To David Bouck wrote on Aug 23, 2008 4:08 AM:OK, but what do you propose to do with homosexuals? They exist. Sometimes punishing them punishes the rest of us. What do you propose to do with those who don't fit into 'societal norms?' Seriously, what is your plan???

Alf wrote on Aug 23, 2008 5:22 AM:I like the letter from Charline Lacoe.
I, too, as a customer, find the thermostats at many restaurants seem to be set too low.
BUT, have you ever noticed that a comfortable temperature while sitting, doing virtually nothing becomes uncomfortably warm if you are moving around and/or working?
I have.
Sitting in my recliner and watching TV or sitting, eating at the kitchen table at 73 is just right, vacuuming the carpet or mopping the kitchen floor at 73 can cause me to sweat.
Just an observation from one who notices these things.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Aug 23, 2008 5:39 AM:The letter from David Bouck prompts me to point out that -
the U.S.A. is a democratic republic,
the U.S.A. is not a theocracy,
we are not a Christian nation,
we are a nation that has many Christians,
the "will of the people" can not supersede the U.S. Constitution unless the People Amend it AND
the U.S. Constitution does, in fact, supersede the California, i.e., if part of the California Constitution violates any part of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Constitution takes precedence.
The Bible is not the U.S. Constitution.
Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Aug 23, 2008 5:56 AM:Well Daniel Klembara, Nobama is a "dangerous dude' also.

Campaign for Liberty

Al wrote on Aug 23, 2008 7:41 AM:Charger Games
Can.t the sprinter go there? ho it just servers a chosen few. and cuts service for the ones who need it.

Pushing the Envelope wrote on Aug 23, 2008 7:47 AM:David Bouck is stretching the bounds of honesty to make his argument against equality for homosexuals. First, he pretends that Jesus said every word in the Bible, so no need to focus on his life or teachings. Second, he uses the old tactic of implying that allowing gay marriage will lead to other things. It's ironic that the only other thing he mentions is polygamy. The Mormon church has come out against gay marriage, but polygamy was a central tenant of Mormonism until they were forced by civil authorities to give it up in the early 20th Century. Many Mormons still abide by scripture in that regard. Also notice that today's paper (A-21) has an article about Mormons who support equality for gays and lesbians. How many Mormons and Catholics will have the courage to think for themselves and disagree with "the church"?

Poppy wrote on Aug 23, 2008 8:10 AM:A societal norm specifically means what is considered normal for a society at any given time. It is not something that never changes. What is considered normal changes as we increase in education and enlightenment. The current societal norm is moving towards accepting homosexuality. No clinging to the old ways, time to move forward.

Three D wrote on Aug 23, 2008 8:14 AM:David Bouck's letter slanders the greatness of Jesus when he accuses him of being the author (ghost writer?) of the entire Bible, including its many internal contradictions, factual errors, failed prophecies and endorsements of cruelty and violence. In fact, the Bible was written by scores of individual writers over a period of several thousand years.
In fact, both the Old and New Testaments start right out with direct contradictions. Genesis chapter 1 contradicts chapter 2 on the order of creation, and Matthew opens up with a genealogy of Jesus that is completely inconsistent with the one in Luke. Both explicitly state they are the genealogy of Jesus through his "presumed" father Joseph, yet between Joseph and Solomon there is not a single name that is the same, and not even the same number of generations.
The biggest contradiction of all is between this Jesus whom Bouck blames for all the evil in the Bible, who taught a simple message of salvation through the transformative nature of universal compassionate love for all people - friends, strangers, even enemies and the "least of these" - and the renegade "apostle" Paul, who wrote fully 1/3 of the New Testament, and taught that all you have to do to be saved is to believe in Jesus but not actually follow anything he reportedly taught (Jesus himself never wrote anything). Following Paul's abominable heresy, Jesus' brother James wrote a scathing rebuttal in defense of what Jesus taught.
But one important question must be asked of Bouck: how much do YOU really believe of what your precious Bible teaches? Seven chapters before Leviticus uses the word "abominable" to describe same-sex relationships, it uses the same word in chapter 11 to condemn the eating of pork or shrimp. Does Bouck adhere to Mosaic dietary laws? The ritual cleansing of post-menstrual women?
Bouck presents the absurd threat that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy, though there is no link between discrimination based on gender, which is unconstitutional, and number, which is not. But Bouck's comment proves he rejects his own Bible, which in Deut 21:15-17 explicitly permits polygamy. There are many other such references in the Bible that I have posted before and will be happy to repeat upon request. The Bible defines "traditional marriage" as one man with multiple underage prepubescent females from the same ethnic tribe, in arranged marriages, maintaining "dominion" over these wives the same as his herds, flocks and other livestock.
Based on his adherence to Leviticus, does Bouck seek to pass a Constitutional Amendment preserving the sanctity of "traditional dietary laws" by outlawing the "abomination" of pork and shrimp, and allow polygamous "marriages" with underage girls? And those who mock and denounce the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) merely show how far they have strayed from Bible-based "traditional marriage."
Blessings,
3D

