Oil Up wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:21 AM:We'd all like to thank the greeners, liberals and the filth in Washington for continuing to ignore the people's request to maximaize domestic oil production in order to save jobs and the economy. The liberals cheer the rest of the world who are actively drilling and they spit on France, who is 80%+ nuclear, while the US sits back and does neither as jobs and the economy go into a tailspin. I just send back my fund raising plea from McCain with a gesture I save for liberals and gangs

Chuck wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:29 AM:Bush could bankrupt the oil and grain speculators by sending the trucks to Alaska, Wyoming, the Gulf and announcing 10 new nuclear plants. The problem is that Paulsen and Bernanke's buddies at Bank of America, Goldman, JP Morgan, Citi, Wachovia, etc lost so much money in the mortgage debacle, that hedge and commodity fund speculation is the fastest way for these insiders to get back to solvency by the June 30th reporting deadline. So, there will be massive manipulation between now and then to screw the legitimate traders and hedgers and line the pockets of the financial institutions back to their capital requirements

Ola Carol wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:37 AM:Oh Carol: It is none of your business if the Catholic Church in question spent $30,000.00 on any of its parishoners. Putting up a security bond is not aiding trafficing. If you knew anything at all about the Catholic Church, you would know that the priest does not have any authority anymore. Vatican II saw to that for sure. Was it income for the Church? Neither of us knows. I rather doubt it> I think what happened is the Padre asked anyone so inclined to offer a free will gift for the bail. Lastly, various other denominations assist directly and indirectly members of their congregations.

Focal Point wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:40 AM:Oil Up[-] wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:21 AM:
I think that your kind and tell the truth.
Liberals do not control anything. Why didn't Bush and his rubber stamp Republican Congress ok drilling nuclear plant building during their seven years of complete control and dominance? Oh yeah! They were afraid of the big bad Liberal!
It is just another load of manure from your ilk.

Observation wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:53 AM:Taliban seize Afghan villages
Aljazeera.net - 1 hour ago
The Taliban has taken control of eight villages in Arghandab district in Afghanistan, and have said they plan to march towards Kandahar city.

NO RESPECT wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:24 AM:Fabian Avalos letter about disrespect in the neighborhoods is right on the money. I live by Ivey Elementary School and the way parents wrecklessly u-turn on driveways is a concern. Several vehicles come within inches of cars parked on the driveways. I've even resorted to putting cones on my driveway. Then there's the trash. I'm constantly picking up after these parents/their children who constantly litter OUR neighborhood and on occasion dump their trash in our disposal bins on trash pick up day. These parents are great examples for their children. Teach them to be like you with NO RESPECT!

Bob wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:32 AM:Douglas Crews may be right in questioning trickle down economics. I've been trickled on quite a bit for the past 7 1/2 years and I'm pretty getting tired of it.

Progress for OilUp and Chuck wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:48 AM:Bit by bit, the reality of the last near-decade is sinking into posts by even our most wild-eyed liberal-haters. Notice how in today's posts, the politicians in Washington are finally included in the "who's to blame" category. Even these two posters have admitted the blaring, glaring obvious: that it's not been liberals or environmentalists in control of Washington. For 6 years it was oil-man Bush and his rubber stamp Congress. And since 06, it's been oil-man Bush and a Congress that can't get past a filibuster or a veto. Reality is drip, drip, dripping into their posts, finally. There's lots to go, but it's a start!

GFN wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:52 AM:Carol Winter's statement is right-on correct: "They should be jailed for assisting unlawful trafficking." That's the issue; the verdict, guilty.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:10 AM:The published letter from John Patrick admits he is not a scientist and it sure shows. He notes that more than half of published articles question human contributing factors toward climate change. I have made this very point, as does journalist (non-scientist) Al Gore in his book and movie. The real question is why more than half of popular media question this, including scientists funded by Big Oil, when in peer-reviewed scientific and academic journals subject to the rigors of the scientific method, the conclusions are virtually unanimous about this. The Senate Committee report he is referring to is a political, not scientific, document prepared by Senator James Inhofe, flat-earth anti-science Republican from Oklahoma who took more in Big Oil donations than any other member of Congress.

Ms M wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:19 AM:I would sure like to have the notes from the energy committee meetings. You know the group that got together with Cheney .....anf all those oil executives at the "CLOSED" meeting to set energy standards...........Yea those cons at work!

Ola Carol wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:30 AM:GFN: Well, let us lock anybody up who presented a security bond or bail for the temporary release of any accused of any crime or misdemeanor. LOL.

Chuck wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:35 AM:>>>and have said they plan to march towards Kandahar city.>>> Thats what cluster bombs and F-16's are for, and throw in a little agent orange for fun, and then of course Murtha will want them to buy carbon credits to compensate

Ron wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:07 AM:Joseph Grant? Huh?

Hussein wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:10 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:35 AM:
Russians used same tactics and met defeat.
You shock and awe guys really do not get it. We need to do it up close and personal. Too bad, that it can not be done. All our people are in the wrong country trying to build a democracy in an Islamic country. By the way, I have not heard or read my name today. You slackin?

