Local wrote on Jul 25, 2008 3:46 AM:What's the matter Tina? Can't find enough controversy locally. It works for your cause if we just decide to let some things slide. We don't need no stinking ethics. Your letter tells us a lot about your view of ethics.

Would anyone including Ron... wrote on Jul 25, 2008 3:57 AM:be willing to bet that, despite what some would argue as fact or fiction, that Obama will not easily cakewalk into the white house?

I've got 20K to wager, and believe it or not I am a McCain supporter, and a conservative Republican voter.

Reality sometimes is hard to take.

I would never ask Chuck this, but Ron, despite how you feel, do you really think McCain will win?

Just wondering

Ron wrote on Jul 25, 2008 4:58 AM:Gary Walker get's right to the heart of the issue today: "Some activists believe Latinosˇshould be exempt from the same DMV laws the rest of us are subject to."

And exempt from immigration laws
And exempt from laws again using fake, stolen, or fraudulent American identity documents
And exempt from out-of-state tuition fees

It is a carving out of special rights for one group, over all others. That is unAmerican.

Ron wrote on Jul 25, 2008 5:09 AM:I see that Tina Jillings is still trying to remain relevant...


"...here in Vista, our Sheriff Deputies have killed some unarmed men while on duty, and they are always exonerated."

Ms. Jillings, when a person runs, keep their hands in their pockets when asked to take them out, or fails to obey a lawful order, what do you expect?
You should try educating those people who listen to you, and help them to learn, what most of us already know.
That when an officer stops you and asks you to do something, you need to comply.
If he/she is wrong, you'll have plenty of time later to go after them, provided they acted improperly. And you'll be alive to pursue it.

Ron wrote on Jul 25, 2008 5:21 AM:Exactly right, Mervyn Hoover Jr.
Most, if not all, of the regulations regarding personal ownership of firearms was built primarily around teh precept that personal gun ownership was tied to being a member of a militia.
The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear now, that that old paradigm simply is not true.

But, at virtually every level of government, laws, statues, and ordinances have been set up following this misguided tenet. It will take decades to dig out from under these misguided laws, all based upon a misinterpretation of this basic Constitutional right. In fact, I would hold it as a natural right, of self-defense.

But, we will have decades of work to do to unravel the impediments to freedom, as defined by the Founders. And it is because those who seek to disarm America, do so because they are the same who would, piece by piece, destroy Constitutional rights.

Ron wrote on Jul 25, 2008 5:47 AM:So, again I'm sitting here answering emails, making some phone calls, reading several newspapers, and of course, Watching CSPAN, and up pops Dennis Kucinich. Still on the impeachment train, and whining about his own leadership not going forward.

I've covered this before, but I think now it validates my previous assumption as to why the Democrat leadership does not want to go forward. I had put my finger on "the why" before, but now it appears I was right in my appraisal.

Here's the bottom line:
You know this thing about being "lied to"? I think if the Democrats went to trial/impeachment, in order to convict they would have to include evidence which would finger too many Democrats. As you know, the vote for the "Authorization of the use of Military Force in Iraq" resolution was passed by 77 Senators, and 296 Congressmen.
And really, can you blame Nancy {Pelosi} from wanting to protect her majority? It has been obvious, to this observer, the only reason she has not allowed the pursuit of impeachment, is that it would naturally implicate too many of her fellow Democrats.

I mean, think about it. If you remember the run up to the vote, all of these amendments to limit the Presidents powers to conduct the war, were voted down, giving Bush every power he required to conduct the war.
The Spratt Amendment:
Required U.N. Security Council authorization for any use of force against Iraq. In the event that the Security Council would not authorize use of force, the President would be required to come back to Congress for a second vote before acting unilaterally.
Defeated 155 - 270.

The Lee Amendment
Urged the President to work through the United Nations to resolve the dispute peacefully.
Defeated 72 - 355.

The Byrd Amendment
Affirmed that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq.
Defeated 14 - 86.

The Levin Amendment
Urged to U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorized U.S. use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution.
Defeated 24 - 75.

The Durbin Amendment
Restricted the use of force authorization to cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat.
Defeated 30 - 70.

For Pelosi & Reid this is not about "doing the right thing", this is about power & survival. It's always been about doing what is best for Democrats, and never about doing the right thing.

Ron wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:09 AM:So, I'm reading along and I see a letter today by Don Snyder. Don mirror's my own sentiments about Al Gore, who I refer to as "The Pope."

Since Gore is obsessed with "carbon footprints" I thought why not go to the guy's website, and check it out? You know? Just so I'm sure, that what I think this is about, is really what it is about.
Anyways....
If you go to climate crisis, it quickly redirects you to native energy where you can buy carbon offsets.
Now, carbon offsets are like going to confession. You admit your a sinner, your told to say 3 "Hail Mary's", and put a dollar in the poor box.
But, in this case, your never told that YOU need to reduce, what you are instructed to do is to buy carbon offset's, and the money is then donated to any number of "green energy" projects. Believe me, I've looked, and not one would deliver any "green energy" to me directly.
So, I guess I can still keep my SUV's, crank up my air conditioner, and live my lifestyle the way I want to, except... that I should pay this sin tax to offset my guilt?

Hey Al, can I get a Mother Gaya prayer cloth with that?

Ron wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:34 AM:Unlike Marcy Young, I am not so concerned about the flip-flopping from politicians. They are politicians, and getting on the right side of polling is second nature to them.
I'm much more concerned about how they respond to facts. Ideology is one thing, but facts on the ground takes the priority, as far as I'm concerned.