Chuck wrote on Aug 23, 2008 8:33 AM:Todays Survey (check those that apply)

[ ] I checked my tire pressure and
I'm Hussein compliant.

[ ] McCains house and rentals are excessive, but Hussiens shady real estate deals with Ayers and Resco are perfectly normal

[ ] I cant wait for the grade school kiddies to bring home their SB777
gender selection form, already signed, not requiring parent aproval.

[ ] Hussein will wave his staff, the Patomac will part and Joe Biden will join Hussein on the ticket, as the women faint in droves

Chuck wrote on Aug 23, 2008 8:44 AM:>>>The IPCC report states: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,>>> Good for them. Why don't include in their edict that it is the same weather cycle that has produced warming and cooling for a million years, but this one is for those who want to benefit in the worlds biggerst money grub. Just lok at Gore and his cronies and see what they've sifted off the top, not to mention his enormous trading gains in the grain commodity price explosion.

Chuck wrote on Aug 23, 2008 8:47 AM:>>>Can.t the sprinter go there?>>> I think it does, or maybe its a combination of the Sprinter and transfer to the trolley. (of which around 50% buy their trolley ticket)

Chuck wrote on Aug 23, 2008 8:51 AM:>>>The current societal norm is moving towards accepting homosexuality. No clinging to the old ways, time to move forward>>> I think most people accept it, but object highly to their attempts to bring others into their fold, behind the backs of the parents, just like Planned Abortionhood has been able to do in the schools

Ron wrote on Aug 23, 2008 8:58 AM:I think I figuired out why "Apollo"
{Aug 22} @2:58 PM believes the Arthur Andersen/Clinton book keeping was just nifty, and it is a prime example of "Don't Let This Happen To You."

To sumarize:
Year 1: Income $200,000 - Expenses $150,000 - Surplus of $50,000
Buy new house for $500,000.
Now this first year is cool, if you consider that of your $150K in expenses, $32,209.32 = $2,684.11 per month x 12 months is your house payment.
For house # 1.

Now in year two (2), you state the same income & expenses, which is fine, but you also state you still have a budget surplus of $50K, which is impossible.
Year 2: Income is same @ $200,000, but how could your expenses remain the same, if you added another house payment of $32,209.32 annually? Actually your new Expenses should read
$150,000 + $32,209.32 {for the 2nd house} = $182,209.32 total expenses.
Budget Surplus would lower by $32,209.32, $50,000-$32,209.32 = $17,790.68 budget surplus going into third home.

By year 3, your far out of balance, I don't know any bank that would loan you the money, unless you are Chris Dodd with a speed dial to the Country-wide exec.

Year 3: Same Income $200,000 - Previous years Expenses are now $182,209.32, not $150,000. With previous year budget Surplus of $17,790.68, not $50,000.
And then you add another mortgage of $32,209.32 annually, which wipes out your surplus, and causes your expenses to rise to: $214,418.64
Or, a deficit of -$14,418.64

By year three (3), with three (3) home mortgages to pay, your expenses would climb over your total income, causing a deficit situation.