Ron wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:16 AM:And once again... the liberals to the rescue, or should I say the punishing of business for the sake of shopping cart thieves?
NO... Gail Wells, you charge those people who take those carts off store property with theft, prosecute them, and make their punishment walking throughout the city returning carts. Let them spend a weekend pushing shopping carts back to the stores they stole them from, and hopefully that will teach most not to do it again.

Floyd wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:20 AM:The reason some politicians in Washington are being vilified is because they're acting like Democrats instead of the Republicans they claim to be.

Ron wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:30 AM:We know all that John Patrick. Consensus on a theory does not make it scientifically true. You need proof.
Oh, sure.. certain evdiences can point you in a certain direction, but unless you can make the linage, it's still a theory.
Also, this is why you see the religious true believers try so desperately to link skeptics to Big Oil. As if, that were a crime. But, Within the liberal/enviro mindset, it is a crime.
Instead of arguing the evidence, the data, or the alternative theories they argue, they dismiss them all together.
Calling them deniers, comparing them to holcaust deniers, etc. This is not real science.
This is how you know this scientific debate has gone political. In fact, When one of the leading elite journals: Science, writes an editoral saying the debate is over, you know it's gone political, and is not scientifically based.

sdraoul wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:47 AM:Yesterday, some self-styled challengers attacked my statement of fact that ever Republican who has garnered 35% or more of the Hispanic vote has been elected President without exception.

Then I stated that "IF" McCain also gets 35% or more of the Hispanicvote, he, according to the historical pattern would win in November.

How can anyone challenge those statements? One is historical fact and the other is a conclusion that will happen if the underlying facts are the same as in the past 10 elections.

Moreover, I challenged statments by unknowledgable people that McCain doesn't have a chance at a majority of Hispanics. My statement proves that in the past ten electiosn a Republican didn't need a majority, just 35%. Thus. anyone who wrings their hands or gleefully states that McCain can't get a majority is purely ignorant of politics and history.

I also stated that McCain didn't need a majority of all American voters. Anyone who thinks so doesn't understand how we elect Presidents.

I stated that Lincoln and Clinton didn't win majorities and someone stupidly pointed out that they ran in multi-cndidate races. So what, one needs one more than half of the electoral votes assigned by the number of congressional seats in a state to be elected President.

Thus, McCain can win without a majority of voters, it just depends on where his votes are and in what states.

Since 1968, New York, for instance, has voted only twice for a Republican yet Republicans have won seven of the presidential elections since then. So, Obama can carry New York and California by ten million votes and still lose the election even if you throw in Illinois by 5 million votes.

People should understand our system before they make silly statements.

John McCain for Commander-in-Chief; Obama for Chief Social Worker.

Ron wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:18 AM:I agree with John Patrick, science has ceased to be science, as it has been historically practised. The energy flat earthers, and that's really what they are on energy, have no hard facts, or evidence linking humans to global climate change. It is a THEORY.
Unable to answer the skeptics questions, they are "pulling a Clinton", and are practising the art of personal destruction. You want to talk about "Swift-Boating" people, you just look at the ends these people will go to destroy good scientists reputations, and careers. This whole debate has long ceased to be about science, and has indeed turned political. For some, it is a type of religious faith.
Even Al Gore, a trained journalist got his information wrong having to be corrected by a court. I know that Al Gore is highly invested in hedge funds that will buy these traded "carbon assets", it is no surprise to this person, why he is behind this big push.
And it ain't global warming, it's about money. Currently in the European Union, trading these carbon assets is about a $30 billion a year business. Should the United States join this carbon trading scheme, it will push that $30 billion to well over $100 billion a year.
See what I mean?
But, finally let me tell you what is going on with these "peer-reviewed scientific and academic journals", which are supposed to "subject to the rigors of the scientific method."
Here's the way this little game works...
If your a skeptic, and you apply to have your theory, data, or evidence published in one of the elite journals, such as "Science", you are not allowed to be published by jealous reviewers at the journals for fear you may compete with their own per theories. Afterall, publishing does equal grant money.
So, they won't let you publish for reasons that have nothing to do with science per say, so you find a journal who will publish you. Usually it is a lesser known, less prestigious science journal, which may not be read by many scientists. The global warming activists then will attack these same scientists for not publishing in a journal like Science, they will accept.
It is a total strawman argument. If you don't publish in the one's I will accept, then it is not real science.
But, that is the game they play.

Consensus wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:22 AM:The anti-GW folks see this word and get all giddy. It's their excuse to accuse the whole scientific establishment of being "political" rather than "scientific". This makes about as much sense as claiming that "Hussein" is an important item in the candidacy of Obama. It's just a word with connotations that are politically useful. The scientific consensus is nothing more than hundreds of the scientists in the field reading and doing the research, coming to a tentative conclusion (that can change as data comes in), and stating that conclusion. If just about all of them come to the same conclusion, that's a consensus. No different that when you go to 2 or more doctors to assess your condition. Each checks you out, examines the symptoms and other data. Comes to a conclusion (that could be wrong). If they all come to the same conclusion, that's a consensus, and my guess is that with your doctors, that consensus means a whole lot to you.

