: "lib", as in collectivist.
Now, to be clear here, if i wanted to say commie lib, I would have, and usually I use that particular phrase in relation to those who want to steal your hard earned money by redistribution and fairness.
Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to educate you.

Ms M wrote on May 27, 2008 9:40 AM:Stanley Peterson wrote - Obama owes the American people an apology. He can't have it both ways. Dogs are the only ones off-limits for all in this political arena! I totally agree.....um so let's talk briefly about Cindy. She dated McCain while he was still married to his wife who was seriously injured in a car accident and not quite physically attractive to McCain. And let's see now...what about the drug addiction and stealing of drugs. The only reason why she did not serve time was because of who she was. Talking about double standards, if it had been Michelle stealing and doing drugs it would have been all over for Obama a long time ago. As I said this would be brief, do a google on Cindy - very interesting reading. So yes, if you want to talk about the wives - bring it on!

Alf wrote on May 27, 2008 9:42 AM:I like the letter by John Matthews. An excellent bit of tongue-in-cheek. If one actually uses their voting records as a criteria for President, the only possible person is Ron Paul, he does not "sway with the wind", as it were. Obama comes in a poor 2nd and as for McCain, oops, I mean McGWB, and Clinton, forget it. Regards, Alf.

Nick wrote on May 27, 2008 9:44 AM:Just another story on Illegal Immigration and Identity theft. It's a front page story on MSNBC, but you won't find it here.
Just Google "Two Lives, One Social Security Number".
It's about a woman who's SS# was stolen by a man from Escondido and used to gain legal employment with stolen documents.
This happens Millions of times and NOTHING is done about it, and that is the sad and scary part.

Jack_D wrote on May 27, 2008 10:01 AM:Right on, Arnold Forman. William Dreu's letters make outrageous accusations against Jewish-Americans with no evidence. I'm not sure why the paper prints such outrageous, unfounded accusations. Jeremiah Wright thinks Dreu is being overly conspiratorial.

Amen wrote on May 27, 2008 10:17 AM:Attempt to sneak in amnesty killed, again. Do these fools that are in political power think John and Jane Doe are keeeping watch on what the fools on the hill do? With the Internet, talk radio, they can't pass any law without the public knowing immediately. I don't know about you, but I don't want fools playing with my life, when they can't figure out how the public knows what they are up to.

With the games wrote on May 27, 2008 10:23 AM:NCTD is playing alot of people have given up on mass transportation and gone back to driving. Gore can thank NCT for continuing to help global warming. Down with mass transportation until the haves start riding with the have nots.

Jack_D wrote on May 27, 2008 10:33 AM:Yesterday Apollo defended the California Supreme Court's gay marriage decision. His argument was :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. (I'm quoting him directly).

Well, I looked up the section he referred to, and lo and behold, it doesn't back up his statement. It says:
The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting.

There are two crucial points I would make:
1. Sexual orientation is not mentioned as being protected.
2. Discrimination is banned in public employment, education, or public contracting. There is nothing whatsoever mentioning marriage.



Apollo goes on to say the California Constitution does directly outlaw distinctions made on gender, an inherent attribute, and many would argue that the same applies to homosexuality.

Yes, many would argue that and many would also argue that it doesn't. "Many would argue" is a concession that the truth of the matter isn't obvious.

Conclusion: The California State Constitution does not guarantee a right to gay marriage. That is why the question should be resolved by the people of California. Again, I would like to reiterate my strong support of gay marriage. But my own preference for gay marriage legalization does not mean it's a constitutional right.

Special Info for Ron wrote on May 27, 2008 10:42 AM:"Ron
[-] wrote on May 26, 2008 9:10 PM:
And thank goodness she finally said it, Leon Smith! I think we finally see the dividing difference between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barck Obama. At least one of them is willing to use "all means necessary." I almost fell off my chair when I first heard it, but I totally respect her for saying it, and praise her for stating the obvious."