If Country-Wide did allow you to borrow against the asset's in your first house, the equity would be so low, you would be in sub-prime territory by the 3rd house, and your finance rate would not be 5%.
Also, considering that you earned income comes from a job, and is not obligated income, such as Social Security income, which is like borrowing from your 1st house, or a credit card.
I hope this helps.

Women wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:12 AM:Yes, I am fainting in droves. When I heard the news I actually cried. Joe Biden will help Obama put the neocons away and we'll finally take our country back. Today is a good day for America.

Alf wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:15 AM:Well, "Chuck" at 8:33 AM,
[X] I checked my tire pressure and
I'm Hussein compliant.

[X] I went to my Saturday morning Attitude Adjustment Meeting in Leucadia.

[X] I am going to Home Despot (intentional) to get parts to help a FOMA (Friend Of Mrs. Alf) put up shade canvas at her new flower shop.

[X] I recharged both batteries for my cordless to help the same FOMA.

{X] I was up and dressed at 2:59AM this morning.
Regards, Alf.

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:17 AM:The published letters from Paul Thomas and Charline Lacoe (which appear back to back in the published home delivery edition) show an interesting juxtaposition.
On one hand we have the myopic Mr. Thomas warning that those who don't support drilling in environmentally-sensitive areas (he doesn't say why he doesn't demand that non-sensitive areas already approved shouldn't go first, coupled with the proviso that they go to domestic and not international consumption) "like paying outrageous prices for gas." How about paying NO prices for gas? Instead of spending billions of dollars to drill for oil that we may see in ten years, why not apply that investment to alternative sources that don't use any oil at all?
Then we have Ms. Lacoe scolding businesses for having their air conditioners running and using too much electricity. Well, I will agree that using electricity produced from non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS is not a good idea but, again, we need progressive, forward-looking thinking outside the box. I leaven my air conditioning on as much as I want to. But then mine is powered by solar photovoltaic panels. Last year we had to be very careful and still had $400 electric bills during the summer months. This year we run the AC as much as we want and have not had a penny of electric charges.
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Ron wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:22 AM:It seems as though the time as come again to explain the peer-review process, in light of "TFB" {Aug 22}
@4:15 PM post.

QUOTE: "Editor: there is nothing wrong with this post! Or does Ron's fragile male ego need to be protected?
Third attempt" END Quote

Couple of things...
First, have you notice, as I have noticed..? That is is only the leftists, the liberal's, the socialists who complain openly to the editor about not getting posted? Or unfair blog monitoring? Restricting certain posters, while allowing unlimited posting access to certain poster's they just happen to disagree with?
I know.. I have.
I never complain if one, two, or more of my posts never see the light of day.
In fact, many times my liberal buddies will comment as to my silence on a particular issue or question they posted, I have answered those, but my responding post never saw the light of day. My post, for whatever reason, was not posted. Could be the gatekeeping monitor disagreed with it, could be they have other obligations in their job, could be a computer malfunction, could be a person malfunction, i.e. deleting posts by mistake. I'll call it pilot error. Whatever...

My point being, this particular site is manned by "independent" reviewers. These gate keepers are supposed to make sure our posting does not violate the policies of the paper, as "comment policies."

But, going back to "TFB"'s post, he/she definately feels as though the gate keeper is working against him/her, and is favoring me? Several other persons have stated the same complaint, including my good buddy "Wizzer."

I've tried to explain, that on any given day, the English language being not exactly the most exacting language, causing situations, depending upon the gatekeeper/reviewer/monitor/moderator..
to.. shall we say... to use a little personal discretion when applying states comment policies, to certain posters? Just one man's opinion.

Ron wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:25 AM:[X] I checked my tire pressure and
I'm Hussein compliant.