Ron wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:22 AM:It's lib's, Vincent Morrison... liberals who want to punish the victims of crime, and not the criminal.
You have to understand the mindset,
America made them criminals, American is mean, and hateful, and quite frankly... forced them into a life of crime. What other choice did they have?
Total baloney, but that's what your working with here.

Backcountry wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:23 AM:We don't need a Harvard degree to be qualified to make a comment on global warming. Nor are we associated with "Big Oil" as claimed by the GW cheerleaders who contribute to this forum. We just need common-sense and curiosity.

The global warming THEORY is based on recent temperature readings and past temperature assumptions allegedly taken from tree rings and ice cores. The thermometer has only been existence for several hundred years and we have only been able to get global readings for the past several decades due to modern instruments and satellite assumptions. Furthermore it is impossible to get temperature readings from tree rings or ice cores, only wet/dry or cold/warm estimates.

Man-made computer models "proving" man-made global warming that are based on these hypothetical temperature variations are a fraud. You know, garbage in...garbage out.

Ron wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:27 AM:That is because they are pulling a "Hoover", Michael Freeman.
There is no other way to describe this, when tax increases are as high as 100 percent, and maybe as high as 500 percent in a downturned economy, they are acting Hooverish.
I think they are buying into the Obama hype, and his call for raising taxes on all Americans to the tune of one trillion dollars. That's definately Hooverish.

Alf wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:33 AM:Well, "Chuck" at 8:35AM, you did it again with that "and then of course Murtha will want them to buy carbon credits to compensate" line. I almost fell off my chair! Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:44 AM:All you really need to know Barry Mc Elmurry, is that. The World's demand for oil is 87 million barrels a day, the supply is only 85 million a day.
That's a 2 million deficit in any body's book, well... except the extremists.
Plus we are sitting on 40% of our own domestic supply, some 19 million additional barrels which would drive the price down. But, you'll not see any movement this year by Democrats to lower your gasoline price.
In fact, this is part of the Democrat play book, to make you miserable, to make you suffer, to make you angry.
If they were truly interested in lowering your gas price, they would not be floating another gas tax, would they?
The point is, this is part of the Democrat game plan this year to gain more seats in the Congress, and perhaps the White House. There will be not movement to lower gas prices this year, because like "good news in Iraq, it would not be good news for Democrats."
They can not allow Bush to have any credit for gas prices coming down, so they'll do nothing. You see, your suffering is part of the plan. Your having to choose between gas for your car, or food is part of their plan.
Whether is harms low income people is of no concern to them, this is what is required by you so they will gain.
Make no mistake, they have no intention of lowering your gas prices, now or ever. But, perhaps after the election, providing of course, if Barack Obama makes it to the White House, and he is able to get his tax policies through, you might be able to count on a $1,000 tax cut in say... 2010?
In the mean time... eat less, drive less, and heat your home less. That's also part of the Democrat plan.

Ron wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:17 AM:I just got through yesterday telling you how the liberal Democrats love to exploit people. They exploit your race, your gender, your income... all to divide and conquer. It's frankly, what they do best.
Douglas Crews letter today is the classic prototypical Marxist class warfare statement. The pitting of one group of citizens against another, based on income. It is right out of Karl Marx's theory, the pitting of investor's {bourgeoisie} against the worker {proletariat}.
And like all Marxists, they believe the only way to bring someone up, is to bring another down. It is the equalizing of misery. And they guy says it in his letter: Your "payoff" for going after your boss? $1,000 bucks.
That's your share.
There is something unseemly about people who believe the only way to get ahead is to take someone else down.
It reminds of when my children were little, and would cry that their sibling had more candy than they did.
Especially when you consider the facts on this, the top 1%, that would be your so-called "Super-Rich" pay 39% of all income taxes. The AGI Threshold of the top 1% is $364,657. The Top 5%, with an AGI threshold of $145,283 pays 59.67% of all income taxes. The Top 10%, with an AGI of $103,912, pays 70.30% of all income taxes. These are the employers, these are mostly people who are S-Corp's, where they file their business proceeds through their personal income tax filings. It could be your boss?
In California, 80% of all State income taxes are paid by those who make $500,000 a year. So it is dishonest to say the Rich don't pay their fair share.
They pay most of the taxes in this country. But those who sell this lie, and this kind of dishonesty are not concerned about you low income people. You are simply a tool to be used by them to get what "they want."
sadly, many have bought into this ideology that the only way I can get ahead is to bring someone else down. And it is a sad state of affairs to think your only way out is to beg your government for your very life.
But, that's exactlu where they want you.
On your knees, begging them.

Ron wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:22 AM:I guess this means your "for" corporate welfare, Jim Dooley?
Amtrak is such a huge loser, just like the trolley, just like the Sprinter.
If you want those programs, pay the full price for them. Quit asking the rest of us to subsidize your lifestyle.

David wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:24 AM:Good call Barry Mc Elmurry, But let's not forget the "hit'n run" speculators, Who bring shame to the legitimate term, PROFIT.

Ron wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:25 AM:Blame the liberals & their buddies in the enviro kook lobby, Charles Palmeter.
30% of our water suply is cut off due to a fish, and now they won't let us build Desal plants to offset the difference. Face it, they want less people.

Ron wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:29 AM:Hey "Chuck" @6:29 AM:
In addition to Paulsen and Bernanke's buddies at Bank of America, Goldman, JP Morgan, Citi, Wachovia, etc.
Please don't forget the 40% of these sub-prime loans held by Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, all backed by the US taxpayer.

Greenergy wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:54 AM:As usual, Ron at 11:25 a.m. is misrepresenting the views of those he disagrees with. Since this has been brought to his attention numerous times in the past, one can only assume the misrepresentation is intentional.
Note to Ron: Your statement that environmentalists "won't let us build" Desal plants is patently false and Ron knows it.
Some environmentalists do oppose desal, but many (if not most) do not. As with all things, we do want them to be environmentally sound, but we are confident this is feasible.
Once again, I think the real point is that Ron can't argue on the facts, so must distort them to something he can handle.
As for the silly post at 10:18 a.m., it is hilarious to see anti-science extremists like Ron hollering that any scientist who hasn't been bought off by his oil company stocks isn't a real scientists, while he knows more than those who are actually operating according to the protocols of the scientific method.

Ron wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:54 AM:Recently we've all heard the name Jim Johnson, he was a senior member of
Barack Obama's VP vetting process.
He was quickly dispatched when the press became aware of cronyism.
Today, let me introduce you to the next guy, his name is: Eric Holder. He is now a member of the Obama vice presidential search team.
Eric Holder was Bill Clinton's former Deputy Attorney General. Holder was involved in the pardon of Marc Rich, the Democratic donor who had fled the country. The press has written many times about Holder, making it perfectly clear the guy is awash in cronyism, skirts ethics laws, had horrible judgement, and is simply incompetent. He also advocated for clemency for the FLN terrorists.
Yes, the list of judgement errors is growing:
the Wrong Rev. Wright,
Louis Farakhan,
Unrepentant Terrorist Bill Ayers,
the crazy preacher Michael Pfleger,
Jim Johnson, and now Eric Holder.
If it's all about judgement, he's not showing any.

Bucky wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:28 PM:COngressman Issa has done a wonderful job. He has consistently stood up for his constituants and has been hard on government waste. He has been on the right side of the issues and I will be proud to vote for Congressman Issa in November.

Ron wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:45 PM:You know, I'm beginning to grow just a little tired from these false choices promoted by these energy flat earthers. Take my good buddy "Consensus" @10:22 AM?
They love to go to the old canard of using doctors. Now, keep in mind, these are the very same doctors they would sue in a heart beat if they had the chance, but.. none the less.. this has become yet another tool that must be struck down.
They claim, this debate is "No different that when you go to 2 or more doctors to assess your condition."
That's providing, of course, each doctor has full access to ALL of the data. When you purposely exclude data, how can you come to a fully informed conclusion? You can't.
And, let's take a look at the cure they are offering?
and 80% cut back of energy usage. Seems more like trying to kill the patient, rather than "cure him."
It would be the same thing as saying because your toe is stubbed, we need to cut your foot off.
It's another false choice, but hey... lib's are good at false choices.

Concerned One wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:53 PM:It always amazes me how utterly stupid people can be. Charles Palmeter's letter today is just wrong! On so many levels. First of all, water conservation is crucial to our future in Southern California. Actually, we now call it "water use efficiency." Here's what's going to happen, if you don't start conserving, and quickly, your water rates are going to double, then triple. Water has been too cheap for too long. The dumb-bunny masses think they can just use, use, use. Wrong! Water is a precious commodity in Southern California, people need to wake up about it or pack up the old buggy and head back east. The fish, the drought, and the politics (libs in Sacramento) are the perfect storm. Conserve now. Regards, C-1.

Hot Martian Parent wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:01 PM:Whew! Hey gang any cooler on earth? Mars is burning up with Mars global warming, thought the wife and kids might like to get away from the heat for awile.

Concerned One almost right wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:17 PM:I am a liberal and I could hardly agree with your comment about water more. We live in a near desert, folks. Water has always been the core issue for this part of the country. But instead of limiting blame to the ones you name, C-1, might you consider developers? How about the group of people that make possible all the golf courses we have here? Have a lawn, then how about you? How many Californians just want to live in a way that mimics life in a water-rich area, from sprawling lawns and gardens to proliferating golf courses, to fountains and ponds, well you get the idea. We could give up golf, plant natives, forget lawns, and save zillions in water. But no, the conservatives will say it's their money, and their money to make, and damn the consequences because this is about American freedom to choose a lifestyle...and then they'll say it's all the fault of the liberals.

snerd wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:32 PM:Geez Ron, isn't there anything on earth you don't have a nearly worthless opinion about? Give us a break. Please.