Better watch out, Ron. Next thing you know the Secret Service will be a'knockin' on yore door. They have already opened a case against Fox's Liz Trotta. Semper Fi, dood.

The United States Code,Title 18, Part I, Chapter XIV, Section 879(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon (1) a former President or a member of the immediate family of a former President; (2)a member of the immediate family of the President, the President-elect, the Vice President, or the Vice President-elect;(3)a major candidate for the office of President or Vice President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate; or (4) a person protected by the Secret Service under section 3056 (a)(6); shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.(b) As used in this section(1) the term immediate family means (A) with respect to subsection (a)(1)of this section, the wife of a former President during his lifetime, the widow of a former President until her death or remarriage, and minor children of a former President until they reach sixteen years of age; and(B) with respect to subsection (a)(2) and (a)(3) ofhis section, a person to whom the President, President-elect, Vice President, Vice President-elect, or major candidate for the office of President or Vice President (i) is related by blood, marriage, or adoption; or (ii)stands in loco parentis; (2) the term major candidate for the office of President or Vice President means a candidate referred to in subsection (a)(7) of section 3056 of this title; and (3) the terms President-elect and Vice President-elect have the meanings given those terms in section 871 (b) of this title.

Floyd wrote on May 27, 2008 10:44 AM:Whenever I say something stupid you can bet it's the "other Floyd".

Apollo wrote on May 27, 2008 10:52 AM:Re: Jack D (10:33 a.m.)
Jack's own copying from the California State Constitution, which he says doesn't back up my statement from yesterday, shows he fails to read simple English.
The passage right in his post specifically forbids discrimination based on several bases. He is correct, that "sexual orientation" is not mentioned as one, but discrimination on the basis of sex is.
So if a man wants to get married to a man or a woman to a woman, and the state in its official category says he cannot choose another he or she a she, it is officially discriminating based on sex and the Republican majority noted quite simply that this violates exactly the very statute Jack cited.
Just like I said.

Ron wrote on May 27, 2008 11:08 AM:Houston, I think we have a problem!
In "Greenergy" {May 26} @6:44 AM post, we are told, QUOTE: "Floyd at 8:35 p.m. still continues to dishonestly try to lump all environmentalists into one bucket." I counldnt agree more, Greenergy, you do have a problem on YOUR side with radicals who place the needs and wants of fishies above that of humans. Couldn't agree more...
He/She told us there is a difference between the "True Liberals", the "Moderate" liberals, and those who are ecko-terrorists. Again, I agree.
But, again.. I have to ask the question; If you praise a court decision that places off limits drinking water to Southern California, just as the ecko-terrorists have, what seperates you from them?
Further, in regards to the Sunrise Powerlink, you seem to have a disagreement with your liberal friend,
DD Wiz correction {May 26} @6:13 PM, and again; DD Wiz {May 27} @8:20 AM.
You say there can be "reasonable debate" about the Sunrise Powerlink.
May I suggest to you, that you start on your side of the isle?
But, as much as you want to remind us of your "moderate" tendencies, your ecko-speak is so close to that of my good buddy Wizzer, it is really difficult to actually see where the divide is. You have both refered to the Powerlink as: "wasteful", "profiteering", "boondoggle", "proposed to further enrich already wealthy investor elites."
First of all, wasteful would be the same as placing a solar array on your home and not running the wires down to plug in your electric car. As it would be wasteful to build a solar, wind, geo power plant in out lying areas and not run the wires to bring in the power generated. Now, THAT.. would be wasteful.
And the vacuous argument that follows, just shows to any rational, logical, and clear thinking individual what the key motive here, really is. You say, and wizzer says: "profiteering", "boondoggle", "proposed to further enrich already wealthy investor elites."
This angle of argument, is not really an argument for most people. Only a few, anti-capitalist types on your side of the isle. As I have so abundantly explained before, like oil companies, power companies are also stockholder owned. Most of the stocks are held by private citizens, and a great portion is held by pension plans, such as 401K's, IRA's, and the like.
So, when you guy's start this anti-wealth rhetoric, your isolating those most would think, you'd like to attract.
And given the fact that most power companies are mandated to achieve 20% renewable energy by 2010, why wouldn't you want them to make money, on the very things you say you want?
But, that's the liberal/enviro double-talk. Isn't it?