[ ] McCains house and rentals are excessive, but Hussiens shady real estate deals with Ayers and Resco are perfectly normal

[ ] I cant wait for the grade school kiddies to bring home their SB777
gender selection form, already signed, not requiring parent aproval.

[ ] Hussein will wave his staff, the Patomac will part and Joe Biden will join Hussein on the ticket, as the women faint in droves

CAN WE DRILL NOW??!

QED wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:26 AM:The selection of Joe Biden is interesting. Hillary was the most qualified, but she would bring Bill as baggage.

Biden is terribly flawed where Hillary is far less flawed in terms of plagiarism and loose lips. Biden once said to a reporter who asked about his law school and his grades, " I think I have a much higher IQ than you do."

I suspect that is correct, but impolitic to say the least. The most dangerous place in Washington is to stand between Biden and a TV camera, so Obama will spend an inordinate amount of time on Biden damage control.

Biden brings real foreign policy knowledge and that is a plus, but at what cost?

Alf wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:26 AM:Well, "Chuck" at 8:51AM,
I have never met a "gay" (homosexual) who tried to "convert" me to anything.
By being kind and caring individuals and, upon occasion, friends, those I have met provide me with the inspiration to shed any my bigotry I had.
I have had "Bible-thumpers" of several varieties make the 300 foot trek up my driveway only to find that I'll take up their time showing them all 45 or 46 species of trees on our place in great detail and then tell them that my religious beliefs are not subject for discussion.
Regards, Alf.

QED wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:32 AM:DD: There is no one quite so sober, or quite so intolerable as a reformed drunk.

Apollo wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:35 AM:Re: Ron (8:58 a.m.)
Ron again effectively concedes defeat on the budget issue, since he again changes the subject and makes up his own variation of my example to respond to. In my example, I cited "expenses." I didn't break them down. If the increased expenses for the new houses were offset by reductions of other expenses, my example still holds. It was a hypothetical. I'm not going to over-analyze it.
The bottom line is that everyone else does seem to understand the difference between budget figures based on actual payoff balance owed, and debt figures based on the gross face value (total of payments) of the obligation.
Sorry, Ron, it is not my job to make up for the sad deficiency in your education.

P.S.: Ron at 9:22 a.m. notes that only liberals complain about delayed processing of blogs.
If only liberal blogs are being held up, then maybe they have a point?
In fairness, though, I've seen Nick make the same complaint and I wouldn't classify him as a liberal.
I'm not really sure why some bloggers seem to be treated with favoritism and others not.

DD Wiz wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:38 AM:The post from "QED" (9:32am) addresses a comment to me that: "There is no one quite so sober, or quite so intolerable as a reformed drunk."
Trust me, Q, if you want to change the subject to drinking, don't worry, I'm not even close to reformed.
Cheers!
Peace (and sunshine) to all, DD Wiz

Alf wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:38 AM:Well, "Karl" at 5:56AM,
any candidate who even so much as hints that they want to or might "stay the course" set by GWB has moved themselves of from my "Possible but Improbable" list to my "Impossible, as in NO WAY in hell would I vote for this person" list.
Regards, Alf.

TheWolf wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:38 AM:The letter from Zoltan Lucas today is a typical example of disjointed thinking on the part of progressives. First, how is it progressive to kill innocent lives? Second, having sex is the self-centered act and then destroying the result is pure narcissicism. Third, why was it that 9 men decided abortion was OK and why is it that men are more in support of abortion than women-simply because they can avoid responsibility. Last, if we could ask the babies aborted, do you think any of them would say they were glad that they had never been born?

Ron wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:43 AM:Not to worry, Charline Lacoe...
The California Energy Commission, and member Arthur Rosenfeld are already "on the job."

I predict, that within a very short period of time, the State of California will mandate radio controlled thermostats, or they will deny your building permits.

Now, the California Energy Commission
for more than three decades {exactly the same amount of time the Leftist Democrats have "owned" Sacramento} has set state energy efficiency standards for home appliances, like water heaters, air conditioners and refrigerators.
But, that's not good enough for socialists. You see..
The changes they want would enable them, via the electric company, to adjust customers' temperatures, home appliances, water heaters, air conditioners and refrigerators.