Chuck wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:37 PM:Calling all FDA employees: "Is there some reason that we can whip Facism in the Atlantic and the Pacific, build the Continental railroad, put men on moon and send satellites to the stars, but for some reason cant figure out where feces infested tomatoes came from???

Chuck wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:39 PM:>>>Well, "Chuck" at 8:35AM, you did it again with that "and then of course Murtha will want them to buy carbon credits to compensate" line. I almost fell off my chair! Regards, Alf.>>
Besides being totally fair and balanced, I am to please

hardtack wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:56 PM:The letter by Douglas Cruz brought to mind what some others have said regarding the confiscation and redistribution of private capital by the state:

"Are we to believe the alleged calamities arising from the collection of wealth in the hands of a few capitalists are to be remedied by collecting it in the hands of one great capitalist – the all-devouring state, which has no conceivable motive to use it better than individual capitalists?" – Thomas B. Macaulay

"The extraordinary progress of the world since the Middle Ages has not been due to the mere expenditure of human energy, nor even to the flights of human genius, for men had worked hard since the remotest times, and some of them had been of surpassing intellect. No, it has been due to the accumulation of capital. That accumulation permitted labor to be organized economically and on large scale, and thus greatly enhanced its productiveness. It provided the machinery that gradually diminished human drudgery, and liberated the spirit of the worker, who had formerly been almost indistinguishable from a mule." – H. L. Mencken

Then, Bob @ 7:32 reminds me of an observation Frederic Bastiat makes in The Law.
People naturally rebel against injustice of which they perceive themselves victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the self-acclaimed “victims” try somehow to enter into the making of laws.

Greenergy wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:04 PM:This was first posted at 11:54 a.m.
Looks like the weekday blog censor is back, letting Ron submit post after rambling, undocumented post, and after mine is skipped, fawning Issa sycophants and other conservatives get through, but not liberals. Fairness please!
Try again 2:04pm

As usual, Ron at 11:25 a.m. is misrepresenting the views of those he disagrees with. Since this has been brought to his attention numerous times in the past, one can only assume the misrepresentation is intentional.
Note to Ron: Your statement that environmentalists "won't let us build" Desal plants is patently false and Ron knows it.
Some environmentalists do oppose desal, but many (if not most) do not. As with all things, we do want them to be environmentally sound, but we are confident this is feasible.
Once again, I think the real point is that Ron can't argue on the facts, so must distort them to something he can handle.
As for the silly post at 10:18 a.m., it is hilarious to see anti-science extremists like Ron hollering that any scientist who hasn't been bought off by his oil company stocks isn't a real scientists, while he knows more than those who are actually operating according to the protocols of the scientific method.

GFN wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:06 PM:Ola Carol, good point, if they did not know they were illegal.

GFN wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:10 PM:John "GWB" McCain will suffer from the backlash against the Republican party of Borrow and Spend. Even the Republicans will not vote for another fours; they may not vote for Obama but they are going to punish their own party for deceiving them. McCain: 42% at best, even with a record Hispanic vote.

les wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:21 PM:The other day I read the phrase "liberal" media. Do
some people really there is such a thing. Today Barry thinks his grammar school math explains how it's fair for oil executives rake in hundreds of millions of dollars. Are you an oil man Barry.

Ms M wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:04 PM:les
[-] wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:21 PM:...Today Barry thinks his grammar school math explains how it's fair for oil executives rake in hundreds of millions of dollars...Les, could you tell me where you read/heard that statement from Obama. Thanks in advance.

Chris to Bucky wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:06 PM:Isn't it almost time for Oprah? Maybe you should stick with something you know.

Reardon wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:24 PM:Greenenergy: As Hertz says, "Not exactly."

Yes, Radical environmentalists are not uniform in belief, but they are uniform in action. Only the Surfrider Foundation continues the fight against desalinization, after approval by virtually every otherwise Green-oriented commission (even the Coastal Commission, for God’s sake!), but never do the non-participating Greens verbally or legally SUPPORT the desalinization or energy-related building..

The Radical Greens are a cabal who make backroom deals, "You oppose the Powerline, and you over there oppose the desalinization, and you two oppose the nuclear...all of us will quietly provide financial support, and remember, "No Enemies on the Left!"

That way each can say, "we actually support "X" but you know those radicals from(fill in the blank)"

I'll believe otherwise, when the Sierra Club (of which I was once a member) actually files an amicus brief IN FAVOR of ANYTHING, and/or in opposition to ANY radical Greenies!

I am researching now the formal opposition to the building of EVERYTHING, for a future column. Care to contribute any arcane information?

