Board Watcher wrote on Jun 1, 2008 12:52 AM:Mr. Barry, your opposition to Proposition H is much more vague than is the proposition. If you were to read the information provided in support of the measure you would know what is going to be done with the money. The only way that there could be more detailed information is if the architect’s specifications were published. Is that what you would like to see?

Also, are you saying that the Citizens Oversight Committee that watched over the 2000 Proposition G did not do their job and protect the communities’ best interest? They did an outstanding job of being the communities watchdogs. The next Citizens Oversight Committee will be just as diligent in the performance of their duties in watching over the funds of Proposition H.

Vote yes on Proposition H. The children of the school district deserve to have a quality school to receive a quality education.

Redress this wrote on Jun 1, 2008 5:16 AM:Not sure what Bill Hasty is on about this time. By refusing to hear an appeal the Supreme Court is letting a lower court ruling stand, essentially saying the lawsuit is without merit and not worthy of review. That IS their function and legal duty. Mr. Hasty and his crowd had their day in court, they lost, get over it.

Hot potato wrote on Jun 1, 2008 6:09 AM:I see Obama bailed on his church yesterday. I figure due the nature of Chicago politics it was an association of political convenience anyway, and when it became politically inconvenient he dropped ‘em like yesterday’s newspaper.
As for what’s been said in the church, did they see one of their own coming to power and decide they could finally say what’s always been on their mind? Or, as Obama has tried to suggest, their way of thinking is new to them and news to him?
For me, it isn’t what the preacher’s have said; just more of the same from the type of characters Obama has surrounded himself with for the last 20 years. But did you notice the reaction of the folks in the background of the latest video, and in the audio of the congregation in all the videos we’ve seen so far? They were eating it up, and they looked and sounded like typical Obama supporters to me. Unity is not their first agenda item.
When Obama gets himself elected by default because of the stench the Republican brand effuses these days, these people, who make up almost half of his support and who got him where he is today, are going to want something in return. What are they going to want? And what are they going to get? Or maybe after he uses them to get elected, Obama will drop them too.

A vote for Obama is a roll of the dice. Bill Clinton, 2007.

Bob wrote on Jun 1, 2008 6:24 AM:This John Naranjo guy asks way too many questions. J. Howard Crews didn't tell you anything Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and that other guy haven't already told you, so get with the program.

You're either with us or against us!

Walter wrote on Jun 1, 2008 6:29 AM:I can understand Charles Wilder's dissapointment. I've already got my Hunter / Cunningham '08 bumper sticker. Boy, do I feel dumb.

frustration wrote on Jun 1, 2008 7:44 AM:If there is a shortage of manpower in the fields, then Jeff Schwilk and the rest of the minutemen and like minded people better get their butts out there and work! A recent study in California found that (illegal)immigrants committed less crimes than U.S. citizens.People that complain about illegals do so only to vilify a certain group namely the Latinos.These same whiners are the people that discriminate people of color,anyone of dark skin is an illegal in their minds.Using patriotism and religion are excuses to hide their hate.If you are against illegal immigration,work more, volunteer work, but don't just complain and protest at labor sites or businesses and churches to spread your hate. Do something productive!

Roger wrote on Jun 1, 2008 7:56 AM:Amanda Barr is right on top of the situation. We need to keep feeding the military industrial complex to protect Chris' freedoms.

Apollo wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:10 AM:Re: Charles Bondy (letter)
Not living in Encinitas, have to admit that I am not that up to date on the pro's and con's of their ballot initiative.
All I can say is how amzaed I am to discover that Mr. Bondy is able to compose a letter to the editor without mentioning "Hussein" Obama or SB777!

Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:18 AM:And that is why we need to raise the ticket price on the Sprinter, Henry Sanford. And the buses too.
If these two forms of mass transit are constantly "under budget", it is time to reconsider the pricing structure.
At present, a one-way Sprinter ticket is $2 bucks, let's raise it to $4 bucks.
A round-trip ticket is $4 bucks, raise it to $8 bucks. Take the pressure off those who do not ride these things, and place it upon those who want them.
It's time for th riders to pay "their fair share."

Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:23 AM:Fascinating, isn't it, Charles Bondy?
"As the recession deepens...They haven't let an election pass without proposing new taxes and fees. they don't want to tighten their belts, they want new taxes for bigger government, bigger pay, better benefits and more pensions."
This obviously brings new meaning to the phrase: "We're all in this together?" LOL
It is more of the liberal double talk, which I have properly dibbed: Lib-eze.

Apollo wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:24 AM:Re: Amanda Barr (letter)
It is absolutely incredible to me that there is still someone in 2008 who cannot tell the difference between the war against terrorism (Al Qaeda, Taliban, and terrorists who were based in Afghanistn and now hiding in Pakistan) and Iraq, the place where our resources were diverted to when Bush/McCain cut and ran in the real war against the real war against terrorists.

Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:34 AM:Isn't this sad? Another scared senior citizen... it's pitiful. And it is ironic, ya know?
Because at the heart of Prop. 99, are the very same people who HAVE thrown old people out in the street, by stealing their homes through this lie, this... newly defined eminent domain.
Where they take older neighborhoods, like granny's house, and sell to their developer buddies, so the city can make bigger bucks than the Prop 13 protected Gramma's & Grampa's that currently sit on it. Why do you not see this?
Vote Yes on 98, and as long as you reside on your rental, you are protected by rent control. It also prevents cities from taking Granma's house, so you can still enjoy Thanksgiving & Christmas with her.

To Apollo wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:34 AM:You are so funny! I was thinking the same thing about Mr. Bondy. (HEE HEE Hee!!) Have a great day.

Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:40 AM:I'm guessing, that Charles Wilder is taking a break from his usual Issa bashing?

Julia Julia Julia wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:51 AM:This letter serves as a prime example of hate and lies being spread!! Are we just all supposed eat the poisoned cake being served up by Julia Godinez? I don't think so. Why Julia, why do you want to cause division within our communities? Believe it or not not all Latinos are illegal immigrants. We are Americans too. I appreciate that the Latino Caucus became involved in the "nit-picking on road signs". I am sure NAACP would "nit-pick of the KKK wanted to place a "road sign" out our public roads. I think the Latino Caucus did their due diligence in this case.

Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:53 AM:You know.. Thomas Matyn. I, too, have thought long and hard about this same issue, and have proposed to the Supervisors to build a County training facility to be paid for, and to be used by all fire departments.
It absolutely makes no sense to build these multi-million dollar facilities in each & every city.
But, this is a prime example of "empire building" within the city services.
My advise to you is, fight it. If the firefighters get what they want, you'll have the cops wanting something too.
And you will watch your local taxes rise irresponsibly.

Amanda has not idea the cost of Freedom wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:08 AM:Let me ask Amanda one question, do you have a loved one fighting in this war on terror? Probably not, well I do my son is in Iraq and I disagree with you! How dare you ask us to be patient! Patient! I just finished reading Scott McCellan's book. Have you ever heard the term "a fly on the wall" Well that is the prospective we get from this book. This war is not a war on terror, and Bush lied to the American people to get us there and now people like you are actually presumptuous enough to ask for patience. Do you not understand that daily our servicemen and women are dying? What about the civilians who live in Iraq are you concerned about their freedom. I went to Subway the other day and I was handed a plastic bracelet that said "Freedom is not Free". You state in your letter "most important, you can enjoy your natural rights, namely the right to the pursuit of happiness." That may be true for you but I can not pursue my happiness while my son in Iraq. So why don't you be patient with me Amanda while I express to you my disdain for this illegal war. What an insensitive letter I wish I had never read it at least not before breakfast.

Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:09 AM:Am I hearing this correctly? "Seniors need rent control?" Christine
Martinelli?
You know the old saying? "Your failure to plan, does not constitute an emergency on my part?"
First of all, it is not the responsibility of anyone, other than perhaps your family, to offset your income. Why do you people insist that others, who are no relation to you, pay towards your standard of living?
You chose to "retire" on Social Security alone. There are plenty of seniors who have planned, and are penalized by this government, for proper planning.

To Joseph Grant wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:15 AM:I agree with you! With people like Jeff Schwilk straight out lying to the American people we will continue see the violence against Latinos escalate. Thank you for your honest letter. As Martin Luther King said "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." Thank you for not remaining silent.

Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:19 AM:Ya know what, Joseph Grant? You pro-illegal alien people are just trying way too hard. Ya know? I mean... look at the lengths they have to go to, to justify an illegal activity, and those who do it?

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:24 AM:The published letter from Jack Fulton follows the conservative "desperation script" when they can't find any specific points or issues to discuss. Name calling! Liberals are socialists!
These mud-throwers will never have any credibility until they can identify specific issues of public policy and then relate them to specific tenets of socialist ideology rooted in government ownership of productive resources.
Oh, and as for that little quote from Norman Thomas, at least a conservative finally did quote him correctly. Of course, this quote was from 1948 (from an interview during the presidential campaign), long after socialism was discredited and in the toilet, and he was backpedaling to save face. He was trying to take credit for something that had been achieved against his best efforts, kicking and screaming all the way. Back when liberalism was actually on the rise, here is what Thomas said as quoted in 1936 from Time magazine: "Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher."
Isn't it wonderful how historical context puts things in perspective?
Isn't it sad how few conservatives have the slightest grasp of historical context?
Again, if you are going to assert specific policies as being socialist, be specific and then tie them to actual tenets of the socialist economic theory. Without that you are just name calling.
Oh yeah, that's all you've got.

Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:29 AM:Well, if your gonna put it that way, Karen Wooton. Then please give us your legal interpretation of the Constitutional requirements once the language is changed from "man & woman", to that of "persons?"
Note that "persons" is a pural, could mean two, could mean more.
Then, logically, and legally tell us why those with "religious" considerations, such as polygamy should not be allowed this same right?
Now, before any one starts getting upset again, go ask a lawyer, any lawyer about what changing this language does. And by changing the language this way does not open this up to "other" arguments, which can not then be denied legally, nor logically.

Karl wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:40 AM:Thanks to Joyce Joseph for giving us the web site. Voting for Judges can be difficult with little or no info. I often wonder what elects judges as most folks don't take the time to research them.

Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:45 AM:"The gaffe machine in the White House"??? Really? Joe Leggett Jr.?
I can't help but be amazed at the lengths some are going to provide political cover for Barack Obama. I mean.. his own church is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Now, had this been some white guy, he'd have been thrown overboad a long, long time ago. I mean.. look at the lengths those on the left are trying to equate McCain's passing endorsement by some kooker preacher, to that of Obama's 20 year relationship with his "spiritual advisor & mentor?"
They are hardly, equal. I've talked to you before about OBS, or Obama Bedazzlement Syndrone. Today I'd like to introduce a new term, it is: Mascot Politics. Not my idea, but I wholly agree with this properly defined termed used by Thomas Sowell.
As Dr. Sowell says: "The problem with being a mascot is that you are a symbol of someone else's significance or virtue. The actual well-being of a mascot is not the point."
Exactly! Even Obama mentioned this in his own speech on race, saying that some white liberals might be seeking "forgiveness" by voting for him. Obviously, to offset their white guilt.

Oh Raoul Oh Reardon wrote on Jun 1, 2008 11:02 AM:Raoul: For demonstrated judgment, particularly about Iraq, I'd rather have Obama answering that phone, no question about it, even if you hyphenate or backslash his name with satan himself. Name associations will never replace real judgment demonstrated in action. Obama was the one who got Iraq right; McCain has voted to give Bush just about everything Bush ever asked for. That says it all about judgment for me and, I hope, most Americans.
Reardon, mea culpa: I got wrong who you intend to vote for. I hope that's not a felony. Believe it or not, in the scheme of the issues discussed here, your vote doesn't stand out as a major item, sorry. Now, shall we discuss what you've gotten wrong here? LOL Ever grasping at straws, Reardon. Criticizing your speech is the same as limiting it? But limiting it isn't the same as censoring it? Huh? Grain derived fuel being the major cause of the rise in food prices? Well, we could go on and on, but why bother?

Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 11:03 AM:Apparently, I need to address this issue again, just for Judy Berlfein. Now, Judy.. pay attention, I'm educating you now.
The reason these particular scientists are having to publish their science in another, lower tier journal is that the elite journals, such as Science, have concluded "the debate is over." In fact, they have written editorials that "the debate is over." Hard to imagine real scientists who are unwilling to consider other data, or facts.. but, that's what they wrote.
With this mindset, this particular elite journal has decided not to publish science that does not express their viewpoint. The reviewers at Science then preclude any other data, by jealously guarding their own personal theories. Publishing in an elite journal brings with it fame, prestige, and yes... money.
These other scientists must publish somewhere, so they find a journal to print their material, since the elites won't because of ideological reasons.
Objectively, it is clear that when you decide the debate is over, and not allow other's to voice disagreement with your particular findings in science, you are not practising science.
You are practising politics, or religious belief's.
Real science wants other's to poke, prod, and try to poke holes in theories, to refine them, to strengthen them. To make them better. But, if you live within the world of group think, you can not hear or see new data, evidence, or theory.
This is why I find it so odd to have a chemcial engineer who worked at Exxon-Mobil for 31 years be the lead author of an IPCC report. Obviously he is not remotely qualified in climatology, plus the guy worked for the "opposition", as my lib friends would say. Yet, despite these controdictions, they stand behind the IPCC reports. But, that's a lib for ya.

Oh raoul ps wrote on Jun 1, 2008 11:06 AM:Since you are a "real writer", you claim that whenever someone says "I worked closely with him on his book" it "really" means, "I wrote that book". So, just to get this perfectly clear, given your expertise and all, are you saying that Scott McClellan would deny the truth (from his perspective) of the content of "his" book? That's the only thing that actually matters, you know, raoul: is the content of the book true from Scott's perspective. Are you saying that Scott put his name on a book chock full of things that he believes are false? You're a real writer, so I'm sure you know how likely it is for someone to put his name on a book as its author when someone else actually wrote the book and he actually feels it's all false. Can't wait to hear from you on this, raoul. We need more expert testimony on this blog space. More integrity. Thanks in advance.

to Hot Potato wrote on Jun 1, 2008 11:11 AM:Actually, I would easily prefer Obama's "roll of the dice" to what we'd get with McCain: more of Bush policies. While you're speculating about pastors and middle names, I just read the Congressional record: McCain voted for Bush policies almost 100% of the time. As Obama was actually giving a speech in 2002 about how Afghanistan was the war to win and Iraq was a bogus war (a speech, by the way, that at the time was widely thought to be political suicide), McCain was one of the chief drumbeaters for Bush's invasion. Even if Obama was a roll of the dice, Potato, it's a way better bet than one who is a proven loser on the issues that matter most. But hey, if you think Bush's presidency has been the epitome of success, by all means, vote for McCain.

Reardon wrote on Jun 1, 2008 11:13 AM:I realize that letter writers do not write the letter captions, but Seniors Need Rent Control properly represents Christin’s letter.

A more appropriate caption would be, “Some indigent mobile home owners whose eyes were larger than their pocketbooks, want you to force the owner of the park to give them a monthly income.”

Yes, the caption would be a bit unwieldy, but certainly more accurate. The vast majority of “seniors” do not have and do not want rent control – they own their own homes. Some seniors own both their mobile home and the land beneath their mobile homes.

If some mobile home owners need welfare, the government should provide that through a means test. It is not up to the park owner to directly subsidize those in need of welfare.

Those supporting rent control want the government to use force to do that which they do not have the will to do. They want a third party to transfer money from the park owners pocket to their pockets. There is another word for that, and the word is not ‘rent control.”

read em and weep wrote on Jun 1, 2008 11:16 AM:I would invite all readers here to simply peruse the posts that come from presumed Democrats or "liberals" and those that come from presumed Republicans or "conservatives". Look at them for actual important facts or logic about McCain and Obama. How do the "red" writers support McCain? What do they say about the Republican candidate that gives us the desire to vote for him? What? You can't find anything like that? Anything? Only posts that "link" Obama to a minister? Or mentions of Obama's middle name? Hmph, how 'bout it! What about the Obama supporters' posts? What? They discuss his public stand on Iraq? They look at McCain's actual record as a Senator? How about that? Well, it's not too late: I hope to see a flood of posts from Republicans bragging about McCain's positions on matters of grave importance to America right now. Give us a positive reason to vote for McCain based on his behavior. Looking forward to it!

Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 11:22 AM:Just so ya know, Frank Thurlow. We are way... WAY beyond the phrase: "No Taxation without representation."
We are now at the point where the government shall decide what you are left with to live on. That's where we are. I am often amazed by those who say they hate higher taxes, and yet.. have continued to vote for those particular politicians who vow to raise taxes.
But, a further disturbing trend is that we have many, about 34% currently, who think we all should pay higher taxes. They actually think giving even more money over to this already massive, bloated, and wasteful government is a good idea. And really, the sad fact is.. every time we have had our taxes raised to "fix" particular problems, it hasn't. Look at Social Security! 19 times in the 70 years of it's existence, and now we are talking about a 20th time. In California, we pay half our State's budget to educate children, yet we still have the drop out's and kids that get out of school who can not read their own high school diploma. Yesterday, someone was complaining about our "brain drain" in the US, and despite years of adding more 7 more spending to educate kids, we still have this drain. Most of us do not operate this way in our own lives, yet we vote this way? It is irrational, and yes.. it's insanity.
When the government gets first dibbs on your money before you do, that's tyranny as defined by our Founders. But, sadly.. most people wouldn't recognise those guy's if they tripped over them.

Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 11:37 AM:Despite the denials by my good buddy
Wizzer @10:24, I think Jack Fulton is onto something here.
I think it was just a week or so ago, that we all heard Maxine Waters slip, before she corrected herself, and say: "We will socialize the oil companies." I think later she said nationalize, but let's be fair here, and call a spade a spade.
As much as these leftists deny the obvious, what they all truly want is for the government to run stuff. they want government to run healthcare, and they want it to run the oil companies.
They all like to call this "Public Policy" for the common good. You know? They will drone on, and on about consumer protection, and product safety.. but the bottom line is exactly what Maxine Waters said: "They want to "socialize" these companies.
I just wish these radicals would just be honest, and come right out and say it aloud. That way, we would all know what we are truly dealing with. But, that would give away the objectives, now wouldn't it? Words mean things. Listen to their words, and ask yourself: "Can they do a better job?"
Then think about all the failed policies, and program these leftists have left in their wake. Social Security, Medi-Care, HUD, Education, Pension Guarntee Corp., Sprinter, Amtrak, the pot holes & bridges that are falling down.

Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 11:49 AM:Now, Keith Manigold.. before you start getting yourself all worked up, as you have a right to do. Go back and remember who controls Sempra. OK?
The PUC, which in my opinion has become an arm of the enviromentalist wing of the Democrats, have decided that you only need so much power. Put a sweater on, and don't eat so much, while your at it.
Most right thinking Americans do believe as you do, that you have a consumer's right to use all the electricity you want, as long as you pay your bill.
If the free market were allowed to operate, then yes.. you would be correct. but we do not have a free market in California when it comes to power. The left & their buddies in the enviro crowd have seen to it, that you will have less power, and pay more for it. Until we get rid of these people who believe this way, we will continue to be under the thumb of the Kashi and soy crowd. They will not be happy until you live as they decide you will live.
And that's.. the reality.

sdraoul wrote on Jun 1, 2008 11:49 AM:Is Dolores Welty serious? Does she not know that the United States has "attacked" myriad countries with troops over the 218 years of the country's existence without a "Declaration of War."

If not, why not? of course the war on Iraq was legal. it had UN sanction; the Congress of the United States authorized force by President Bush.

Moreover, he didn't need congressional authorization any way. The Constitution is clear--the President and the President only is the Commander-in-Chief.

As COC, he can attack any country he wishes and Presidents of both parties have done jsut that. President Woodrow Wilson, the first Demorat President of the 20th century landed troops in several Latin America countries and the former french colony Haiti several times during his Presidency.

Jimmy Carter intervened in Nicaragua by denying the legitimate and recognized government of that country by refusing to deliver arms for their fight with the communsit Sandinistas.

Presidents have wide leeway because only they can wage war or conduct foreign policy. Congress can do neither.