Alf wrote on May 27, 2008 11:23 AM:Well, "Jack_D" at 10:33AM, the California Supreme Court said that their purpose was "to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution". They also cited the State Constitution equal protection clause "...the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided
in Section 7". I can go on and quote more, but you get the picture. Now, even if the ballot measure to ban "gay marriage" passes in November, it will be challenged on the basis of violating the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If that challenge is victorious, all such bans in the U.S. will be voided and I hope those bans are, in fact, voided. A side note, the anti-gay marriage group is financed, in part, by an out of state group. Regards, Alf.

Bill wrote on May 27, 2008 11:35 AM:Jack Davis has it all wrong again.

Using his thought process, gays are open season for all types of dicrimination. The constitution says nothing about a lot of things and as long as there is no constitutional issue in question, the law has merit even without it mentioning it.

Either that or a court can overturn it.

So does that mean that I can discriminate in renting an apartment to gays?

The constitution doesnt say anything about apartments or gender.

But guess what Jack?

Case law and a littany of anti discrimination laws cover this type of stuff. The constitution has had challenges to the meaning of discrimination and nowhere does the cosntitution grant anybody any authority to single out gays for discrimination.

Just because something is not mentioned in the text of the consititution doesnt mean there arent laws that prohibit it. Those laws, if constitutional, would be challenged if what Jack says were true.

Im not going to research it either since its such a ridicolous argument.

Jack....Im a right wing Reagan loving, Rush Limbaugh listening, gun owning NRA member, pro life Republican and a retired vet so dont go labeling me liberal.


However, my knowlege of the law doesnt permit me to excuse discrimination when I see it.

Take the discriminating elements out of it and I will see your point but until then, there is no way I can approve of the status quo.

But get it right OK?

christopher wrote on May 27, 2008 11:39 AM:I RIDE MY SKATEBOARD TO AND FROM WORK EVERYDAY AND HAVE BEEN DOING SO FOR 2YRS. YOU MIGHT KNOW WHO I AM IF YOU COMMUTE ON THE 101 IN OCEANSIDE.I'M THE ONLY SKATER THAT WEARS DRESS SHOES AND A TIE. I HAVE SAVED TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY SINCE I STOPPED DRIVING TO WORK.
WHAT I REALLY WANT TO COMMENT ON IS THE ABUSE OF RESOURCES I SEE FROM OUR CITY MAINLY FROM OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEY ALWAYS LEAVE THE CAR RUNNING. I WAS IN A LOCAL MARKET WHILE AN OFFICER CASUALLY SHOPPED AND CHATTED WITH THE EMPLOYEE. HIS CRUISER WAS LEFT ON IN THE PARKING LOT THE ENTIRE TIME 10-15 MIN. SO TAKE THE AMOUNT OF GAS WASTED IN THOSE 10MIN, TIMES THE AMOUNT OF OFFICERS ON THE STREET ANY GIVIN DAY,TIMES 365 DAYS IN A YEAR GIVES US A NICE CHUNK OF CHANGE . MAYBE THE CITY CAN USE THE SAVINGS TO GIVE ONE OF OUR TEACHERS THEIR JOB BACK.