Take the Surge, for example. Here we have Barack Obama trying to wiggle out of previous statements, and fudge around his "timeline." He will change his mind, again, and not based on ideology, but on those stubborn little things called facts.

Or consider FISA. First he called this an illegal act, a violation of our Constitution, and then they guy votes for it, of course, with all the apologies. If it's a Constitutional violation, why vote Aye? Especially when you first said you'd fillibuster the bill? It's as I have said, facts on the ground. Democrats know they need this too, and this is simply a "show", to place themselves on the side of protecting the Constitution, while placing Bush/McCain/ and other's on the side of violating rights. The stakes are too high, and they, if elected, do not want a burning city on their watch.
The same could be said about torture. The "Please, please, please Mr. Terrorist" approach will not sit well with Americans if another city burns.
I've said it before, but... which is more immoral? Not waterboarding and perhaps allowing a city to burn killing Americans? Or subjecting one person to a non-lethal form of interrogation?
And the choice is the President's. sacrifice one? Or thousands?

Take oil...
The life's blood of this economy, regardless of what Al Gore says. We will still be using oil for the next couple of decades. Is it a prudent strategy to say "No Drilling", when all of your present infrastructure requires this fuel? And will not be replaced for decades to come?

Like I said, facts on the ground, not ideology, works for me. I think the good Senator will learn, if he has not already learned this. That, in this world, only two things really count.
Our interests, and their interests.
Which comes first?

Ron wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:44 AM:Ode to Big Oil...

Thank you Big Oil for all of the freedoms you have given me.
That time when I first learned to drive a tractor, planting my grandfather's fields, and raising livestock.

That time when the only job that paid enough to support my family was 40 miles away, each and every day you got me to work on time, and got me home safely again.

That time my family took a vacation to the Grand Canyon, Sedona, and Flagstaff.
What a great time we had enjoying our country's landmarks, and the quality of time we spent together, building family unity.

And that time when we all flew to Hawaii, when my kid's surf'd, we learned to snorkel, and hiked around Maui.

And thank you Big Oil for all of the family reunions held in the mid-west. I really don't know how we could have done it, without your help.

And the memories... the memories.
Of Thanksgiving at Grandma's, of Christmas at my folks, and that time at my sister's wedding out of state. I really don't know how all of us could have gathered together to enjoy and wish my sister good luck on her new life.

Yes, these are the wonderful things Big Oil has done for me. Thank you Big Oil, those memories... are priceless.

VOR wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:55 AM:Ron, what you don't explain in your misleading post is that these Amendments were right after 9-11, when public passion was so strong towards any Muslum nation. Bush's approval rating was 75%, especially when the President was misleading us, telling us Iraq was involved. This was a passionate time when Americans thought Iraq had WMD's. Cheney and Rice both said we might be nuked. All lies to feed the conservative frenzy.

Why does Ron have the need to lie and mislead in his posts? Why can't he tell the truth? Well in November, America will tell him just what they think of Republicans and their conservative ideology.

Copy and Paste Ron....

Big Al wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:58 AM:D. Snyder: There is always some know it all who will criticize a somebody. Problem is that the person jumping all over the somebody is a nobody.

VOR wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:11 AM:Isn't that a heart warming post by Ron at 6:44. He doesnt care about America. Just the corporation.

If you really think about it, he could be saying the same thing to tobacco companies and it would go like this.

Thank you tobacco companies for the enjoyment of each puff! Thank you for each pleasure you gave me as it destroyed not only my body but every thing around me.

Thank you for destroying my life.....thank you tobacco.

My point is: Ron's posts are not to protect and make America better. They don't want to help Americans. They are posted to protect his ideology and thats it.

Filthy Fossil Fuels wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:21 AM:NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana, July 24, 2008 (ENS) - Crews are struggling to contain and clean more than 419,000 gallons of fuel oil from an 80 mile closed stretch of the Mississippi River that extends from New Orleans downstream to the Gulf of Mexico.

The oil spilled early Wednesday near downtown New Orleans when the 600-foot Liberian-flagged oil tanker Tintomara collided with an American Commercial Lines barge that was being pushed by a tug, the Mel Oliver.

The Coast Guard has confirmed that none of the tug's crew had the licenses that are required to operate on the river.

Dear Ron wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:53 AM:You forgot to thank us! Our feelings are hurt.

Love,

Rubber
Steel
Glass
Plastic

Big Oil wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:56 AM:You're welcome, Ron. I am happy to have facilitated your great wealth. However, I am going away now so it's time to let the past go, even as you keep your happy memories.

My friend Wind Power and Solar Power would like your support. In the name of all the good I have done for you, please help them out.

Love, Big Oil

Reality wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:01 AM:Ron: Carbon offsets are like killing your spouse, and hiring some poor guy in the Sudan to serve your time!

Must be tough wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:26 AM:McCain supporters, if there are any, must be having a tough time these days. Their opponent is looking like some candidates of old, pre-Bush, pre-Clinton. A candidate that rallies people. A Reagan-type, or a JFK. But the Republicans know they have the trump card. The voting machines. The various ways to tell African-Americans they cannot vote because they are listed as felons, or as resembling felons (i.e., they're black). If I were any of the many civil rights organizations, from the ACLU to the NAACP, I'd call out every member or supporter, or any other sympathetic people who are truly Americans, and monitor every polling station in a swing state. I'd be all over the Republican party with the most watchful eyes. I'd make a big public stink over every impropriety, no matter how small, to let them know that they are being watched carefully. Are the polling staffs in white and black neighborhoods of equal size? If not, I'd yank staff from one and bus them to the other. If there are lists of "felons", I'd be all over them, checking each and every name. I'd have a team of lawyers ready to blow the whistle on anything that smelled even a little. If anyone has an idea to tilt the vote, I'd make sure they worked awfully hard to earn it this time around.

