Floyd wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:11 AM:The best way to revive the economy is to reduce taxes, cut meddlesome regulations and marginal programs, drill for domestic oil, build the desalination facility, construct power plants, expand the size of our roads, and encourage low-density housing. You won't get that from the Democrats. Furthermore, the left-wing extremists will oppose these positive developments by trotting out their ad-hominem arguments in a desperate effort to prove their point.

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:00 AM:The news is reporting that Taliban militants prepare for possible battle outside Kandahar. That means Murtha will be cutting gas supplies for the Army and Marines and will send 100's of military lawyers to make sure than no enemy combatant gets hurt without proper warning

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:09 AM:>>Another reason to vote for Democrats
Lost my job, which was in the housing industry>>> Thats a great reason to vote democratic. You want to reward liberals who attach unrelated legislation to a military bill, when they were warned in advance Bush would not tolerate it. So, Mrs Sewall, you were looking for an excuse, which you have probably doing all of your life. That is the core reason you are voting for a democrat, not because of some bill in Washington. You need a sugar daddy to take care of you. Maybe if your liberal friends who you sold loans to that they couldnt afford didnt walk away from them, you'd be better off

james wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:18 AM:Yes another reason to vote for democrats. You worked for 30 years in the housing industry. Failing to plan and save now lets have the government come in and support you until the market turns back around and you can once again make buckets of money and not save any. Typical dem, forget personal resposibility. Why not just have the government provide everything for us, just like the dems want then we will have no reposibility for our own actions, or lack of, at all.

No defense i think not wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:22 AM:Bilbray did the right thing. This bill would have hurt not helped the military. As a spouse you would not fuly understand that, as a retired military person I do. There are numerous unused educational benifits for military members already. Lets see the existing policies refined a little but lets also see them being used.

hey Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:24 AM:Or, more likely, Bush will withdraw more troops from Afghanistan and divert them to Iraq -- a country that did not attack us and had nothing to do with 9/11. So how is that hunt for Osama Bin Laden going? Remember him? The one who is responsible for the attacks on our country. Oh yeah, according to Bush: "I truly am not that concerned about him." Seven years later, Osama Bin Laden is still free, and we have yet to see justice for September 11th. But thanks for pointing out how Bush's policies have been a complete failure.

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:25 AM:I see that Hussein Obama, (or Osama Obama as Kennedy called him)not only wants to raise income taxes on couples making $60,000, he wants to create a second income tax. He wants to take the limit off the Social Security tax, while not crediting that higher amounts to the SS benefits of that employee. Besides being theft, I dont see where a second income tax can be constitutional. It's the old class warfare issue, where liberals are so jealous and envious of those who make more, that they implore the government to take from those who earn more, instead of doing what they can to earn more. It's just how liberals operate

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:28 AM:>>>Is there any hope for the human race?>>>
I doubt it. All of the couny offices were open late last nite to decorate for all the same sex marriages they will be performing. Can you just imagine them staying until 5:01 pm to set up for a heterosexual wedding?

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:33 AM:>>>By the way, I was supposed to have gotten $1,200 from President Bush's stimulus plan. Instead, we only got $600.>>> You got the amount you were entitled to. You were sent information on how to calculate your rebate. It's not Bush's fault that you cant read or make 1st grade calcualtions

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:43 AM:>>>So how is that hunt for Osama Bin Laden going? Remember him?>>>> I dont know, no one has seen him alive for 7 years, have you?? He's either dead, or living the life of luxury in a cave on the Afghan/Pakistan border.
I've already told Bush how to get him if he's still alive.-- You merely agent orange the entire poppy crop in Aghanistan, then drop bunker busters on Osamas family, wherever they are. The terrorist will have to regroup in Somalia for cash, and then obliterate them when they come out in the open.

GET A LIFE wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:43 AM:Geez Mark, you must live a busy life to be able to sit around counting words in a blog. You are the exact reason why the editors would rather not have bloggers identify themselves.

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:57 AM:I see wholesale prices soared last month and job losses were at a record, and the liberals still say no to drilling and nuclear, because it doesnt benefit them politically. They are looking the American people in the eye and saying "Screw You", and turnabout is fair play when the people say the same to liberals in the voting booth

GIVE HER A BREAK wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:04 AM:Mrs. Sewall's sentiment is shared by many regardless of party affiliation. Whether it's unemployment, the failing economy or the soaring price of gas, things have not been good the last 8 years except of course, for the "priveleged select" like those that continue to bash her for the tough times she's come into.

Ron wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:19 AM:Hey "Reardon" {Jun 16}@8:02 PM: What a great question! "Hey Greenwhatever,
can you name a single mass proposal for energy or water that has environmental support?"
His answer: Greenergy {Jun 16}@9:31 PM:
"I..have advocated.. development and implementation of solar energy,.. We also advocate wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and hydrogen fuel cells,.. I support the Carlsbad desal... with appropriate feasible modifications." blah, blah, blah... blah..blah.... blah, blah, blah.

And there's your answer: "...with appropriate feasible modifications."
Which is "code" for: It'll never meet my expectations.

And then you nail it Reardon:
"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.")
Well done, my friend, well done.