Ron wrote on May 27, 2008 11:51 AM:"Floyd" @7:20 AM, as much as we are called "science deniers", I think the term appropiately fits to those who can not seem to understand simple concepts, such as the Sunrise Powerlink.
Our good friends would have us believe that using the $1.3 billion proposed spending for Sunrise, and redirect that money to rooftop solar arrays on private homes. And that, if we did this, we could escape & solve our increasing energy requirements.
Now, I don't know what schools of mathmatics they attended, but quite obviously, they need a refresher course.
At a cost of some $20,000 each, $1.3 billion would buy you approx. 65,000 rooftop arrays. Far short of what the Link would pipe in, at 650,000 homes.
Of course, the divertion tactic by the wizzer is to say: "the $1.3 billion would not produce any electrical power." Absolutely right, wizzer. But, that is not why the Link is necessary.
It would be like... placing the solar array on top of your home, and not running the wires connecting it to your house. So like an unconnected solar panel, the renewables being built would also be "unconnected" to the house.
I really gotta hand it to these lib's, ya know? This creative wordsmithing they do to NOT argue relevant facts, is just amazing.
And I would remind my good friend, the cost of "connecting" is fairly insignificent compared to the cost of building the source, itself. Just as running wires down off your rooftop would be.
And let's be honest here, pricewise.
If mandated to place a solar array on your roof, it would cost a minimum of $20,000 per home. Powerlink's cost per home is only $2,000 per. Let the market decide, but, of course... you can't let THAT happen. Now, can you?

Alf wrote on May 27, 2008 11:59 AM:While the letter from Fred Schnaubelt provides reasons to vote no on Prop. 99, BOTH Prop. 98 AND Prop. 99 are flawed and each one is bad because it does not do the job. A simple proposition that eliminates the use of eminent domain for the purpose of taking the property of a private party or business to give or sell it to another private party or business, with no qualifications or additional things involved (such as rent control), is what is needed, period. Vote NO on both Prop. 98 AND Prop. 99! Regards, Alf.

Chris wrote on May 27, 2008 11:59 AM:The only problem I have with Gary Goldman's letter is that most of us need a car. So even if we use public trasportation we still need a car to go to the store or other places we go and to do other things we do with our time off. Public trasportation just doesn't work for most of us and so to talk about cost is irrelevent.

sdraoul wrote on May 27, 2008 12:01 PM:Obama fans are at it again. He defends his wife and they follow like lemmings in support.

When Michele Obama shuts up no one will pick apart her statements and views.

Her words are a target rich environment.

She is not a ghetto product, she is the product of an exclusive Ivy league education that most do not have. The country has given her the best. Should be thankful, not embarrassed.

Alf wrote on May 27, 2008 12:04 PM:Hello Moderator or Editor, Where are the NCT letters from the 22nd as well as both NCT and Californian Letters from the 23rd? Your help locating these would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on May 27, 2008 12:28 PM:Exactly right, "sdraoul" @12:01 PM!
If you do not want the media "going after" your wife, keep her off the campaign trail.
It is also abundantly clear, none of them who are complaining ever read a speech by our Founders, and those who came shortly thereafter.
You should see what they said about "other men's wives."
I guess we can chalk that up to yet another thing we are not allowed to ask the Obamaman? What's left?

Focal Point wrote on May 27, 2008 12:32 PM:Jack_D[-] wrote on May 27, 2008 10:33 AM:
The California Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. They did. End of story unless you change the state Constitution.

Floyd wrote on May 27, 2008 12:34 PM:I hereby declare Thursday the 29th to be "Post As Floyd" day, just to demonstrate that anyone can post as anybody. Of course, I will be the only one wearing a genuine WHITE LAB COAT, so you'll know who the true Floyd is. Just to make it fair, anyone who doesn't want to post as "Floyd" may use the moniker "DD Wiz" or "Rio Linda" instead.

Chris to Alf wrote on May 27, 2008 12:35 PM:Regarding your comment on Memorial Day in Iraq. It is the militry that parades around and puts out how they protect our freedom. It is the military that kills innocent people and have absolutly no regard for human life. Yes they are following orders but they make the decisions. My problem with the military is that it is they that are the main propagandist for war. Might I remind you that all the people in the military voluteered. During Christmas parades the military shows off it's ponmp and some weapons. It is the worship of the military that I despise and until the American people stop worshiping and saluting the military we will never stop our naked agression into other countries. You can talk about Bush all you want but to say that the people in the militay are poor people who are just following orders is wrong. Many are proud and go into other coutries and despise the natives and treat them like trash. They think of themselves as great warriors and do terrible things. They lie to us and violate the Geneva conventions and are proud of it. It is not Geaorge Bush who tells them to do it it is the sadistic nature of many in the military that causes these things to happen. Until we Americans cease with our beligerence and worship of the MILITARY we are doomed to eternal war.