Concerned One wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:52 PM:I apologize. It's not just the libs in Sacramento; it's the stupid repugs too. They had a chance to vote for a water bond last year but then Perada and Hollingsworth locked horns and the bill died on the floor. It would have built a Peripheral Canal around the Delta. But nooooo. Politicos got in the way. Now, we are so far gone with the budget, no one is paying attention. Oh, Arnie is giving the drought lip service, but that's about it. Talk about a ship of fools! Regards, C-1.

Reardon wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:53 PM:Greenenergy: This from the Surfrider Foundation website: "January: Surfrider Sues Coastal Commission over illegial desalination plant approval. Surfrider filed suit against the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for inappropriately granting a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to Poseidon Resources for its proposed Carlsbad desalination facility. The lawsuit alleges the CCC acted prematurely, without fully understanding the environmental impacts of the project or how such impacts would ultimately be mitigated. "

Initially, another Green group, Coastkeepers, filed with the Surfriders, but it is not clear if they are still part of the lawsuit train. Greens Againt (fill in the blank).

Nick wrote on Jun 16, 2008 5:23 PM:2 things wrong with "Les's" post.
First, he finds it hard to believe that the media is actually liberally biased.
The majority of Americans know it to be the truth.
Secondly, he is another one of the clueless whiners when it comes to the price of oil and gas. Only the ignorant blame the oil companies for high oil prices. Do your homework "Les" so you actually know what you are talking about.
When you look at the profits made by oil companies, they pale in comparison to other U.S. businesses and I will break it down for you folks who have a hard time understanding this.

Here are the profits for U.S. businesses in cents profit per dollar of sales.
All Industry--------------------6 cents
Oil & Gas-----------------------8 cents
Food & Beverage-----------------8.3cents
Telecomm Services---------------8.8cents
Software Services---------------10 cents
Diversified Financial Services--13 cents
Banks---------------------------18 cents
Pharmaceuticals & Biotech-------20 cents

Does anyone else notice that Big Oil makes far less than others?
You don't here these Democrats whining about record profits by Microsoft, Chase Manhattan of Big Pharma.
Nope, they want to perpetuate the lie that oil companies must be ripping us off if they are recording record profits.
Shoot, Big Pharma records profits almost 2.5 times that of big oil but you don't hear about it in the news or in the papers do you?
Cheers, Nick.

Nick wrote on Jun 16, 2008 5:28 PM:More on Democrats and Big Pharmacy.

You know, Democrats used to be Big Pharmas worst enemy, but not anymore.
In the year since they took over on Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders have been unable to pass either a bill allowing reimportation of drugs from Canada or a measure requiring negotiation of drug prices under Medicare. Neither is likely to reach the president's desk this year. Lawmakers on both sides of these issues say the primary reason is the influence, now redirected, of the drug lobby.
The drug lobby has also wooed congressional Democrats by plowing millions of dollars into helping with another Democratic goal: expansion of the children's health program. In a detente with its traditional foes, the drug industry joined a group that included AARP and Families USA to buy about $7 million in ads backing the expansion of the program, under which states receive federal money to provide health insurance to families with children.
The Democratic takeover of Congress means "we just have more friends than we used to have," said PhRMA President W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, a former Republican congressman from Louisiana. "We're trying to find more."
All this hype about Democrats not caving to special interests is nothing but hot air!

But Reardon wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:09 PM:Slice and dice the environmentalists any way you like, but you still have to explain how, with Bush in charge and a rubber stamp Congress giving him anything he desires (and then a Congress a few votes short of overriding filibusters and vetoes), the environmentalists and other liberals have been so darn powerful as to warrant the blame for everything that is wrong in America. I can't see how this hogtied group could possibly be responsible for ANYthing that has gone wrong. Or is "liberal" just your name for "the cause of me not getting my druthers", whatever the real cause may be?

Oh Nick wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:27 PM:The great myth of the liberal media never stops. It is based on one piece of actual data: that the majority (large majority, I believe) of reporters are Democrats. Let's see what is on the other side of the ledger. Are the majority of editors Democrats? Publishers? CEOs of the companies that own the companies that own the media? The stockholders? In other words, to believe the media is liberal is to believe that no one but the reporters actually controls what makes it into the papers/on the air. Sorry, that's absurd. I do believe there IS a liberal media, but it ain't the mainstream, that's for sure. There's the Nation, there's FSTV, there's AirAmerica, that's about it. You say "Bill Moyers": he is, of course, a liberal, but studies of his programs have shown that he has had more conservative guests than liberal ones. And every study of the mainstream media during the months before the Iraq invasion displayed an overwhelming majority of the stories were pro-invasion (like more than 90%). But here's the truth of the matter. When conservatives complain about the liberal media, what they really mean is that there should be NO liberal voice on the air. Proof? Whenever there is actually a liberally-biased person, like a Moyers or a KeithO, the conservatives start screaming: we need to have more voices to balance those. If there were 99 voices for the right and one for the left, they would scream that that one on the left needs another one on the right to "balance" it. That's the game: gradual, but steady, strong pressure to make the left's voice tinier and tinier. And they have succeeded, obviously, but are never satisfied as long as ANY liberal voice can be heard. The liberal mainstream media is a pure, unadulterated lie, and the fact that most Americans think it's true doesn't make it so. That only proves that the propaganda strategy has been working. (Remember the percentage of Americans that probably STILL believe that Saddam was linked to 9-11? The percentage that still believe Obama is muslim?)