It can issue a news release: A Declaration of War, but it can't lead our divisions, fleets or air forces. If it could, we would have no army, navy, air forces or marine corps. Look how Congress denuded out forces after WWII, and Vietnam.

I suggest Dolores Welty read and learn to udnerstand the Constitution of the US before she writes any more letters tot he Editor about constitutional issues.

Jack_D wrote on Jun 1, 2008 12:19 PM:Karen Wooton complains of the "tyranny of the majority." Fair enough, majorities are not always right. But how about the tyranny of the minority? When a few judges determine policy for millions of people, doesn't that count as tyranny? Of course not.In this case they made their ruling in a progressive cause, so Ms.Wooton applauds them. As Ron points out at 10:29 A.M., if gay marriage is a constitutional right, why isn't polygamy? Why discriminate against people who want more than one spouse? How long will it be before polygamy is declared a constitutional right?

To Ron wrote on Jun 1, 2008 12:30 PM:Hey brother,You have reached an all knew level of arrogance even for you, Do you really expect people to see everything your way just because you say so? and then get frustrated because you elect to repeat yourself because they did not agree with you. Who do you think you are? You are nothing but an opinionated Want to be, Wish you were, writer. Wow Ron, Get a grip, Your view is only your opinion that's it no more.

Apollo wrote on Jun 1, 2008 12:37 PM:Re: Reardon (11:13 a.m.)
Tsk, tsk. Reardon tries to equate rent control with, literally, transferring money from the park owner's pocket to the tenants' pockets.
Actually, he has the direction backward. There is no money flowing from landlords to tenants unless it is returning their deposits at the completion of occupancy.
All money flow from tenants to landlords.
Rent control, which was endorsed by the Adam Smith, founder of capitalism, merely sets upper limits on the amount.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 1, 2008 1:00 PM:The post from "Ron" (11:37am) continues to get it wrong on "socialism."
First he wants to hold Maxine Waters responsible for a slip of the tongue that she immediately corrected.
Second, temporary nationalization for citizen protection during a bona fide emergency is not the same as government ownership or operation of productive resources. Permanent nationalization on an ongoing basis would be, and the Supreme Court has correctly declared that to be unconstitutional, as Harry Truman learned.
Third, I do not support nationalizing the oil companies, but rather assisting private green entrepreneur to have opportunities and incentives to develop vibrant, self-sustaining domestic private-sector industries that will eventually replace oil altogether (sorry about those oil stocks, "Ron").
"Ron" goes on to list "failed" policies that were what led us
to recovery from the Depression and into our greatest periods of general prosperity. Every politican knows it is political suicide to tamper with them because they are so successful.
"Ron" then mentions healthcare which, as a public health/safety issue, is no more socialism than are public security (police), safety (fire) or education.

to Jack D wrote on Jun 1, 2008 1:30 PM:Funny how people will not stick to the issue of gay marriage. Your question about polygamy is legitimate, of course, and who knows, perhaps will be taken up by people some day. Now, back to the only question: why do two people who make a vow to one another get all kinds of legal and financial benefits if they are of opposite sexes but not if they are of the same sex? As always, I will remind you that this has nothing to do with religious ceremonies, with marriage in the eyes of God, or with what you approve of. It's a simple question about discrimination under the law. Can you answer it?

Apollo wrote on Jun 1, 2008 1:42 PM:Re: Ron (10:29 a.m.) and Jack D (12:19 p.m.)
Why is same-sex marriage constitutionally protected and polygamy not?
Because gender is a protected class.
Number is not.
Please, please tell me you're just kidding that you didn't understand this.