Ron wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:27 AM:>>>Dear Ron
[-] wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:53 AM:You forgot to thank us! Our feelings are hurt.

Love,

Rubber
Steel
Glass
Plastic>>>

You forgot one of my favorites, Big Pharma! Thank you Big Pharma!

Oh Ron wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:28 AM:Ron's opinion about drug addiction: junkies, thank your pusher, thank the Taliban for those potent poppies, thank the cops for accepting those bribes and looking the other way. Every now and then it becomes clear: Ron is an operative for the other side.

liberaljim wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:31 AM:There are only 13 post so far this morning and 7 are from half the tweedledee-tweedledumb show (Ron and Chuck.) Since Chuck hasn't shown up yet, could he be sick having choked on his own bile? Not only does Ron blather on with his usual neo-con litany, he treats us to a paean to oil and a report of his very limited travels and uninteresting personal history. Ron is truly a legend in his own mind. Editor, please let the Ron and Chuck show have their own page and let the adults exchange points of view without these two over the top self important posters distract us from rational discourse.

To Loco I mean Local wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:33 AM:I guess you and I did not read the same letter Tina Jillings did not imply that any officer should get away with committing any crime. On the contrary she is merely pointing out the obvious disparaging treatment one Law Enforcement officer received as compared to other law enforcement officers. Certainly you must admit that Bonnie Dumanis has let many, many, controversial actions of of the Sheriff's Department slide! I think in her letter Ms. Jillings makes it clear that we "do need stinking ethics" I don't know her personally so I am not going to judge her view on ethics nor should you.

Alf wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:34 AM:Although it did not get posted online until this morning, the post from "Karl" at 12:57PM on the 24th is worth going back to read. Mrs. Alf agrees 99 percent and she wouldn't say what the 1 percent was, gotta keep some mystery. BTW, Mrs. Alf and her sister are going to Seaport Village today to celebrate Mrs. Alf's birthday and I'm not saying which.
I'm less than 1 year from that "Club 55".
Regards, Alf.

About Gore and expresidents wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:43 AM:Wake up to the fact that elected office, even the highest elected office in the land, often doesn't confer power over certain situations and issues.

Thankfully, there is life after leaving elected office, just as there is life after leaving corporate employment, and there is great opportunity to use that time to contribute to our society and campaign more openly for necessary changes in our systems.

Wisdom comes with experience and age, and we should welcome the participation and contributions of people who have moved beyond the need to be elected to public office or walk the fine line of their employer’s interests and dictates.

They are free to follow the their conscience and speak openly about the issues which need to be confronted. Their efforts should be welcomed and appreciated.

Role Models second try wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:00 AM:Ahh, exempt from the law. Where would anyone get such ideas? "Lars, look! In America the President can sign a new law and also say that he doesn't have to follow that law!" "Aiee, Maria, look: President Bush shows us that in America, you can ignore a subpoena!" "Ach du lieber, Hans. Did you see that Bush wants Iraq to allow American military forces to be immune from Iraqi law?" "Pierre, regardez! When Dick Cheney has material that Congress demands for an investigation, he can shred it!" "Ahmed, in America, the communications companies are immune from laws that they had already broken!" (In unison:) "Let's pursue the American dream and go to the land of the free!"

Focal Point wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:09 AM:Alf[-] wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:34 AM: Happy Birthday to Mrs. Alf. Regards, Focal Point.

Another perspective Pat wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:11 AM:The Mayor's role is to be a facilitator not a dictator. Mayor Wood should not try and control the flow of comment but to make sure everyone has an opportunity to be heard. Mayor Wood could have let Chavez speak and followed up with any comment he wished to make after Chavez finished. Instead, Mayor Wood chose to throw a child’s tantrum for all to see. I prefer Chavez's leadership over Wood's bully tactics.

The world wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:29 AM:I see that in Europe, people are contributing to the Obama campaign at a rate ten times that of McCain donations. Probably the local yahoos will take this as proof that Obama is a Stalinist or some other such nonsense. Fact is, the world wants the return of the USA that was a true ally. For decades, but especially under W, we've taken on an attitude of "we do what we want because we have the guns, and could care less about anyone else". This strategy has very obviously been a dismal failure. But look how much the world wants us back again as a partner in the promotion of our common values. This alone would be reason to vote for Obama.

Billy Yank wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:33 AM:Those who mock Mr. Ron have no clue.

Tobacco is NOT a necessity, neither are druggies, pushers and the like.

Oil is STILL a need until alternative energy is mainstream. It isn't Mr. Ron's fault, the drivers of SUV's, or a myriad of other oil driven product users, etc.

Jimmy Carter should have done MORE about oil dependency back in the 70's when we had to wait in long gasoline lines. Because of his failure THEN, we suffer NOW.