Greenergy wrote on Jun 16, 2008 6:41 PM:C'mon Reardon at 4:24 and 4:53 p.m., you are starting to sound more like Ron and Chuck after all my liberal friends keep assuring me that you really keep to a higher standard.
Please don't change the subject and argue a different issue than what I said!
I specifically stated that I (as well as many others, including DDWiz whose green credentials are as solid as anyone's) do support desalinization as an important component of resource management. I also made it very clear that it needs to be done, as in all things, in a way that is environmentally friendly. I join DDWiz who has expressed the belief that this can be done and is feasible. But the specific proposal you were referring to had specific environmental problems. They did need to be addressed. I believe they can be. I believe they will be. And I am optimistic that we will see ample water supplies from the ocean, just as I am optimistic that we will see ample energy supplies from the sun and wind. But we do need the watchdogs making sure they don't cut corners or cheat on the safeguards.
And I do understand that there are "environmentalists" who oppose all desal on principle, just as there are "environmental" terrorists who burn down construction projects, thus ensuring that the construction process and its attendant pollution are perpetuated.
I disagree with such extremists and find them counterproductive in the, uhm, extreme.

Apollo wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:31 PM:Re: Nick (5:28 p.m.)
Nick can't keep track of the present, much less history, when he refers to "the year since [Democrats] took over on Capitol Hill."
They are in charge of the House.
They are NOT in charge of the Senate; they do not have a majority.
There are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents in the Senate.
The 2 Independents (Lieberman of CT and Sanders of VT) caucus with the Democrats, so they have a majority for purposes of committee and leadership positions, so they can control the flow of business.
But they do not have a legislative majority, especially since Tim Johnson (D-SD) has been sidelined with serious illness, and since Lieberman votes with the Republicans on Iraq.
Not only that, but Bucky obviously does not understand that you need 60 votes to override a filibuster and 67 votes to override a Presidential veto, so there is nothing close to a legislative majority while a Republican is in the White House.
Please, get your facts straight!

Simple math wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:33 PM:If Obama actually wants to cut the taxes of folks in the middle and raise the taxes of the top couple of percent, then it follows that the top couple of percent will strongly oppose him. But having only a couple of precent is not enought to win McCain even one electoral vote. What're the rich to do? Lie about Obama? Call him a commie? An America-hater? A terrorist? A Muslim? Ya think? Well, they gotta get votes SOMEwhere!

Ms M wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:38 PM:Nick
[-] wrote on Jun 16, 2008 5:28 PM:More on Democrats and Big Pharmacy.

You know, Democrats used to be Big Pharmas worst enemy, but not anymore.
In the year since they took over on Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders have been unable to pass either a bill allowing reimportation of drugs from Canada or a measure requiring negotiation of drug prices under Medicare. Neither is likely to reach the president's desk this year...you know Nick I have to agree with you! But you can bet your last dime that next year a bill will be presented to President Obama!

MarriagesAfter wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:41 PM:Since same-sex marriage opened for business in San Francisco at 5pm, I woner how much overtime pay is being doled out to city government workers to perform the marriages? Do you think they'd stay open for heterosexual marriages after 5pm, no way. There could be a 20.0 earthquake and they'd be running for the door at exactly 5pm

OBAMACAN wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:58 PM:McCain wants to pick up the disaffected female Hillary supporters but, instead, has turned into the gift that keeps on giving. McCain's record on women:
1. McCain opposes women's reproductive choice
2. McCain dismissively laughed off a primary campaign supporter who called Hillary a "BITC**"
3. McCain just today refused to return $300,000 raised by Texas Republican Clayton Williams who, while running against Ann Richards for governor of Texas in 1990, said that women being raped should just, "lie back and enjoy it."
4. According to a new book "The Real McCain" by Cliff Schecter, McCain lost his temper towards his wife during a 1992 campaign stop and went into a tirade when she joked about his thinning hair and said to her, in front of others, "At least I don't plaster on the make up like a trollop, you CU**" (using an obscene reference to female anatomy). Google it. This would be bad enough for a man to say to his wife in private, much less humiliating her abusively in public.
Supporting McCain really shows respect for women, doesn't it?
Betraying Hillary's choice really shows respect for Hillary, doesn't it?

Reardon wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:02 PM:Greenwhatever: Sorry, I won't be pandered to by your “liberal friends” -- can you name a single mass proposal for energy or water that has environmental support? I am working on the catalog of all of the environmental opposition and it cannot be contained in a single column.

I well understand the ploy, "I actually support this project when it can be made environmentally sound!" (In soto voce, "And, whatever you do will NEVER be sufficiently be sufficuently environmentally sound to me.")

If you read the Surfrider Foundation website, they conclude their lawsuit update with "As Yogi Berra might say about the Coastal Commission’s ill-advised conditional permit, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.”