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:33 AM:It's 7:34 am. In a mere 26 minutes, the marriages begin. How cute. Arent you all excited. County officials are arriving at their offices all spiffed up on this special day

Ron wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:47 AM:Man! Where to begin with Kay Stewart today...?
First of all, she complains that SDG&E's power plants in Mexicali would burn natural gas. What would you have them burn, Kay? Besides, have you been to Mexico lately? The city is growing, just as San Diego is growing. Natural gas is the cleanest fuel we can burn to make electricity.
Then she says: "If fossil fuel is required, fire it up in Carlsbad or South Bay and get more electricity."
You know Kay, we would try that, but your friends in the environut wing are preventing us. And does it seem odd that she, a San Diego resident says it's ok to burn fossil fuel in Carlsbad & South Bay? LOL.. NIMBY!
She then says: "SDG&E wants Sunrise because they could bill San Diegans for it the minute they break ground, and would earn $6 billion to $7 billion..."
Whoa, really? They will make money on the deal? Wow! I thought that was the purpose of "business" to make money?
But, here's the false choice she offers, just as we have seen on this webpage:
"Thousands of MW of solar rooftop installations can be bought for $6 billion to $7 billion."
Sure, thousands of solar panels could be bought, Kay... If people sent their own money to buy them. You see, here's what they do. They say we could buy solar panles with this money, this SDG&E money. No, you can't. It's "Their" money. If you want solar you need to spend "Your" money. Clearer now?
Besides, to equal the same power we would get from the PowerLink, we would need to spend $20 billion in just slar panels. Hopefully most of that money would be spent by individuals, and nnot some created government giveaway program. Just what we need, another subsidized welfare program, like the Sprinter, the trolley, or Amtrak.
But, lastly...
I'm wondering if Kay has a solar panel on her house right now? Or is she like so many of these wannabe enviromentalists, who say one thing, yet do another? I'm betting she pays an SDG&E bill. What do you think?

Ron wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:57 AM:"It appears that the employee unions contributed heavily to the campaigns of four (of seven) City Council members. In return, these council members gave the unions everything they wanted."
That just about sums it up, Graham Marrs.
Now, granted. Firemen & police officers do something the rest of us wouldn't want to do. But...
Is it fair to have city employees retire at 90% of their highest year's wage? Cause this is what we are now facing. If you look at every level of government, be it the State, the County, the City, or even some school districts.. they are "tapped out."
And it is due to overly generous retirement packages. It used to be said, that in the public sector you got job security in exchange for lower pay. That is no longer true, in fact. In several studies, it has been shown that public jobs pay better, have more benefits, better retirements, and job security. In short, they have it all.

Broad Stroke wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:16 AM:Yeah Bob, the private sector is always efficient and the public sector is always inefficient. The private sector is the perfect model for the entire world, in every case, for every service, for every sector. Everything else pales in comparison. I never have problems with ineffective or inefficient service whenever I buy from or use private sector services. What a beautiful model indeed...

Greenergy wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:17 AM:Ron at 7:19 a.m. and Reardon yesterday at 8:02 p.m. have it exactly backwards, which is par for the course for them.
They whine about liberals supporting policies (after they deny that very fact) but complain that liberals will never find any specific proposals to be satisfactory, notwithstanding many examples to the contrary.
The real problem is that some of these huge companies, in which Ron has stocks whose obscene profits he is trying to protect, dig in their heels and simply refuse to actually make the changes that would turn their project from losers into win-win benefits for both community and industry. They stubbornly refuse to budge, and then complain that their projects never get approved! Talk about the insanity of doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result.
In the meantime, it is the conservative obstructionists like Ron and Reardon who block incentive programs to encourage implementation of alternative fuels that would have reduced demand (thus price), and lobby successfully to throw out such reforms as higher CAFE standards or the California CARB mandate, thus ensuring exactly the kind of energy crisis they have been warned about for years.
First rule when you're trying to dig your way out of a hole: STOP DIGGING!

Ron wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:33 AM:Here's what you really need to know "No defense i think not" @6:22 AM.
The war in Vietnam officially ended in 1975, by 1976 the Democrats in Congress, after they have successfully defunded South Vietnam, defunded GI Bill/Veteran programs also.
Now, that's the history...
Take a look back, and you will not see one bill, not one piece of legislation by Democrats to bring up the benefits to Veterans at any time, until this year.
And why is that? Because it's an election year, and they have to get past this perception that they hate the military. The perception is real, and it is correct. They do hate the military, unless they can use it as a Glorified Meal on Wheels. And like any welfare program, then they love it.

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:36 AM:>>>Is it fair to have city employees retire at 90% of their highest year's wage?>>> ITS MUCH WORSE THAT THAT. Here is scam that runs rampant in government, police and fire. An employee is contemplating retirement. He is then couseled to hoard all paid absences such as personal, vacation, and sick. Then, that person is suspiciously given a promotion to the next pay grade, and boom- He annopunces his retirement. His final paycheck, which includes his new payrate and all of the unused paid absenses now becomes the base to calculate the pension. 99 times out of 100, the pension is now greater that the pay that was received 2 weeks before. Its a total scam

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:37 AM:Alot of the usuals havent posted yet. I wonder if they are down at the county offices??

Cuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:39 AM:I wonder if Hedgecock has been sworn in to do weddings today, as he usually is on Valentines Day?