Good Cop-Bad Cop wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:44 AM:There are so many good cops out there, helping, protecting and educating the community. But just like everything else in life, it's the bad ones that really get the press. Comparing the officer involved shootings in Vista and the idiot that demanded free coffee is such a stretch. Neither has anything to do with the other. I was taught to respect authority...good authority and to question questionable or bad authority. Respect must be earned, not threatened or demanded. This coffee cop put a dark smudge on the good name and good behavior of officers everywhere. Who the "h" "e" double toothpicks did this guy think he was? Is this old Chicago, protection money paid in the form of coffee and demands? Threatening to slow up response time? And what of the citizen who's business and person are threatened by this behavior? His actions, if they are what the news says, are unconscionable! I think we should all offer a genuine thanks to our officers and firefighters and all, be in the form of free coffee, this one's on me or whatever. But NO officer, politician or representative of a public service or institution should demand or even HINT at demanding anything of the kind!

SOLON wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:47 AM:== Where is Chuck ==

Liberal Jim (8:31 AM) Surmised that Chuck is missing in action on these blogs today asking, "could he be sick having choked on his own bile?"

I wonder, too, where Chuck is. Perhaps he is exhausted from yesterday's raising so many times the banner with the good name of Barack HUSSEIN Obama on it yesterday. Chuck started at 6:43 AM yesterday in his first of many references, but his first hoist was a glorious one with not only the good name of Barack HUSSEIN Obama, but also that of Pelosi and Reid.

Chuck realizes that the good name HUSSEIN is of Semetic derivation, and translates both in Hebrew and Arabic as BLESSING. It is a good and honorable name, of course, and is so appropriate for the next president of the united States. Thank you Chuck, for reminding us always of this fact.

Question for Ron wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:48 AM:Speaking of wiggling around facts, did you happen to catch McCain explaining how his "surge" was the cause of the Sunni cease fire in Anbar province, which contributed a great deal to the reduction in violence? Yep, McCain said that was the surge all right. But the problem is, the Anbar events happened a half year before the increased number of troops was begun! When confronted with this inconvenient truth, McCain said that by "surge" he meant a broad counterinsurgency strategy that started long before the increased troops. Yes, he actually said that. So now "surge" has changed its meaning altogether for the good Republican candidate. It seems to mean, "Anything good that happens in Iraq"...and it was all his idea! Good grief...I think the man is just betting the house that Americans are complete idiots! He must be happy to have Ron's vote.

Media Matters wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:01 AM:The Conclusion of Today's Washington Post Editorial:

"...When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that "bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives." Why not on drilling?

Meanwhile, the dispute has snarled progress on spending bills for fear of having drilling amendments attached. Citing "the uncertainty in how the oil and gas drilling issue is currently playing out on the Senate floor," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) called off committee consideration of spending bills on which Republicans were threatening to offer drilling amendments. The result threatens to be the first time since at least 1950 that lawmakers will go home for the August recess without either chamber having passed a single appropriations bill.

If drilling opponents really have the better of this argument, why are they so worried about letting it come to a vote? "

Greenergy wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:30 AM:Aha! No wonder Reality at 8:01 a.m. has such a negative view of carbon offsets! The kind he envisions would be a terrible scam. While I have no doubt that scammers do exist, and should be dealt with accordingly, the "reality" of legitimate carbon offsets is that, although you may use energy in a way that generates CO2, you do something that more than "offsets" what you used. For example, a person might use electricity from the grid at night, but during the day produce electricity from the sun in amounts adequate not only to cover daytime use, but more than make up for the amount used when the sun was not shining. By producing more clean energy than the total amount used, and returning the excess to the grid so others can use it instead of carbon-based sources, the carbon usage has been more than "offset."
Is this really so difficult to understand?
Oh yeah, we have already seen examples of those who were unable to grasp the concept of net versus gross.
Oops!

SOLON wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:34 AM:== SOLON ==

Seeing Senator Obama in Berlin yesterday, speaking to the hundreds of thousands of hopeful well wishers waving American flags was such a thrilling sight, and brought back my own memories of being in Berlin as a US soldier when Kennedy was president. I remember walking around the
Siege Säule (victory column) in the vast Zoo gardens, where Senator Obama spoke yesterday. I still have photos of those visits.

I still have memories of the friendliness always show to us American troops in Germany, and have one very special memory: I was with a couple of German friends and GI buddies in Berlin. We decided to drop into a huge night club filled with people. The music was playing, people were dancing. The moment we darkened the door with our uniforms, a very tall, gorgeous, scantily clad German girl jumped up on the top of the bar and shouted at us “AMERICANS!! GO HOME!!” We were stunned, that is, until she added with glee “GO HOME WITH ME” What a wonderful icebreaker that was. Then she came over to kiss me and my buddies. Yes, that was the feeling for Americans in Berlin in those days. I have HOPE. I have HOPE that the same goodwill will return around the world for America.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:03 AM:The published letter from Kevin Swartz shows the limited "can't do" conservative thinking that explains the mentality of those who obstruct progress.
I suppose if I saw the world through his very limited perspective, I might feel the same way.
He is concerned that standing up to the Big Energy Bullies at SDG&E will jeopardize his "LCD/plasma TVs, multiple refrigerators and PCs, and air conditioning." Hmmm. I have all of those things, and don't plan to give any of them up, but I also understand (from personal experience) that they can be powered from alternative energy sources.
Kevin's problem is that he sees the world through all-or-nothing extremist thinking: either let the power companies have their way or you don't get the electricity. The real answer is to tell the power companies that we are no longer fooled; we understand there are other, better ways that not only get the energy for us, but free us from their monopolistic, centrally-distributed control.

And by the way, appreciation to the person posting yesterday as "Hank" -- some of the best and most factual posts we have ever seen in this forum!