Dont Listen to Larry wrote on Jun 1, 2008 1:51 PM:Listen to the North County Times, the San Diego Union Tribune, the Oceanside Chamber of Commerce, the GI Forum and Oceanside City Treasurer, Rosemary Jones, four out of five city council members, and many others - Vote YES on Prop H. These folks looked at the last bond and concluded OUSD has proven it has been a good steward of public funds. Every penny of school bond money is subject to strict oversight by a citizen's review committee to ensure that the money is well managed and that there is no waste. Barry has only his opinion to back him up. The facts are clear. OUSD did a great job with the work that has been accomplished and a solid plan to finish the job without increasing your annual property tax bill. Don't listen to Larry. Vote YES on H to bring our 40 and 50 year old schools up to date. Vote YES on H to finish the job!

question for raoul wrote on Jun 1, 2008 2:33 PM:Another interesting point to ponder as you talk about Scott McClellan's book: your guy John McCain's last book had a co-author. What does this mean about the good Senator? Did he find someone to write a book for him? Are the contents of that book lies? Hey, raoul, are you SURE you know anything about the writing and publishing game? I'm beginning to wonder.

bogie wrote on Jun 1, 2008 2:38 PM:Apollo, your argument does not hold water. Behind the number are people. People are a protected class. Try again.

hardtack wrote on Jun 1, 2008 2:46 PM:The letter by Jack Fulton exhibits intelligence and restraint. I’ll preface my comments with the following quote:

"Refrain from using the word Bolshevism, or Fascism, Hitlerism, Marxism, Communism and you have no trouble getting acceptance for the principle that underlies them all alike – the principle that the State is everything and the individual is nothing.” . . . Albert Jay Nock [1934]

Mr. Fulton apparently recognizes the futility of tying to educate liberals and neocons to the virulent socialism, fascism and Marxism which permeates their utopian fantasies. Perhaps restrained by 200 words, Fulton wisely decides to encourage the minority that shares his philosophy of limited government, rather than attempt the daunting task of outshouting the loud-mouthed majority that doesn’t.

Thanks, Jack, for both your encouragement and brevity.

Apollo wrote on Jun 1, 2008 3:20 PM:Re: Bogie (2:38 p.m.)
Omigosh, you weren't kidding - you really don't get it!
Ok, try to make it real simple:
Gender is a type of person (qualitative).
Number is a quantity of person(s) (quantitative).
Or is that over your head too?
Gotta love those simply adorable conservatives (operative word: "simple")

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 1, 2008 3:32 PM:The post from "hardtack" (2:46pm), who in the past has cited the same Norman Thomas quote in this forum (hmmmm), does not address the point of addressing the substance of issues, but cites a 74 year old quote to try to justify blindly labeling everything undesirable as being all the same, including equating fascism, Marxism and liberalism.
This, of course, is the intellectually lazy way of discussing the individual merits of specific public policies that he simply cannot find rational fault with.
He equates liberalism with making the state everything and the individual nothing. So that explains Social Security to protect individuals against impoverishment? That explains public education to give all individuals equality of opportunity (not outcomes)? That explains FDA and other consumer protection agencies that protect individuals against being harmed by corporations? That explains civil rights and voting rights to protect individual civil liberties? That explains liberal support for women's reproductive self determination? That explains liberals support for the rights and dignity or workers and consumers?
Again, the published letter from Jack Fulton and the post from "hardtack" avoid and evade discussing the pro's and con's of any of these issues on their merits, because they can't.
To Jack Fulton and "hardtack": you got a lot of 'splainin to do!

Reardon wrote on Jun 1, 2008 5:12 PM:DD: The Maxine Waters quote was NO slip of the tongue which she immediately corrected as per your 1:00 post.

I heard the quote (probably on C-Span)and immediately wrote it down: "This liberal would be all about socializing…uh..ah...taking over your companies and running them."

If, in your mind, there is a distinction between "socializing" and "taking over and running them," would you please explain that to this benighted illiterate?

Your Kidding Right wrote on Jun 1, 2008 5:58 PM:To: Apollo At 3:20PM, Did I read that right? "Omigosh" - What are you a 12 year old girl, Omigosh!!

Reardon wrote on Jun 1, 2008 6:12 PM:DD: Huff and puff, it is socialism and it is so ingrained in the current American system that everyone takes it for granted without examining the details.

You can argue that it is “good” – but that does not deny that it is socialism.

When this nation was founded, it was founded on a premise of self-reliance, and that the government should do only those things that the people could NOT do. The Constitution was written to place boundaries on government – you can judge for yourself how successful that has been.