Apollo wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:47 AM:Re: Ron (7:19, 7:47, 7:57 and 8:33 a.m. - and still counting for today - PLUS
yesterday 9:07, 9:16, 9:30, 10:18, 10:22, 10:27, 10:44, 11:17, 11:22, 11:25, 11:29, 11:54 a.m. and 12:45 p.m.)
What an ego! Here is a guy who has nothing intelligent to say, has no qualifications or expertise, is consistently caught red-handed making up his own facts and/or misrepresenting his sources, and admits to conflicts of interest in the issues he writes about, such as energy and defense contracting.
And somehow he thinks people here are hanging on his every word and has to write copious volumes of lengthy, frequent diatribes in response to every single thing anyone says in a letter or comment.
He even has the audacity to follow up with comments like, "Hey, I covered that point yesterday," as if anyone took anything he said seriously in the first place, if they even slogged through it.
Guess what, Ron: NOBODY CARES what you have to rant about, and most people simply click the [-] next to your name or tap the "page down" button.
You have nothing to offer but more of the hot air that is contributing to global warming.

Great idea editor wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:55 AM:By all means, let's just have a day devoted to Ron and Chuck, otherwise known as a holiday for the rest of us. Their views are always so wise and new and refreshing that their posts are really all anyone could need. Keep up the good work!

Ron wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:56 AM:I keep thinking about union school bus drivers, Bob Whalen. We used to have private companies provide that service, until CSEA got the bright idea to take over school bus service.
It is cheaper to have a private company run the buses, but... we can't have that, now can we?

Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:02 AM:Well, "Greenergy" at 8:17AM, I have a suggestion. I believe that you need to do two things; 1) use a thesaurus so that you can, 2) expand your vocabulary. When you said "They whine about.....", it bugged, bothered, irked and dismayed me. I have seen too many people use the word "whine", far too many times. How about complain or grump or criticize or kvetch or grumble or snivel or grouse? Why not alternate these words and others in place of "whine? Be creative. Horse hockey, balderdash, mule fritters and cow pies instead of the usual "BS", that sort of thing. Regards, Alf.

Judgment wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:32 AM:Another reason to vote for Obama: from CBS News QUOTE John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, told a crowd of supporters in New Jersey Friday that the Supreme Court’s latest Guantanamo Bay ruling is “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” Why would the normally stoic senator become so hyperbolic about a ruling that, at its essence, strengthens the vitality of the “Great Writ” of habeas corpus - a bedrock constitutional right? There are several reasons. As a political matter, McCain clearly understands that in his quest to enchant the hard-right wing of the Grand Old Party, he must rail upon the Supreme Court whenever it happens to disagree with the Bush Administration on legal aspects of the war on terrorism. [...]The main reason for McCain’s strong language, however, is as personal as political. Following the last Supreme Court ruling on this topic, which also struck down stubborn Administration detainee policies, the Senator (a Vietnam torture victim himself) invested no small amount of his own treasured (and well-earned) historical capital to try to broker a deal on the detainees. And, in late 2006, he did. It’s called the Military Commissions Act. It was a terrible idea from the very beginning, and it was one of two federal statutes undercut by the Justices last Thursday. It’s no wonder the nominee is taking the defeat personally. After first insisting that federal law clearly and unambiguously outlaw “torture,” McCain suddenly caved to White House pressure on the MCA, allowing the Administration to insert into the law a clause that effectively allows (and, indeed, legally buttresses the efforts of) the executive branch to implement torture as a means of interrogation. Without McCain’s pander, there would have been no bad law for the Court to strike down last week. Without McCain’s grandiloquent appeal to Democrats and moderates during that lame-duck session, there quite possibly might have been a better law that just might have passed its constitutional test this term. ENDQUOTE As has been said here many times, if you think that the Bush administration has been two terms of great success, McCain is your guy. He has even been willing to give up his deeply felt and strongly argued opposition to torture to side with Bush desire for unlimited executive power. Maverick? Hardly. Panderer? You got it. Fit to be commander in chief? You must be kidding!

Hunter wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:40 AM:Regarding the lady who lost her job in the housing market and the gentlemen who wrote the rebuttal regarding how she should have saved her money for a time like this...I totally agree that we should not look to the government for more money but instead of putting her down for not saving, maybe encourage and suggest other avenues of employment. I am also in the housing market and if I were to get laid off, there are a number of jobs that I can do with the same skills, sounds like she is majorly depressed...

Ron wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:49 AM:>>>I see wholesale prices soared last month and job losses were at a record, and the liberals still say no to drilling and nuclear, because it doesnt benefit them politically.>>>
Just as "Good news in Iraq, would not be good news for Democrats.

Sorry Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:50 AM:"Chuck
[-] wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:37 AM:
Alot of the usuals havent posted yet. I wonder if they are down at the county offices??" Actually, the more our country begins to move in a better direction than it has been for the last sixty years, the more you, Ron, Reardon and your ilk become irrelevant. Long after Obama is President and peace and prosperity return to America, you will still be here complaining about everything and blaming the Liberals. We won't be hear to listen because we will be moving forward with the rest of the world. Bye-bye to the Selfish, Irresponsible and Rude Extreme Right Conservative Movement. Rest in Peace.