Post 9:44am -- re-post 11:03am

Alf wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:09 AM:Well, "Media Matters" at 10:01AM, the entire idea that any bill can have an amendment attached to it that does not relate to the bill at all is anathema to me.
It is cowardly, underhanded and downright wrong.
If you buy a car and the sales agreement is amended to determine what color socks you are to wear on Tuesdays, that's silly.
If off-shore drilling is to be discussed, let it be on its own bill that is not attached to or amended to or piggy-backed on another, unrelated bill.
Regards, Alf.

Boat wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:13 AM:Billy Yank wrote: "Jimmy Carter should have done MORE about oil dependency back in the 70's when we had to wait in long gasoline lines. Because of his failure THEN, we suffer NOW."

What an odd statement. So, because of the lackluster performance of a president 28 years ago on this issue everyone in between gets a pass? What about Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2?

And, in point of fact, I remember waiting in gas lines when Nixon was president. Shouldn't he get some of the blame, too?

Instead of pointing fingers we should be looking to the future. Use oil in the near term but accept that it is definitely a finite resource.

This is the nation that put men on the moon, invented the microprocessor and has the only Space Shuttle. We are the most innovative people on Earth. Let's have a Manhattan Project type program to get out of this.

Now, go ahead and attack me.

Oh Billy Yank wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:29 AM:Energy is a necessity, just like food. Oil is like McDonalds, and it's killing us. The US should be pouring incentives of every kind to the development of alternate sources of power instead of debating whether to give big oil yet more of our land and money. And, by the way, you undermine your credibility when you pick out Jimmy Carter as the one president who "should've done more". Reagan also should've done more. Both Bushes. Clinton. All should've done more. We liberals have been screaming about over-reliance on fossil fuels for decades. At least Carter tried to push us towards solar. Reagan undid this quickly. Credit where it's due, not just to your favorite scapegoats, please.

Media Matters wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:32 AM:Resubmitted

From The Times (of London)

(Headline) He ventured forth to bring light to the world

(Subhead) The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

Gerard Baker

(Body Copy)And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

(More follows on the Times website)

Chuck wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:35 AM:>>>Seeing Senator Obama in Berlin yesterday, speaking to the hundreds of thousands of hopeful well wishers waving American flags was such a thrilling sight>>>> Yea, just thrilling to see them applaud when Hussein was bashing America

Media Matters wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:35 AM:Alf: I am certain you understand that the only reason for the amendment is that a distinct bill only on drilling CANNOT get past the Pelosi Obstruction Wall.

I therefore assume you support a separate bill on drilling being voted upon?

Chuck wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:41 AM:Any liberal of stalinist can draw a good crowd in Europe. Just pay for a rock concert to draw the drug addicts and perverts, and then promise to bash America in your speech to draw the leftists politicos

Chris to to Chris wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:41 AM:Regarding your comment from yesterday. So you don't like my spelling. So what. You know I am tired of your snipping. You only criticize my blogs but offer nothing in rebuttle. So since you don't have anything constructive to say then I suggest you don't answer my blogs because it is just more sarcasm on your part. As far as my not having the information it is you who has no rebuttle and that is why you can only make sarcastic remarks about my blogs.

GFN wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:43 AM:Tina Jillings, there is a difference between innocent and guilty. Both the "free coffee" officer and the Sheriffs were investigated. One was found guilty; the Sheriffs were exonerated, which means "FREE FROM BLAME". You are using tortured logic to forward your position as activist-the kind of thing Jesse Jackson does-while refusing to honor the facts. The Sheriffs did their job; keeping the community safe from criminals, all of whom had records and were on MULTIPLE drugs. Come on Tina, I love your passion and you desire to help your community, but if you want to be a public figure, you have to show more intellectual capacity than that. I do agree, however, that the "coffee cop" should have been suspended or put on administrative leave; maybe he was a pain and this was a way to get rid of him.

To Billy Yank wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:48 AM:Actually, it was Jimmy Carter who installed solar panels on the White House and Ronald Reagan who removed them. Any other ideas?

Chuck wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:49 AM:The news is now reporting Obama dropped plans to visit wounded U.S. troops in Germany. Gee, what a surprise that is. We know what he thinks of the military

Oh Reardon wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:49 AM:Now here you are, an educated guy, and your ideology even has YOU expressing the idea that if a candidate can speak coherently, he must be otherworldly. Can you imagine if your professors at Annapolis had the oratory abilities of a Bush or a McCain? No, we just like that the guy seems to have a brain that is connected to his mouth, and that his vision of America is of the one many of us grew up with and loved. Before the sore bruised egos from the loss of Vietnam made us so ugly and obsessed with our macho. Not a messiah, just a bright guy who demonstrates the ability to speak to a crowd, to understand a situation, to use judgment. (Chuck, we will wait to see if you can pull in-context quotes from Obama's Berlin speech that were America-bashing. I won't hold my breath. See, Reardon, Chuck is the exemplar of the nasty, dumb America that most of us are pretty sick of, here and abroad. It wouldn't make us panty-waists to actually appeal to allies again, would it? We did ok with allies against Hitler, didn't we?)

Alf wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:50 AM:Well, "Media Matters" at 11:35AM, is that sort of like the Dems caving in to GWB on many matters about Iraq because of the Republican Obstruction Wall would not allow a veto over-ride.
Pelosi is someone who deserves to be voted out come November. It's time to CLEAN THE HOUSE, CLEAN SENATE and CLEAN THE EXECUTIVE, ja?
It's long past time to get rid of partisan garbage and do what is right for the country, what is right for the Constitution, not what is "right" for any given party.
Regards, Alf.