Subsequently, we find that the people can do nothing! Schooling that was begun as private, is now socialized. Fire departments that were founded (Ben Franklin) as private (by subscription), are now socialized. Libraries that were once started as private (again Ben Franklin, and again by subscription) are now socialized. Universities, once all private are now mostly socialized. Roads that were started as private are now socialized. Passenger trains that were started as private are now socialized. Coinage that was started as private is now socialized. Postal services that were once private are now socialized, and this is really interesting because almost everyone agrees that UPS and FedEx do a better job – but are FORBIDDEN by law to carry letters!

This is just off the top of my head – but more importantly there are liberals for whom the march toward socialism is not near fast enough. There are calls from well-known and identifiable liberals, as noted above with Maxine Waters, to increase socialism – to include socializing airlines, oil companies, medical care…and what is not to be owned by the government is to be so severely regulated and constrained as to be a legal “taking’ by government.

You can argue that these socializations are “good” – what you cannot argue is that they are not socialization of previous or existing private concerns.

Roger wrote on Jun 1, 2008 6:31 PM:The 2:33 PM poster questions sdraoul's knowlege of "the writing and publishing game". Raoul has been published by Writers Club Press, iUniverse, Writers Showcase Press and Floricanto Press.

sdraoul wrote on Jun 1, 2008 6:34 PM:Apparently Scottie McClellan's ghost writer, his editor, didn't want to share in the "glory" of the book. Scottie was paid a $75,000 advance by the George Soros financed publisher.

We have no previous work to compare to see if Scottie wrote this book. Each writer's style is obvious when compared with previous work. We have none in Scottie's case.

As for his perceptions: OK. Why do we have to live with those when her speculates about what was said in closed door meetings between two other people?

By the way, when I write my books (or articles for the LA Times or New York Times), my editors don't rewrite me, they check for wording and sense.

Ghost writers don't take credit. Ted Sorensen, for example, wrote every single word of JFK's "Profiles in Courage" and never received the glory or the Pulitzer. All he got was Daddy's cash. In this case, George Soros is daddy.

In McCain's case, he has co-authors that get full credit and royalties. That's honest.

As far as Obama's judgment, Hispanics have it nailed. They reject him totally, even the Puerto Ricans who are his natural supporters reject him.

A large portion of Hispanics, especially Mexican Americans, will not vote for Obama because he stabbed them in the back when it came to for the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill was up for consideration.

Obama voted for several poison pill amendments paid for by the AFL/CIO that killed any chance the bill has. Obama hates Mexicans so much they barely voted for him in his own state where Chicago has the second largest Mexican population inb the country outside Los Angeles.

If he wins the Mexican American vote it will be by a tiny percentage like he did in Illinois--he won that vote by two percent. He does that in November and he will lose in a landslide.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 1, 2008 6:53 PM:The posts from "Reardon" (5:12pm and 6:12pm) revert to his old practice of distortion, distraction and dissembling, as he evades my actual point and misstates my post that he claims to be addressing.
I did not hear the quote from Maxine Waters. I was responding to the statement from "Ron" at 11:37am in which he said, "we all heard Maxine Waters slip, before she corrected herself." So if calling it a slip that she immediately corrected was out line, please direct your comments to "Ron." Sheesh!
Second, I agree with your statement in both posts that taking over companies and running them, other than as short-term emergency measures during bona fide crises, would be socialism. In the post you purport to be replying to, I made it very clear that I oppose this as general policy and would oppose it in the specific instance of the oil companies, and I cited the Supreme Court decision when they blocked Truman from socializing the steel mills, and noted my agreement with them.
So did you have a point? You did not even acknowledge my actual point of opposing such measures, and agreeing with the Court when they blocked this action.
Did you actually read my post? Do you have a problem with literacy? Is this intentional distortion?
Or, since you think me "always wrong," do you disagree with my oppostion to socialism in general and these measures in specific? Are you a socialist?

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 1, 2008 7:02 PM:The post from "Roger" (6:31pm) highlights "sdraoul's" publishing connections.
As anyone with ties to real publishers knows, Writers Club Press and iUniverse are both imprints of the same company, and is a self-publishing service to help writers publish on their own.
Floricanto Press is a Spanish-language publisher. Maybe editorial assistance in Spanish means something different than in the stand