Yikes Julia wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:54 AM:You are scary Julia!!! What is wrong with you? I suggest that you sleep on it before you submit a letter to the Editor your letter is offensive. You should enducate yourself in the realities of their contributions and you will find that "they" have not drained anything from our children's futures, their children our the future. How have "they" drained our pensions? They contribute to Social Security. "They" drive SUVs and keep on having children to control us, and we pay for all these births." What on earth are you talking about!!! Where do you get your information? SUV'S??? Control us by having children??? We pay for theses births, How????? I do agree with one thing you said "they" keep on saying "Yes, we can." Well, guess what? We the American people say, "We agree "Yes we can!!!"

Shut up wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:56 AM:I think Floyd, Ron, Chuck and all the other commentors that daily have tell us what they think, are in reality just a few of the moderators multiple personalities run amok.

Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:01 AM:I saw an interesting thing when We got back from Kaua'i, the NORTH side of Santa Fe Drive under I-5 in Encinitas had an improved sidewalk and "K" rail barriers to keep cars away from pedestrians. The SOUTH side of the strees had the sidewalk closed off at the Scripps Hospital/Vons center traffic signal and the street had been re-marked. Now, if some kid loses control of his vehicle, the only people getting hurt will be in his car. Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:03 AM:Of course, I wouldn't expect people like "Apollo" @8:47 AM to know how to multi-task. It is a very revelant ability in today's job market, and a very necessary skill to be productive.
This is how I am able to make these posts: @ 7:19, 7:47, 7:57 and 8:33 a.m. - and still counting for today - PLUS
yesterday 9:07, 9:16, 9:30, 10:18, 10:22, 10:27, 10:44, 11:17, 11:22, 11:25, 11:29, 11:54 a.m. and 12:45 p.m.

I have my computer pages pulled up, plus the Times page. In-between, and this is where the multi-tasking takes place, I then post. You see, I'm able to not only follow my own work processes, but also.. follow the letter's page, without skipping a beat. Nor do I skip posts, I read everything, unlike my liberal friends, who think skipping over posts is a sign of intelligence. It simply proves to me that my points on this a valid. You have no response, no facts, no data, no evidence, so you can't compete in the market place of ideas. You'd rather live within the bubble, the group think... cause's that's where your comfortable.
Not to mention my day begins way before your's does, and ends way after your's. It's called being driven, and it's what built this country.
Plus, I'm paying the taxes so some of you can get a check. You should be thanking me.

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:14 AM:>>>>I think Floyd, Ron, Chuck and all the other commentors that daily have tell us what they think, are in reality just a few of the moderators multiple personalities run amok>>>>

Yea, me too.

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:16 AM:>>(Alf) Now, if some kid loses control of his vehicle>>> or even some old lady, without teeth, with Starbucks in one hand and a cigarette and cell phone in the other hand .....

Ron wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:26 AM:As always, I think I nailed it earlier with my post: "Ron" @7:47 AM.
But, as my fertile mind is always forward thinking, once again, I do believe I have struck gold!
You know, Kay Stewart is just so prototypically liberal, she, like all, confuse the difference between "Our money" and "Their money." I mean.. within the liberl mindset is this belief that ALL money IS "Their money."
In fact, our current government system works like this, We get OUR'S first, you you as the citizen get whatever is left over, after they get their take.
Kay talks about SDG&E's money as if, it were Our's to decide how to use it.
They have this trouble in separating "their's" from "our's. Or even mine from their's. For that matter.
Which brings me once again to this canard of "Windfall profits" taxes.
It is talked about within these liberal circles as if, that money, that profit were the Oil company's. It's not THE Oil company's money, it's the individual stockholders money, it is owned by American citizens, not by Oil companies. About 40% of that profit is owned by pensions of American workers. they might be 401K's, or IRA's, or some other method, but it is personal, individual citizen money.
If you take this money, you are taking it from individual Americans, not Oil companies. It is yet another false choice made by liberals, and it is bogus.
Second thought... {see? they just keep on coming!}
If alternatives are to be cost competitive at $3.00 per gallon, why all this call for incentives? i.e. tax breaks, cuts, subsidy's?
I'm already on board with not giving any corporation any kind of subsidy, that's corporate welfare.
But, if alternatives are cost competitive at $3 dollars a gallon, why do we need to subsidize them with tax breaks or incentives?
The market is already working, people are driving less, which is a good thing for you global warming people. We're using less fuel, less everything. The energy saving technology is already picking up in sales. Let the market work, and let these alternatives compete naturally within the market structure. Unless, the game really is.. take that money from Big Oil just so I can then give it to my buddies in the Green market. I really think that's the deal. Pushing one off the government teat, so then I can get in there and suckle up. Sounds more like a weird form of merchantilism.

To Alf Please READ wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:43 AM:At 9:02AM, Yet again we see Alf "Whine" uncontrollably, This time over the fact that the world is NOT full of grammar scalars, We all have our unique talents, Not all are writers, But we all have a right to voice our opinions the best we can. Sorry to offend the 80"s (86-90) TV icon. Good Grief!

Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:46 AM:Well, "Chuck" at 10:16AM, I had a guy come to my door who was from the "side of the driver" in that "accident" some time back and he asked me my opinion. He was trying to paint the school district, the city, Caltrans and anyone else that could be thought of as being at fault, EXCEPT the people who were directly involved. That's why I gave him my unedited opinion "with both barrels". Needless to say, he did not get what he wanted from me. Regards, Alf.

Greenergy wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:55 AM:To Alf at 9:02 a.m.
If "too many" people are complaining about "whining" perhaps the best solution would be for bloggers to do less whining.
Like I said before: STOP DIGGING!

Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:59 AM:If you aren't careful, "Chuck", I'll clack my dentures at you! Regards, Alf.

hardtack wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:17 AM:I was a little surprised to read John Terrell’s assertion that “discredit the Bible” was way down to #27 on communism’s honey-do list. That seems inconsistent with education being the #10 plank in the Communist Manifesto – #10 is last, but it’s also 17 ahead of Mr. Terrell’s list.

The central theme of the Bible, looking beyond all the metaphors, similes and parables, is personal salvation, free agency, and individual responsibility – quite the opposite of the statist, collectivist philosophy of communism. Whereas, the Bible is faith based, the Communist Manifesto is force based.

Moreover, how could communism achieve even it’s first step – to confiscate and abolish all private property – with Biblical “law” such as “you shall not covet, and you shall not steal” standing athwart their grand plan.

I would say that “discredit the Bible” should be high, if not first, on any statist/ collectivist’s list if they are serous about advancing their agenda – – with one caveat: Apparently not too many Christians still perceive the Bible (like the Constitution) as a freedom document.

immigrants and SUVs wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:26 AM:You go Julia Godinez. I am also a legal senior with no SUV. And I also hate all those people who keep having children just to control us. History should have ended with you and me, Julia.

Your marriage ok wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:29 AM:I'd like to hear from any heterosexual married people this week to find out if their marriages suffered in any way due to gays being wed. From the propaganda, these homosexual weddings are supposed to destroy marriage as we know it, so please, if this starts to happen to your marriage, it's crucial that we document it. Did your vow to your spouse feel less genuine this week? Did you lose interest in her/his life and well being? Did you stop caring about your kids? Did you get sudden urges to file for divorce? We must be vigilant for the actual destructive effects of gay marriage on our own.

Ms M wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:33 AM:BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A powerful car bomb exploded in a crowded market area of Baghdad on Tuesday, killing 51 people and wounding 75,....Wow it's obvious that the surge is working!

To Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:35 AM:"Alf
[-] wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:02 AM:
Well, "Greenergy" at 8:17AM, I have a suggestion. I believe that you need to do two things; 1) use a thesaurus so that you can, 2) expand your vocabulary. When you said "They whine about.....", it bugged, bothered, irked and dismayed me. I have seen too many people use the word "whine", far too many times. How about complain or grump or criticize or kvetch or grumble or snivel or grouse? Why not alternate these words and others in place of "whine? Be creative. Horse hockey, balderdash, mule fritters and cow pies instead of the usual "BS", that sort of thing. Regards, Alf." To be honest, sometimes you come across as a little "fussy" Alf. I don't personally care for "mule fritters" or "horse hockey" or other cute little references but I don't object if you use them. Point being that you are welcome to use what you consider fresh and entertaining phrases but they really aren't necessary when one is trying to make a point. Just sayin'.

Apollo wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:37 AM:Re: Ron (10:26 a.m.)
Referring to a letter, Ron says, "Kay talks about SDG&E's money as if, it were Our's to decide how to use it."
When government no longer ensures an exclusive forced monopoly, use of eminent domain to secure rights of way and SDG&E does not need special access to environmentally-sensitive public lands under sweetheart terms that no other individual or business could ever obtain, then maybe you might begin to make a case that the public shouldn't have a voice in their operations or profits.

Floyd wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:48 AM:Look, I am NOT a moderator of this blog! It's been suggested in the past, and I like the idea, but haven't been able to get enough references from fellow bloggers to fill out the application! As the full-time blog editor, I would happily review all the postings every other hour on the quarter hour without imposing my biases on the extremist liberal fantasies submitted by the looney left. Fair and balanced, approachable, and non-judgemental -- that's me! So c'mon, who wants to be a reference?

Uh Floyd wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:53 AM:Under Bush taxes for the wealthy have been lowered significantly. Regulations by the government has decreased. I guess the Republicans, like the Democrats, do not want drilling and desalinization (or they would've done it: they had the power to do whatever they wished, remember?). Has the economy flourished under Bush? I know the deficit has. If the wealthy and the corporations took all the added money they were getting under Bush and turned it all into the American economy, logic tells us that the whole economy would benefit. But it's clear that those folks simply haven't done that. The middle class has been stagnant and the size of the lower class has grown. Where is the money that the rich got with added tax cuts and loopholes and deregulation? Floyd? What happened to the trickle down? Only one answer is possible: the rich have not done their job...they took the money and either invested it, or hired workers in other countries, or sat on it while the US economy has fizzled. Blame them. All the liberals did was say "I don't like this" without the power to act on this sentiment. Blaming them is a cop-out.