Floydectomy wrote on May 27, 2008 12:43 PM:Floyd claims that whenever he says something stupid it's the "other Floyd."
His evil twin?
How can we tell what he means by "stupid" since that seems to describe everything he writes?

Ron wrote on May 27, 2008 12:43 PM:Do I dare ask? Yes!! I must!
"OBAMACAN" @9:18 PM, you always post script your post's with: "Bill Clinton (1992 age 46): When the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope."
Now... I'm looking at your username, and yet.. you end your post's with Bill Clinton? Am I missing the obvious here? I'm assuming that your an Obamaman backer, and yet.. your quoting Bill?
Why? Doesn't the Obamaman with his millions of spoken words, can you find anything inspiring, other than the usual Hope & Change?
It would seem to make more sense, at least in my mind, to post something the Obamaman said, rathr than our former President. That is, unless... your a secret Hillary backer.
Anyways.. speaking of Hope.
Even been? To Hope, Arkansas?
Not a whole lot there.

Concerned One wrote on May 27, 2008 1:05 PM:Iagree with Darrell Beck about the silent majority. I believe there are a great many out there that agree about immigration, the government selling us out, the economy, the war and other major issues. The trouble is there is not a leader out there that truely represents tjhese people. Ron Paul is the closest and look where that got him. I seriously may not be voting in November. Silence is golden. Regards, C-1.

Patriot wrote on May 27, 2008 1:32 PM:Thanks Nick for your earlier post (9:44AM) re identity theft. The SSA mails employers no match letters when names don't match Social Security records. At the same time, the SSA should be required to mail a letter to the SSN address of record identifying the employee's name and the employer's name. Employers should also be required to verify an employee's SSN with the SSA online at the time of hire. Any mismatch between the name and SSN should also trigger a letter from the SSA to the SSN address of record identifying the employee's name and the employer's name.

Oh Please wrote on May 27, 2008 1:44 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on May 27, 2008 12:01 PM
Yep. Let is precisely what the conservative want the Obamas to do. Yep. Democrats are not protected for free speech. And why would any one want to pick a statement apart? Just playing mind and political games. The statement means exactly what Mrs. Obama wanted to say. All the interpretation is just conservative slime machine at work. Way to go Rush #2.

Back at ya Ron wrote on May 27, 2008 2:04 PM:Ron 9:17 am - no you didn't say commie liberal, you just said lib. A term you seem to use as a derogatory when shooting from the hip. That "commie" remark was my own cynical interpretation of your original post. Based on your numerous comments over the last few months, and the tone of your critique of Goldman's letter, I think a little teasing about your attitude is in order. I don't know how you could divine all of Mr. Goldman's socio-political viewpoints from a single letter - but maybe you are the mind reader here. Or maybe your just a gun jumper.

Cluck wrote on May 27, 2008 2:18 PM:Ron educating anyone on anything is like McCan't educating Obama on the war in Iraq. He doesn't seem to know Sunni from Shia from Insurgent. Iran or Iraq? Which one who what where? Slick marketing and packaging. Luckily for America more people have "educated" themselves on this one. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to school you.

OBAMACAN wrote on May 27, 2008 2:20 PM:Ron at 12:43 shows he is not able to grasp the real point of an inspiring candidate.
It is not about personalities.
The point is about how inspiring 46-year-old presidential candidates are when they focus on their messages of hope instead of fear.
Return to the best of the 1992 Clinton era!
Vote for Obama in 2008!