Now, they say... THEY SAY.. in
emergencies only. ...

Richard wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:43 AM:I agree. I was hoping it would be
Biden, who will present views from a much different background to help with difficult problems requiring veiwing from all sides to bounce off discussions with. Biden had zero aspirations to be VP, but has agreed to do it because he has been asked to. The GOP one would think would be delighted that it's not Hillary Clinton, but no I'm certain they'll figure out reasons why it's 'bad'. I'm glad it's not Hillary, not because she isn't qualified, but because I'm against this idea of a familial White House, which is the antithesis to a democracy. The Bush family has done its thing now for a long time.
Go Joe, but I don't envy anyone taking these posts, particularly in the mess this country has put itself into with Iraq's trillion debt, etc. and the hatemongers that refuse to accept information from their own countrymen if they're not in the 'correct Party'. Good luck to you both.

jvc wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:47 AM:What to do about homosexuals?

Give them citizenship!

Chuck wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:49 AM:<<< [X] I went to my Saturday morning Attitude Adjustment Meeting in Leucadia>>>
Cant you just see it::: Hi, I'm Alf and I need an attitude adjustment.

TFB wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:58 AM:Amazingly, Ron at 9:22 a.m. is able to ramble on for several thousand words about a quickie insert I added on a third attempted submission, yet not include one single word about the actual content of the submission! Hmmm, I guess that means something.

Chuck wrote on Aug 23, 2008 9:58 AM:Of course they are going to blame the mortage lenders. It's the lenders fault that you bought at the top of the market, and are now upside down on your house by $100,000 and someone else needs to be blamed. And off you run to the hills, leaving the person who gave you his hard earned money to help you buy the home high and dry. And here's your justification: "It was an evil corporation or rich person that nade the mortgage money available, so who cares". The only people lower on the food chain are those who bought in between 1995 and 2006 and refinanced 8 times taking out $300,000 in cash and now find themselves $100,000 upside down, and they run for the hills.

John wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:00 AM:I'm thoroughly amused that so many folks on these blogs and in the letters are frightened of Obama. A dangerous dude indeed. Oh y'all of little faith. America already survived Bush Cheney. Obama Biden are going to be a cake walk. Stop fretting and name calling and get used to it. Obama will be a fine president and McCain will be OK retired into any of his 7 houses.

Ron wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:00 AM:Absolutely the Obamaman is partially responsible. He voted for the secret, written in the smoke-filled roooms, by the Energy/Ethanol Companies 2005 Energy Bill.
One such provision was increases the amount of ethanol that must be mixed with gasoline to 4 billion gallons by 2006, 6.1 billion gallons by 2009 and 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.
So absolutely he is, at least, partially responsible.

Now, according to the Messiah, he voted for the 2005 Cheney Energy plan because it had some very good alternatives in it, which it did!
Just a few examples:
Authorizes subsidies for wind energy, and other alternative energy producers;
Adds ocean energy sources including wave power and tidal power for the first time as separately identified renewable technologies;
Authorizes $50 million annually over the life of the bill for a biomass grant program;
Contains several provisions aimed at making geothermal energy more competitive with fossil fuels in generating electricity;
Requires all public electric utilities to offer net metering on request to their customers;
Provides tax breaks for those making energy conservation improvements to their homes;
$2.7 billion to extend the renewable electricity production credit
$1.3 billion for conservation and energy efficiency
$1.3 billion for alternative motor vehicles and fuels (bioethanol, biomethane, liquified natural gas, propane)
$500 million Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS) for government agencies for renewable energy projects.

So, I don't know what the heck these guy's are talking about this bill not being alternative friendly.

Alf wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:03 AM:Well, "TheWolf" at 9:38AM,
if you could ask any 13 week or less FETUSES what they think, you'd hear -

silence.