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:00 PM:>>>BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A powerful car bomb exploded in a crowded market area of Baghdad on Tuesday, killing 51 people and wounding 75,....Wow it's obvious that the surge is working!>>> Notice how the liberal posted the above with a sense of glee of the carnage, and then takes a shot at America. A normal human being would have condemned the filthy Islamic terroists that set off the bomb

Ron wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:00 PM:Should I go through, once again, how the peer-review process works, for our good buddy "Shut up" @9:56 AM?
>>>I think Floyd, Ron, Chuck and all the other commentors that daily have tell us what they think, are in reality just a few of the moderators multiple personalities run amok.>>>
To my knowledge, no such commentator is a blog moderator. Certainly, I am not.
But, as in any peer-review process, certain posts, or viewpoints may see print, while other's do not. It may be that certain moderators apply their own subjective bias upon one point of view, allowing the printing, while other's may disagree and find reasons within the rules to not print them. In scientific circles, it is well known that pet theories are protected by jealous reviewers, moderators, or referees.
This does not surprise me in the lest.
Maybe your violating a rule of the Times within the body of your attempted posts.
And that would be the exact same as being labeled a denier by an elite science journal, like "Science", where they are not currently accepting theories, evidence, or data that conflicts with their already made up viewpoint. Hence, the "debate is over." Maybe, there are other venues where you can publish your thoughts?

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:00 PM:The post from "hardtack" (11:17am) refers to the "Ten Planks" of the Communist Manifesto.
As usual, he is just regurgitating some right wing blather he heard somewhere and has no idea what he is talking about.
There is no such thing as these mythical "Ten Planks."
Do a Google search and find the text of the Communist Manifesto. It is very short, usually described as a "pamphlet."
Some of these oft-cited "planks" do exist in a portion of the document near the middle where there are ten consesuctive paragraphs which contain many more than ten specific items since most of the paragraphs have more than one.
The paragraphs are not called the "Ten Planks."
The word "planks" never even occurs in the document.
The text is not set apart in formatting in any way, nor are the paragraphs even numbered.
They do not even refer to Communism! They refer to suggested interim reforms that are transitional toward making the world more amenable to labor interests.
They include things like public education and ending slavery (which was still practiced in both the U.S. and Great Britain, where Marx/Engels wrote at the time it was written).
Question, "hardtack" - if you oppose slavery and support public education, does that mean you are a Communist?
Please educate yourself before you go parroting the dittoheads of right wing radioland.

yadda yadda wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:01 PM:Apollo[-] wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:47 AM:
Ron loves to cut and paste without giving credit to sources as well. Regan believe in the trickle down theory. Ron uses the dump on you action plan.

the surge wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:04 PM:The increase in troops played a part in the decrease in violence in Baghdad, but only a part. The shiites and sunnis had become segregated into neighborhoods that were more homogeneous, so contact and conflict between the two decreased on its own. The US began paying Sunnis to please not fight, and now over 90,000 of them are on our payroll. Militias chose to cease fire for a while. And we had soldier-cops on every corner. The uprisings in Sadr City and today's bomb blast show that the surge is exactly as effective in quelling violence as the Iraqis choose to allow it to be. But in the larger picture, the whole point of the surge was to allow political progress to be made that could not happen in an insecure environment. This has not happened to any degree. Bush is upping the political ante, pressuring Iraq to, in effect, give up its sovereignty to the US. Bush wants more or less permanent bases (58 of them), the freedom to pursue any military operation without checking with the Iraqi government, and immunity for all American troops and contractors from Iraq law. The Iraqis and even their leadership are absolutely appalled by this "offer". So one could say that politically, we have gone backwards since the surge started. Even more Iraqis want the US out immediately than did before. They see that our aims are now explicitly imperialistic under Bush's desired agreement, as they are. Time to get out ASAP.

Tommy wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:05 PM:If you'd like a say in how SDG&E operates, buy some stock. You can buy one share for less than $60 and that makes you an owner of the company. As an owner, you can call the office of the president and express your desire for more energy from renewable sources (which just happens to be one of their goals right now). If you put a $40,000, 7-kilowatt solar system on your roof it will cost over $5,000 per kilowatt-hour. Spending $2.5 billion to build the Powerlink and a 250-megawatt solar array peaker plant works out to $10 per kilowatt-hour. Obviously, the Powerlink and desert solar station is the better deal.

marriage falling apart wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:05 PM:I woke up this morning and there were gay people being married on my TV. My wife immediately started packing her bags, mumbling something about "Vegas". My son and daughter switched clothes before going to the mall, telling me not to wait up. I think it is happening. HELP!

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:08 PM:Floyd, just leave the board alone. In the end, who cares what the 15 people who post have to say? To me its a source of entertainment. I think the board is fine until it degenerates into "Billy got his post on the board, why isnt mine there", or "Submitted for the 5th time". Those types of posts show a whiney, crybaby type of attitude and it takes the fun away

hardtack wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:11 PM:I feel sorry for Elizabethe Sewall. Now that government has “broken her leg,” economically, she thinks hope lies in the same government giving her a “pair of crutches.” Good luck with that, lady.

Even more sad that her financial situation, is her obvious lack of political/economic acumen. It wouldn’t occur to her that there is a choice besides Democrat or Republican. As Thomas Sowell said recently: “Santa Clause is to children as government is to adults.”