By the way, since you didn't vote for Clinton and won't vote for Obama, what's it to you?

Bill Clinton (1992 age 46):
"When the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope."

DD Wiz wrote on May 27, 2008 2:34 PM:The post from "Floyd" (12:34pm) shows that, for him, nothing is really about issues, everything is personal.
I do understand how annoying it is when someone misappropriates your screen name (it has happened to me a few times), and it just shows that some people are too immature to be trying to participate in mature dialogues on issues.
But for "Floyd" to vent his anger by suggesting others do to ME what someone did to him, having no evidence whatsoever that I was the one who had caused this offense to him (and in fact it was not me), shows the utter lack of principle or concern about fairness so central to conservative thinking.
I suppose it is the same mentality that thinks due process and privacy rights are irrelevant, and that torture or holding people without charges or evidence is inconsequential.
Again, a person incapable of a serious discussion of issues.
Everything is personal.
Grow up, "Floyd."

Alf wrote on May 27, 2008 2:44 PM:Well said, "Focal Point" at 12:32PM. One more thing, if part of the California Constitution violates the U.S. Constitution, such as an Amendment that violates "equal protection under the law", then the U.S. Constitution takes precedence if said Amendment is challenged in court, in my not so humble opinion. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on May 27, 2008 2:51 PM:While I agree with most of what is said in the letter by Victor Chabala, I am compelled to point out that when you present facts to a conspiracy theorist, those facts are dismissed as being part of the conspiracy. In other words, the conspiracy theorist is not open to rational thinking or logical facts. Like Don Quixote, the theorist refuses to believe that the windmill is simply a windmill. Regards, Alf.

Suzie wrote on May 27, 2008 2:54 PM:Two short comments. 1.) Alf is right on about prop. 98 and 99. 2.) If we develop good public transportation, those of us that believe it is valuable to us can use it, and those of you who prefer to drive your SUV to the corner market still can. At 6'3", my son needs a large car (knees don't fit in the Cooper), but he chooses to offset the fuel consumption and the cost by jumping on the sprinter to work. Makes perfect sense to me!

A reminder once again wrote on May 27, 2008 4:21 PM:Of all those in the current administration and all those running for President, only one got Iraq right: Obama. Obama saw through the run up to the war and called it out loud. He also made clear, in 2002, that the fight in Afghanistan/Pakistan, against those who'd attacked us, was a right and good fight, and one we should've been more fully engaged in. That's the voice of the "liberal". The only one who nailed it. I know who I want answering that phone at 3 a.m.: not the people who got us into the Iraq disaster. Not the ones who let Obama and the Taliban rebuild to pre-2001 strength. No-brainer on foreign policy. Their records speak louder than anything they say. Only one got it right: Obama.

More news of the failure of the surge wrote on May 27, 2008 4:26 PM:From the NY Times QUOTE BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's main Sunni Arab political bloc said on Wednesday it had suspended talks to rejoin the Shi'ite-led government after a disagreement with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki over a cabinet post. ENDQUOTE You might recall that the aim of the surge was to quell violence SO THAT political progress could occur. The reduction in violence turned out to be due to the political desires of the various militias and their playing for power. The larger political issues are unsolved. This has little or nothing to do with us, can't you see that? Iraqis are figuring out on their own how to manage, or mismanage, their country. This will be true with or without a surge, with or without our military there in force. Time to begin a steady withdrawal. Maybe even time to attend to Pakistan/Afghanistan. Ya think?

Some can some cannot wrote on May 27, 2008 4:30 PM:.. OBAMACAN. John Matthews can. J. Howard Crews can. But Ron cannot, and Darrell Beck also cannot.
Some readers have the sophisticationn (and it takes only a little) to recognize satire and the facetious. This is a measure of intelligence. Rigid, ossified thinking, versus flexible and open thinking.

Jack_D wrote on May 27, 2008 4:45 PM:Focal Point's "argument" was: "The California Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. They did."