Greenergy wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:51 AM:Billy Yank at 9:33 a.m. demonstrates a bad case of historical (or hysterical) myopia.
Jimmy Carter inherited a rapid escalation of gas prices along with long gas lines that began when Nixon was president.
Despite obstruction from Republicans as well as, sadly, Democrats, Carter did implement a drastic increase in mandates for automotive fuel efficiency standards, began credits for solar energy and even installed solar panels on the White House. These efforts were stalled and reversed by Reagan, who even removed the solar panels which was pointless since the ONLY downside to solar is the upfront cost which had already been expended.
Sure, Carter may not have been exactly one of our most forceful presidents, but to try to blame today's problems on a one-term Democrat when Republicans have dominated the last 40 years shows just how desperate some of the conservatives have become in their search for scapegoats.

And for Media Matters at 11:35 a.m., I do think it would be a good idea to force legislators to openly vote up or down in a direct vote as to whether or not they want to befoul our coastlines instead of looking for real energy solutions.

Sounds reasonable to me wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:52 AM:From Reuters QUOTE U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday Iran should not wait for the next administration to halt its uranium enrichment program. ENDQUOTE Well, hey, according to McCain and his ignorant yahoo thug-followers, I thought Obama was a softy on Iran. Wow. Someone must've been lying about this. Ya think?

Chuck wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:03 PM:Hey, I just read Hussein's speech from Berlin. That guy is good! I've been wrong all along! He reminded me of how America was, and how America was admired, before Bush. Before we were reduced to "sides" that screamed insults at one another. Before we'd say anything, no matter how base or low, to trash our neighbors. Before we came to believe that hatred was nourishing for the soul. Brought a tear to my eye. Obama! I love you, man!

Oh Chuck wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:05 PM:At least Obama voted for the GI bill of rights, for increased medical care, and education, for our vets. McCain, you'll recall, was against this. We know what HE thinks of the military.

Chris to Ron wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:17 PM:Why doesn't McBush ever talk about how he was wrong about the war in Iraq in the first place. First of all the surge is not what it is reported to be. Why doesn't McBush talk about paying the Iraqis to be good. Or Sadr standing down. But the point is that McBush to keep talking about the surge instead of talking about how he voted for the war in the first place is just more smoke and mirrors.

Alf wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:20 PM:Thanks, "Focal Point" at 9:09AM, you just gave me an excuse to sing Happy Birthday to her again. Maybe this time I'll be in tune.
Regards, Alf.

Imagine That wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:32 PM:A Democratic President putting solar panels on the White House and a Republican President yanking them off. We have a Republican Oil Man as President who will give virtually anything to the Oil Companies if he has a chance.

Ms M wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:38 PM:Chuck
[-] wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:49 AM:The news is now reporting Obama dropped plans to visit wounded U.S. troops in Germany. Gee, what a surprise that is. We know what he thinks of the military...Wrong AGAIN - Obama did not drop plans - he was told by THIS administration that he could not go. Something about using the troops in a political way. Chuck he was following orders - now apologize for ANOTHER lie.

Chuck wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:39 PM:I see someone is posting using my name. again. It goes to show how totally devoid of character liberals are. They can't do anything using their own name

Ms M wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:40 PM:To Alf - And a happy b'day to Mrs. Alf - hope her day is special. The big 55 is one on those monumental b'days - look foward to it!

Chuck wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:42 PM:>>>U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday Iran should not wait for the next administration to halt its uranium enrichment program.>> Ahmadinijad is laughing at Obama the same way the Ayatollah laughed at the peanut farmer

Yikes To Billy Yank wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:43 PM:To Billy Yank
[-] wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:48 AM:Actually, it was Jimmy Carter who installed solar panels on the White House and Ronald Reagan who removed them. Any other ideas? Well there you go, "Panel" the White House, U.S. Energy crisis averted. Well Done!

Media Matters wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:45 PM:Ms. M: As the Hertz ad says, "Not exactly."

Obama was told he could go visit the troops, but he could not have media accompany him because he is a candidate & that would be using the military for campaigning.

Without media, which is after all the purpose of the visit, Obama elected not to go.

Chris to Sounds reasonable wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:50 PM:So are you salvating for another war. What right do we have to punish and threaton Iran for enriching uranium? This whole thing is just an example of American bullying. And yet if another country or the U.N. tried to tell the U.S. what to do, then all you Iran haters would be up in arms. I have had enough of America throwing its weight around.

Good Luck wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:55 PM:Ms M
[-] wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:40 PM: Wow what a suprise, We always thought you were Vista Grandma's Older Sister.

Bill One wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:58 PM:To Chuck, I never really noticed that before. It does seem like most of the libs won't use their name on here such as Ms M, Alf, Greenergy, OH....etc....just an observation...

To Chuck wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:06 PM:I realize the fact that the Pentagon asked Obama not to visit the troops in Germany would blow your whole insult so I won't bother pointing that out to you.

Chuck wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:10 PM:The news is reporting that not only is McCain taking credit for the Veteren's Benefits bill that he fought and refused to vote for, but he is now asking for limiting benefits to troops who are wounded in battle only. Gee, what a surprise that is. We know what he thinks of the military.

To Reardon wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:12 PM:I hope the administration is equally adamant about McCain situating himself with all things military, no media allowed. We shall see.

The Real Chuck wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:13 PM:Quit using my name you bunch of sandbags.

To Reardon wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:15 PM:Direct from the Rush Limbaugh website:

"Media Matters
[-] wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:45 PM:
Ms. M: As the Hertz ad says, "Not exactly."