Reardon wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:18 PM:As if to demonstrate the Democrat economic illiterates, the State Legislature of New York passed a bill to allow judges to freeze foreclosures for one year AND LOWER THE INTEREST RATE – and had previously grant judges the power to extend each foreclosure by three more years.

The US House considered such a bill last year, but a group of Blue Dog Democrats rose in anger to scuttle the bill, apparently not yet accustomed to Potomac water

Such a bill will help those currently overextended because of their greed (many overstated their income, admittedly in conjunction with unscrupulous lenders), but at what cost? First, it drives down the value of stock portfolios based on real estate – and thereby drives away future investors, which damages the housing market for decades.

Secondly, it raises ALL future mortgage rates, because a mortgage loan entity must assume the future risk and that risk must be covered with more income. That raises mortgage rates, particularly for first-time Buyers – read “the poor.”

The Democrats love to tinker with markets, but most have no experience with markets and their well-meaning tinkering continues their War on the Poor.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I am a 31-year experience Realtor – but to the best of my knowledge have NEVER had a home in which I was involved on either side go into foreclosure.)

Ron wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:40 PM:Good post, "hardtack" @11:17 AM. Very thoughtful, and enlightening.
The "problem" with the socialist utopia, as preached by liberals, Barack Obama, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, et. all.
Is that at the heart of every man {and woman} is a spiritual hole, that they then try to fill with stuff, material stuff.
Ever notice, that in every one of these socialist paradises are the working class, then there is the ruling class?
All the workers are down in the rice paddies, while the ruling class never gets their hands dirty?
Workers stand in line for bread, and the ruling class has the best bread delivered?
Like all tyrannys, they start on the well off, the so-called "Rich", and further down the road the mask comes off, and you finally see who they really are. They are dictators.
Take a look down at Venezuela now, with Hugo Chavez. Whenever that guy does something to restrict freedom & liberty, what does he say? That's right! He has to do these things to protect the country, the utopia.
In other words, these people over here won't get with the program, won't accept my point of view, so... we need to shut them up. Sound familiar?
And he will also say: We need to take their stuff, so the country, the utopia can progress. Sound familiar?
But, who has the best life in the country, this so-called "utopia?"
That's right! Hugo Chavez. Oh, no... you'll not see him out in the cane fields... that's for the other comrade.
This idea of fairness is dangerous.
And once "fairness" is installed, if you then don't agree it is fair, who will then be able to speak for you? Once they've carted off everyone before you, and you said nothing.

Reardon wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:59 PM:While I hear McCain talk about “Obscene Profits’ of the oil companies (8% -- mostly earned overseas), I wonder what the profit level is of his wife’s beer distributorship, and exactly at what level a profit becomes "obscene?”

Anyone have a clue?

AB wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:07 PM:by Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes (D-Sylmar), would prohibit state agencies and local governments in California from using the federal E-Verify system to determine if their employees are legally eligible for work. This already passed the State Assembly and is in the State Senate (your California Legislature again looking to protect illegal aliens at any cost).

Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:12 PM:Well, "To Alf Please READ" at 10:43AM et al, I shan't be a part of the repetitious repeating redundantly redundant Department of Redundant Redundancies, nor shall I kvetch or belly-ache. I do seem to recall that others have objected, without much comment by the way, to the over-use of "your type", "ilk", "filth", etc. So much for my attempt at humor. Regards, Alf.

Habeas Corpus wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:12 PM:Here's what George Will has to say about habeas corpus QUOTE “No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison,” Will later adds. “Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America’s Constitution, which limits Congress’s power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion.” ENDQUOTE The struggle ton contstrain governments. Sounds like a conservative voice, doesn't it? Bush and McCain think otherwise. They think the executive branch should not be constrained at all, even to the point of overriding habeas corpus. McCain just said that the Supreme Court denying Bush his above-the-law wish was one of the worst decisions the Court ever made. Ever! Another example of how unAmerican Bush's regime has been, and how McCain wants to continue this philosophy. Vote for the America-loving candidate, Obama. Even true conservatives will be doing so. Those who think our Constitution is a wondrous and good thing, anyway.

Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:21 PM:Well, "Your marriage ok" at 11:29AM, my marriage is just fine today. The world has not "gone to hell in a handbasket", the sun still rose in the east and I am confident that it will set in the west, just like yesterday. Regards, Alf.

Ms M wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:31 PM:Chuck
[-] wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:00 PM: Notice how the liberal posted the above with a sense of glee of the carnage, and then takes a shot at America... Chuck, there was no glee whatsoever in this libs statement or a shot at America...just stating the facts. Another suicide bomb tells me the surge is NOT working

To Reardon wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:35 PM:at 12:59, Reardon, Obscene happens when you are getting 8% of 100 zillion barrels of oil, and you try jo justify your case by comparing the other guy who gets 8% of 100 bottles of beer. Or when you are told that gas is a bargen at 5.00 a gallon by telling you that Olive oil is 24.99 a gallon, Or a gallon or vodka is 39.99, so why complain? That's obscene to think we are that foolish, The last time I checked, my car did not run on vodka at 20 some gallons a tank. Make scense!