So every decision the Court makes is ipso facto correct? Could they ever be wrong? Were the dissenters in the case completely out to lunch? If the Court decision had gone the other way would you have been consistent and said "Well the Court's decision must be right because they interpret the law."

The point I'm trying to make should be obvious, but apparently isn't, is simple: the Court did not interpret the Constitution correctly.

I can predict where this ruling will lead. Obama becomes president, appoints a few judges, and lo and behold, same-sex marriage becomes a national constitutional right! Don't think I'm being paranoid. It could absolutely happen. They could use the part of the 14th Amendment talking of equal protection of the laws as their justification (or the 9th Amendment or for that matter anything else in the federal Constitution).

OBAMA MAMA wrote on May 27, 2008 4:47 PM:.. Ron belittles, he berates … yea … he deprecates HOPE. He even ridicules eponymous places. Me thinks I detected his dark despair and futility many months ago. (12:43 PM).

Roger wrote on May 27, 2008 4:58 PM:Don't forget, Chris, they only "lie to us and violate the Geneva Convention" to protect your freedoms :)

Alf wrote on May 27, 2008 5:35 PM:Well, "Chris to Alf" at 12:35PM, I can not believe that you do not differentiate between following the orders of GWB as c-in-c and the illegal, immoral behavior of a very small percentage of American Troops and some "contract employees". I am appalled by such places as Gitmo, etc., but such places and such un-Constitutional practices as are done there (and other places) are the aberration, not the rule. Do you use the same broad brush with other people? Are all whites or all blacks or all oranges horrible monsters based on the actions of a few? Not hardly. There is a purpose for the military and it is necessary, whether you or I agree with any given action or not. I find it hard to believe that you are really as far "out there" as your post would indicate. Regards, Alf.

sheesh Darrell wrote on May 27, 2008 5:46 PM:Anyone who read that J. Howard Crews letter on the 11th knows right away it is supposed to be funny. I have heard that satire is really hard to convey in print and it seems like that's true. Mr. Crews probably knows more about the Constitution than most of the rest of us.

Alf wrote on May 27, 2008 5:50 PM:Well, "Jack_D" at 4:45PM, when you say "lo and behold, same-sex marriage becomes a national constitutional right!", are you trying to say that such a thing is bad? Are you trying to say that all citizens having exactly the same rights is bad? Are you saying that not all citizens should have "equal protection under the law" as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? You say it as if "equal protection under the law" is either a bad thing or it should be "equal protection under the law" according to "Jack_D" and his sensibilities. Part of the function of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority (tyranny of mob rule). Regards, Alf.

right Chris wrote on May 27, 2008 5:58 PM:Of course you are correct in your opinions of the military, Chris. What they do as part of a "job" is despicable and no matter what some people say - it is NOT necessary. Either we learn to get along peaceably or our societies are pretty much going back to the stone age.

hardtack wrote on May 27, 2008 6:12 PM:Back to: “Back at ya Ron” (2:04 PM). Recommend you stop reacting to Ron for three reasons: (1) like all the devout partisans on this blog, your posts will not reach them – least of all convert them; (2) your eyes – and brain – will get tired reading their replies; and (3) you seem to be picking up bad habits – It’s “you’re,” not “your.”

sdraoul wrote on May 27, 2008 6:15 PM:Why must we suffer such ignorance. "Oh Please" challenges my statement that if Barack Obama doesn't want people to pick apart hsi wife's dumb statements she shouldn't make them. As long as she campaigns for him she will be scrutinized.

But where is the retort for my statement that she has had the best this country has to offer; that she should be proud and happy not embarrassed.

She reminds me of Ward Connerly who is a product of affirmative action but speaks and acts against the very process that allowed him to become successful.

Roger wrote on May 27, 2008 6:30 PM:Well, Alf at 5:35 PM, you might cut Chris some slack. The U.S. of A. currently has 725 military bases in 130 foreign countries and a "defense" budget way beyond what anybody in their right mind could justify as necessary for "protecting our freedoms". Chris, though in the minority here, may not be the one who's "out there".