Obama was told he could go visit the troops, but he could not have media accompany him because he is a candidate & that would be using the military for campaigning.

Without media, which is after all the purpose of the visit, Obama elected not to go."

Why do you keep embarrassing yourself by repeating LIES?

Boat wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:19 PM:Mrs. M: "using the troops in a political way"

Well, we all know that Bush would never do that himself. He has been photographed with more troops than Douglas MacArthur.

But, as a veteran, it really burns me up to see Cheney before troops & vets groups. This is the guy who "had better things to do in the 70's than serve in the military."

On a lighter note, I hope that you are right about the 55 milestone. I am going to be putting 54 astern here in about a month.

I agree with GFN wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:20 PM:It is the same tortured logic some use to try to make a case of innocence for Ramos and Compean. Those two men were investigated and tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty. Why do some activists think they should be released? They broke the law. Although it is true that it is the job of law enforcement officers to keep our communities safe from criminals and drug addicts it is also their responsbility not to violate the right to due process of any and all people. How many times is the DA going to buy the "reaching in his waistband" excuse? Oh yes it is vital that Internal Affairs investigates every complaint, but they should have a penalty that fits the crime. I also wonder how an officer can shoot someone and ALWAYS be justified. I wanted to throw in my two cents, I don't know maybe I need more intellectual capacity.

snerd wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:28 PM:Interesting article in Foreign Affairs this month. The jist of it is that when the Sunnis in Anbar saw that the Democrats won in the '06 elections they were convinced that we would actually leave Iraq rather than be perpetual occupiers as they believed Bush would. According to the Army on the ground in Anbar, that is when they began to come around to our side. I guess our elections have more influence than we may have guessed. Now that the government in Iraq agrees with Obama's time-line for withdrawal it seems that the Democrats will end the fiasco that Bush and the neo-cons started.

Chuck is evidence wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:29 PM:For people like Chuck, the idea of Ahmidinejab laughing at an American cuts so deep, is so unacceptable and threatening and humiliating, that they would gladly unloose an arsenal of nuclear weapons on the population of Iran to wipe that smile off his face. This is exactly what the US foreign policy has given in to, delivering death to civilians for little reason other than the bruised, emasculated egos of our most insecure citizens. Uh, in my book, that's called barbarism. McCain says stay the course, screaming "We will never surrender!!", even though he seems to be unsure about who we are fighting or what the aim of the thing is. He is speaking to the Chucks: "I will salvage your egos! I will make you feel like men!" For the Chucks, that's all it takes to win their votes. Is this really what we want driving the foreign policy of the once-admired USA?

Media Matters wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:38 PM:To To: The restriction only applies to wounded -- you will recall all of the smiling faces in camo this week with Obama.

Oh Bill One wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:40 PM:I hate to tell you, but "Chuck", "Ron" and "Bill One" are not really names that are identifiable in the world. "Oh" is a "name" as much as the others. You see, this is an anonymous virtual "space". Some of us like the discussions to be about ideas, not personalities. What's up with your needing to be able to pretend it's actually individual people? (And BTW, Chuck's theory about names and political ideology doesn't really hold water anyhow. The person who once was Reardon uses all kinds of names. Asteroid is no more a name than "Oh". And on the left we have Chris and DDWiz, both of whom have actually outed their true-world names and selves. Sorry, but dagnabit, you guys are wrong again!)

to snerd wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:46 PM:Your Foreign Affairs citation makes sense. The Iraqis want us out of their country. The polls say about 75% of them feel this way, and the number has been this high for a long time. So they will change their strategy depending on who is in charge in DC. If Bush is seen as someone with imperialistic permanent-occupier intentions (which is accurate), I'd certainly be basing strategy on the anticipated exit of this terrible barbarian. My guess is that when our guys are actually filing out of country and our bases are closing up, that's when we'll really see those parades and flowers Bush and McCain expected years ago. For the Iraqis, our leaving will be their liberation, and the path out will be strewn with flowers.

Chuck wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:00 PM:So we can add veterans, especially injured ones, to the list of groups that McCain seems to hate. Others include all women's groups, including conservative ones, and environmental groups (where he also takes credit, but doesn't actually vote). And let's not forget that the right wing talking heads like Rush and Coulter nearly vomit at the sound of his name. So who actually likes this guy? Oh, yeah! Sdraoul!

Focal Point wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:01 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:42 PM: Laughing the same way at Bush for the last two terms.

Focal Point wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:05 PM:Alf[-] wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:50 AM: You keep taling like that, Alf and before you know it we will be a write in candidate.
Regards, Focal Point

Oh Yeay wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:07 PM:Media Matters[-] wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:32 AM: One of the bloggers yesterday stated that before you know it, the conservos will be calling Obama, the anti Christ. Well, here it is.

Media Matters wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:07 PM:John McCain has been forced to play the pip-squeak all week. The candidate has been trying to get one word in edgewise while Barack Obama has been swarmed by adoring officials and supporters overseas. Even when the McCain camp tried to drum up media criticism around Obama canceling a visit to US troops in Germany, they were silenced and made to look like the ones who had gaffed. They criticized Obama for canceling the trip, only to be told later that it was in fact a long-standing Pentagon policy that had forced the cancellation.

LiberalsGoneWild wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:08 PM:Schwarzenegger just signed law banning trans fats from restaurants. Is there anyone in Sacramemto that isnt a flaming liberal. Ahnuld said he was a Republican. He's more of a liberal than Grey Davis ever was, and slightly less so than Hussein and his minion of Husseiniacs

Chuck wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:09 PM:Yes, Reardon, that is exactly what I said. "Those who are wounded in battle." This is what you expect from public education and SB777.