We will keep our members informed as this precedent-setting proposal moves through the maze of permits. As we have said before, we are not opposed to properly designed desalination facilities that employ proven technologies to protect our coast and ocean."

Let me paraphrase – “we will delay, delay, and delay hoping that the project becomes too expensive to complete -- and if that fails we will stand in front of the bulldozers!”

They are against EVERYTHING! They are Anarchists! They oppose water, power, development – all very human activity! Some years ago I fought the incorporation of a community, and a liberal friend of mine bankrolled the support – the support won by 600 votes. Years later I was having lunch at a North County Chinese place when he invited me over to his table.

“You were right, “Reardon” – I have spent years trying to build a fine retirement home, and what I thought was their interest in stopping bad development was actually designed to stop ALL development!”

Too soon old, too late smart! I never saw him again, but I understand he went bankrupt.

I try to warn others.

to Marriages After wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:19 PM:Gosh, aren't you just sick of gays getting all these special rights like after 5 marriages? And wasting all that money? But wait a minute. I wonder how much it will cost us to go through the process of fighting over a state constitutional amendment to officially be able to discriminate against gays...well, now, that's money well spent, isn't it?

Floyd wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:09 PM:So you disagree with the goals of the environmental movement but call yourself an environmentalist? As we've seen previously, even middle-of-the-road environmental organizations such as the Audubon Society have filed suit to prevent the generation of windmill-powered electricity and the Sierra Club is actively opposing solar-generated electricity that would be delivered by the Sunrise Powerlink. At this point, you just can't find an environmental group that isn't actively working towards the destruction of our way of life. If you're an environmentalist, you're part of the problem.

Against it wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:13 PM:I see Reardon's point and frustration about his hated environmentalists. I appreciate that Reardon is angry at them for being against things that he is for. At least Reardon doesn't confuse this with "preventing" those things. Most on the right do this routinely. If someone feels the Iraq invasion is a lousy idea, never mind that Congress rubber stamped it for Bush: these folks say the liberals prevented Bush from going after terrorists. Huh? Lemme get this straight: Bush got what he wanted despite your disapproval. So when Bush's plan turns out to be a turkey, it's your fault. Huh? How many times a day do we hear this refrain about the war, drilling in Alaska, and a hundred other issues? If you don't enthusiastically support my bad idea, but I get to do it anyway, and it turns out to BE a bad idea...your fault!

Greenergy wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:31 PM:Reardon at 8:02 p.m. asks me to name a single mass proposal for energy that I, or environmentalists in general, support.
Gee, Reardon, if you can't find any, you are either not trying or have really poor research skills. Wiz and I and several others on this board have advocated (and availed of) solar credits to incentivize the development and implementation of solar energy, as do several other active bloggers here (every time there is an article on solar energy, testimonials from successful implementations come crawling out of the woodwork, despite all the naysayers).
We also advocate wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and hydrogen fuel cells, although some specific projects were opposed when inappropriate and others were supported but only with the adoption of environmental revisions, and can't imagine how you could miss this. Both Wiz and I support the Carlsbad desal with appropriate feasible modifications.
Wiz and I and most environmentalists supported the California Air Resources Board (CARB) clean car mandate, which proved successful with the technology of ten years ago, even before lithium-ion batteries, but was obstructed by Big Oil interests.
You're problem, Reardon, is that you look at either the extremists who oppose everything, or specific instances of inappropriate proposals, or cases where the project is supported but with modifications, and make blanket generalizations because you are totally incapable of discussion the real merits of actual situations. This is why I lump you in with Ron and Chuck, the only difference being that you have a slightly higher quality to your superficial veneer of sounding intelligent.

Bill One wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:29 AM:I have represented a company in an attepmt to get a permit to opperated at AQMD. Several enviro groups opposed this permit and voiced a list of items that concerned them. We agreed to all the items they wanted corrected and drew up an implementation plan. At the next meeting the enviro groups agreed we had addressed their concerns but had a whole new list of concerens. We addressed and agreed to do them. The third meeting the enviro groups said we had in fact addressed those concerns, but you guessed it, more demands. It is no more than stall tactics. Most of these groups will say they support your project but they will never let it happen. The facts are they have opposed wind generation, hydro-electric, solar, you name it. They will say they are for it, but will road block it every time. So Greenergy, you don't know what you are talking about.

Penna. Girl wrote on Jun 17, 2008 5:51 PM:Speaking of the shopping cart crack down, I visit my granchildren in the Escondido area every Thanksgiving and find it amusing that every Sunday evening, a flatbed truck comes around and picks up the stolen (yes, they are stolen) shopping carts and returns them to Von's or Albertson's. I have always wondered how long the stores would put up with this. The food stores in our Pa. area have a system where you pay a quarter to borrow a cart. When you want your money back, you put it back into the rack outside the store and your quarter is returned via a meter on the rack. It works for us. Of course, most of us drive cars too and don't use the carts for baby carriages.