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:37 PM:>>>Under Bush taxes for the wealthy have been lowered significantly>>> Clinton raised taxes 41% from 28% to 39.6% in the largest tax increase in hisory. Bush reversed about half of the increase to 33.5%, but never indexed the Alternative Minimum Tax leaving an effective rate of about 35%. In addition, high income earners lost most of the business expense deduction, some real estate and mortgage interest deduction, the exemption deduction, the education deduction, and real estate rental loss deduction. So, go run your pathetic class warfare arguement on someone else. Liberals are so jealous and envious of others that make more that they have to implore the government to take from them, just to even up the score a bit. Clinton learned a bitter lesson when he hosed the risk takers, and huge businesses moved offshore where they could spend money on research and development for new products and inventions instead of giving it to Bill Clinton. When you tax capital and risk takers too much, they go somewhere else

Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:39 PM:Well, "Reardon" at 12:59PM, as an example, which is going to get you more money, 8 percent of 100 billion or 20 percent of 10 billion? When the percentage is presented without also presenting total sales, the figures can be, and usually are, manipulated to be misleading. I do not trust statistics most of the time. Regards, Alf.

Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:43 PM:>>>I wonder what the profit level is of his wife’s beer distributorship, and exactly at what level a profit becomes "obscene?”>>> To a liberal, anyone making more than they do is considered obscene, thereby they implore the government to take more from them

Concerned One wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:51 PM:After reading today's editorials and posts, I once again find myself committed to neither Obama nor McCain. I mean really, which is the lesser of two evils? Last time it was a clear case of that, but I'm not sure I made the right decision. Could it have been worse with Gore? So, I'm again urging a write in vote for my dog Rex. It's an honest vote for me, and I can live with that over the next four years. Regards, C-1.

Reardon wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:54 PM:Barack and Michelle Obama believe in school choice – for THEIR children, who attend upscale private schools, but they are so far silent on their support for a small federal initiative that provides for 2,000 other Black children in Washington D.C. to attend private schools. A few Democrats, like Sen, Feinstein, support the program but most are in the pocket of the teacher unions, and will probably end the program sending 2,000 poor Black children back into dreadful D.C. schools.

Here is a chance for the “Candidate of Change” to make a change for the good by allowing 2,000 poor Black children to get a decent education – just like his children -- but in the meanwhile the Liberal War on the Poor Continues.

Chris to Chuck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:54 PM:I see in your post for 12:00 that you accuse someone of being a liberal and having a sense of glee at the carnage in the car bombing. Well, isn't it you and the rest of the conservatives who have been dancing with glee over the carnage the US military has brought to Iraq. Then when it is brought out how the innocent have been slaughtered your attitued is so what. So don't try to tell us that you care about those people killed in this car bombing.

yadda yadda wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:57 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:00 PM: You forgot to use the terms, "your kind" and "your ilk."

To immigrants and SUVs wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:00 PM:I am rather offended by the letter written by Julie Godinez and the comment posted here. I an elderly woman who has a wonderful immigrant woman caring for me. She prepares my meals, helps me shower, does my laundry and takes from to and from my doctor appointments. Yes, I own an SUV to have room for my wheel chair and my walker. You are making it sound as though they have life so easy. Well they don't not with people like you stirring up racist attitudes towards them. Stop it now and think about this not all brown people are illegal immigrants.

Cluck wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:19 PM:I find it iRONic that Chuck would have a moment of truth and admit that he posts here for entertainment; meaning he takes some queer pleasure in denigrating people, making up outlandish lies, is purposely provocative for the sake of being provocative. Typical conservative who has no real moral bearing or convictions. I guess that's what the mean by "personal responsibility? LOL!!!

Focal Point wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:26 PM:ALF: You are a Libertarian. Does this party still agree with Ron Paul that the 120 American foreign military bases should be reduced to zero? This is not a trick question. Really want to know?

Emmy wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:42 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:08 PM: Thanks Chuck. Now we know what to do to reduce your fun and entertainment. Entertainment is not free. This is a capitalistic blog. We should charge Chuck for his entertainment.

Thoughts wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:53 PM:I finally agree with one thing Chuck wrote; he's right, who cares what the regular 5 or 10 people who post have to say anyway. They're not policy makers, so they merely become venters (is that a word). I do have to say however, that Ron's posts are difficult to stomach, mainly for the repeated incorrect use of syntax and grammar. Edit your posts.

ToAlf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:05 PM:At 1:12, Wow, I did not mean to cause your hormones to go hyper. If it was an attempt at humor, Then I apologize, But don't quit your day job!!

John the Baptist wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:18 PM:to hardtack: John Terrell did not assert "..that “discredit the Bible” was way down to #27 on communism’s honey-do list." He was quoting from the source provided by the letter writer he is rebutting. Regards

Apollo wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:19 PM:Re: Reardon (1:54 p.m.)
Reardon fail to understand to relevant points regarding "school choice."
1. Conservatives cannot seem to tell the difference between private school choice you pay for yourself, and choice of private school (without oversight or accountability) paid for by someone else.
2. Reardon does not understand that high-risk public figures are targets and have special security needs. Remember that Chelsea clinton attended PUBLIC schools, up until her daddy became President of the United states.

We insist on no liberals wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:26 PM:I don't get the logic that says that if a person is financially successful, they cannot be "for the poor". That sending their kids to private school somehow makes them hypocrites. It's a ploy. The logic of this says tha