Oh Please wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:11 PM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:39 PM:Neither can you.

Poppy wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:13 PM:Almost each hour the G.O.P. candidate for president is exponentially increasing the characteristcs which are beginning to define him. Buffoon, fool, joker, out of touch, and crybabyism. This man is becoming more laughable and stooge-like with each passing day..

Ole John wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:15 PM:The Surge it worked. Listen Up. All you reporters get over and listen to me. Listen to me. Please listen to me. Hey, I'll buy you lunch. The Surge worked because I said it would work. Want mustard on that dog?

This Just In wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:16 PM:NEW YORK - July 25, 2008 - In an NBC News exclusive, "NBC Nightly News" anchor and managing editor Brian Williams will sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from Tehran, Iran. The interview will air on Monday, July 28 on "NBC Nightly News." Excerpts from the interview will also air Monday on "Today," MSNBC, and msnbc.com.

Williams will also broadcast "NBC Nightly News" live from Tehran on Monday evening.

Media Matters wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:16 PM:Third submission

There is a famous Columbia University professor, pioneer Geoscientist in Global Warming (Walter Broecker) who, with his team has developed a CO2 Scrubber. In its current form (privately funded by a billionaire American clothier), it can remove a ton of CO2 a day.

“Wally” is Newberry Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. (B.S. Physics, Ph.D Geology)

To those concerned about Global Warming , “Wally” is on your side and he wants to stop Global Warming. Unfortunately, radical environmentalists like Greenpeace, oppose his research on devices that will take CO2 out of the atmosphere – BECAUSE IT WILL PROLONG THE USE OF FOSSILE FUELS!

Mind you, “Wally” is trying to save the Earth from the ravages of Global Warming, and his only opposition is on the left! “"If you can't stop more and more C02 being pumped into the atmosphere then we need a safety net capable of solving the whole problem."

"A lot of people have unrealistic attitudes," he says. "If we put all these alternatives together, they say, we will have a solution. Maybe they are right. But what you see now is China and India adding a whole new element. Suddenly they are using energy like gangbusters, and a lot of it is coal. Too many people look at the rich nations and think we have to cut down, and of course we do, but boy, that's not going to solve the problem."

"When Greenpeace says we shouldn't capture and bury CO2 because it encourages the use of coal, I say it's not that we are encouraging it. Desperate people who want energy are going to use the coal they have and there's no way in hell that we are going to stop them." But he stresses he doesn't see CO2 capture as a substitute for the search for an alternative source of energy. "If we found the magic bullet to make energy another way we would put this new technology on the shelf. But I happen to think it would take a miracle to find an alternative form of energy in time."

(Quotes taken from an interview in the Guardian May 24 2008)

Focal Point wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:20 PM:snerd[-] wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:28 PM: You are using Foreign Affairs as a source. The bloggers should know that it is an excellent publication featuring the opinions,OPINIONS, of various authors on numerous subjects. The only people who know what the Sunni Iraqis were thinking and planning are the Sunni Iraqis.

Bill wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:21 PM:Does anyone have any real evidence that we have targeted civilians?

I dont mean bombing a target only to find the enemy has placed innocent civilians in harms way.

Its time for some in here to provide evidence of their fast and loose claims of American attrocities such as these.

No more free passes.

Proof please?

Bill wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:23 PM:I also wan't to see proof that Al Gore got smarter since leaving office.

You mesan there may be improvements coming to the internet?

TOO OLDzh wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:24 PM:The latest is now John McCain is stating that the withdrawal of our forces from Iraq prior to the Surge would have resulted in the entire Middle East going to war. That is absolute loony tunes.What is even more deplorable is that John McCain is now just mouthing the allegations and assertions given to him by Steve Smith, his new campaign manager. Think he had something to do with the swift boaters as well. John is too darned old.

Policia wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:58 PM:Good Cop-Bad Cop[-] wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:44 AM: You are right. It just starts with free coffee. A copy with a gun, badge and gimme attitude will do you no good in the long run.

Alf wrote on Jul 25, 2008 3:05 PM:Thanks, "Ms M" at 12:40PM, I'll try not to sing out of tune to her. "Club 55", getting smaller size (proper size) servings at a reduced price. There are some advantages to getting older, but don't tell my back, it hates me.
Regards, Alf.

Oh Bill wrote on Jul 25, 2008 3:24 PM:Did we TARGET civilians is hardly an important matter. I tend to believe we tried as hard as possible NOT to kill civilians, knowing that the political cost would be enormous. Nevertheless, when you shock and awe a capitol city of over a million population, even if you "target" only strategic buildings, you know perfectly well that one heck of a lot of civilians die. It's an infantile excuse to say, "Oh, sorry Mrs Jones, but we didn't MEAN to break your window when we played baseball in your yard." "Oh, sorry, officer, I didn't MEAN to hit that pedestrian when I drove drunk." We knew with 100% certainty that many civilians would be killed when we bombed Baghdad (among other ops). We did it anyway. Was it our INTENTION to kill them? Depends what you mean by INTENTION. Look, Bill: war is just about the most violent, most destructive things human beings can do to one another. That's a given. Once the violence is unleashed, the terrible consequences ensue. That's why you don't start a way unless it's absolutely necessary and in self defense. Moral scholars have talked about this for centuries, trying to get a handle on when, if ever, something as horrible as war is justified. To sum up their conclusions for you: Iraq was not it. Other than the Southern Baptists (big surprise) not a single official reli