Apollo wrote on May 27, 2008 6:30 PM:Re: Jack D (4:45 p.m.) and Alf (5:50 p.m.)
Alf is right.
Jack's alarmism is cause for concern.
I absolutely agree that equal rights for everyone, including same sex marriages, is already guaranteed under both the State and Federal Constitutions, but only one of them has been courageous enough to act on what should be clear to anyone with eyeballs.
And all but one of those judges were appointed by Republicans!

Focal Point wrote on May 27, 2008 6:33 PM:Jack_D[-] wrote on May 27, 2008 4:45 PM:
Its not my areguement. It is just fact. The CA Supreme Court ruled. Two ways to get the ruling changed is amendment or if the US Supreme Court makes a different decision.

El Guero wrote on May 27, 2008 6:37 PM:I was already primed to vote NO on Prop 98 and YES on 99 after reading Fred Schnaubelt's duplicitous argument in opposition to 98, when I read Alf's 11:59am riposte that may have convinced me otherwise. Schnaubelt has always been, as have so many local government 'development services' departments, a true friend of the scorched earth policies in San Diego. But what about Prop 99? Does it strike the right balance between the rigthts of landlords and tenants?

Oh Raoul wrote on May 27, 2008 6:53 PM:You seem to be saying that if a person was raised under favorable economic circumstances, they therefore give up their right to complain about injustice in their society. What nonsense! Michelle Obama has every right to talk about America as she sees fit, just like you. Her upbringing is irrelevent. It's the truth of what she says that matters, to whatever degree it's there. This is very different from being critical of something like affirmative action when your own position depended on it, as Clarence Thomas does. That seems more hypocritical to me. Nevertheless, even Thomas certainly has the right to assert things about such programs, and whether those things are true or not is the question, not the speaker's hypocrisy. We seem to have given up paying any attention whatsoever to the truth of these statements, always falling back, talk-radio-style, on personal attacks. It speaks poorly for our collective intelligence. It speaks in cash to those who enjoy manipulating us so easily. And, while looking at truth value of statements, have a look at the speech Obama gave in 2002 about Iraq vs Afghanistan. Obama spoke what turned out to be the absolute truth. All the other candidates failed that test. I know whose judgment I'll be voting for. The one whose judgment is actually accurate, not just sloganeering. The one who attends to reality, not myths and images.

Oh Please wrote on May 27, 2008 7:17 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on May 27, 2008 6:15 PM:
M. Obamaa does not speak against affirmative action or her position in society when Mrs Obama stated that this was the first time that she was proud of her country. Wealth, position, benefits received have nothing to do with pride in this country or any country.That is just the rediculous opinion of the opposition plying their mind and political games. Kinda like you sdraoul.

Oh Please wrote on May 27, 2008 7:27 PM:sdraoul: I see it is ignorance to champion free speech for everyone It is ignorance to have the author of the statement interpret her intent and her statement. It is ignorant to call attention to the fact that are criticizes her her are just playing mind and political games. It is ignorant for a husband to defend his wife?
The only ignorance and bad manners displayed daily on this blog is by you with your high opinion of yourself and low opinion of everyone else. Now, that is ignorance.

Focal Point wrote on May 27, 2008 7:32 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on May 27, 2008 6:15 PM:
I have benefited from being a citizen of the United States. That has nothing to do with being embarrassed about and for the United States. Millions of people have been embarrassed about the USA for the last eight years. If you have not, then that is ignorance.

Alf wrote on May 27, 2008 8:50 PM:Well, "Roger" at 6:30PM, it is precisely because the U.S. has many objectives that are, apparently, less than honorable, that I asked "Chris" about his rhetoric. There are many ways to say the same thing and "Chris" is not "winning friends and influencing people" in a positive way. My beef with what the U.S. is doing right now and for the last 5 years is that we crossed the line from defendi