They do not have brain waves,
they do not, therefore, have emotions or thoughts or the ability to speak.
Regards, Alf.

Oh Wolf wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:05 AM:You can rant 24/7 about your views on abortion, but it's plain that every bit of your belief rests on one core belief: the embryo is a child. Many, many people do not believe this, and can give many reasons for their belief that it is not a child. So to all these people, nothing you say matters, because they all boil down to that one disagreement. Sorry. To get anywhere, you need to convince people that the embryo is a child, not by just saying so, but by giving good reasons for saying so. Ball's in your court.

TFB wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:06 AM:TheWolf at 9:38 a.m. captures just about all the stereotypes in one short blog!
How is abortion killing an innocent life any more than allowing a sperm or egg to die unfertilized? How can you ascribe issues of "guilt" or "innocence" to a microscopic blastocyst that does not have anything remotely similar to the consciousness or sentience out of which the responsibility can develop for "guilt" or "innocence" and, in any case, if you could, the argument might be made that it is occupying the most private part of her body against her will so she is acting in self defense.
Men are never required to use their bodies to keep someone else alive against their will.
And if you believe that sex is "self centered" and "pure narcisissm," you are entitled to your opinion. Plenty of other people have a different one and, guess what, for women it that each woman gets to decide about her own body for herself.
And that thing about "if we could ask the babies aborted..."
Go ahead and ask them. Didn't get an answer, huh? That is a whole key to this issue. Blastocysts, zygotes embryos or fetuses do not have feelings, sentience, consciousness or ANYTHING remotely similar to what qualitatively defines a human person. There is no more feeling than if you smash a rock.
And while you are at it, ask the same question of all the sperms and eggs that die unfertilized. Would they say they were glad they had never been born?

Chicken little wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:08 AM:Bouck - cluck - bouck! The sky is falling. Bouck-bouck. Gay people are taking over our country! Bouck - bouck - cluck! Sinners! Bouck - bouck. Scratch scratch... peck peck. Cluck cluck.

Karl Karl Karl wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:10 AM:First, I must comment on your post of yesterday. Someone predicted that Obama might well lose the election because, tragically, there's enough racism in the US to keep a black person from winning. Your response? To attack that person for promoting and perpetuating racism. Huh? You mean that if we deny or ignore racism, it will go away? You mean that if we say that racism exists, then it becomes our fault for it existing, because we named it? Second, you promoted the idea that we just have a "feel" for what's true that is often more legit than "research". Can you imagine how many false, dangerous, and ridiculous beliefs are defended and promoted because they "feel" right? We can combine these points: do you know how many people justify their own racism on the basis of "it just feels wrong for people of different colors to be together"? Karl: think!

ROFLMAO wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:14 AM:Ron 10 am!!!!!!! AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! You are too funny. Trying to demonize Obama when you have the WORST crooks in history running the white house for the last 8 years? How can you make Obama more scarey than the walking dead in the Bush Cheney graveyard? ...

Ron wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:35 AM:Now, "Apollo" @9:35 AM, buddy...

If we don't discuss the details, we will shortly be in very deep doo-doo.
In your example of cited "expenses", you fail to properly cite the increase in monthly, or yearly obligations, that must be stated as "Expenses."
That's right, you didn't break them down. You left that to me, and as I always do, I pointed out your discrepancies.
The construct is a total strawman.
Oh, sure.. you say that you could reduce other expenses to offset increases in doubling home mortgage expenses, and then tripling. But by year three (3), your flat busted. Tapped out. No Mas.
Also, as I so aptly pointed out, by home number 3, you'd be so tapped out, your definately in sub-prime territory, not a 5% rate, as you stated.
And unless you could document for the loan underwriter an increase in income, then I doubt rather seriously you would qualify. Unless, you have a speed dial, as Chris Dodd apparently does, to the Country-Wide exec.
Can you explain that?
And also, your example is exactly the Clinton budget, in that, in each year out standing debt goes up, net expenses go up.
Can you explain that?

Let the games begin wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:37 AM:Let's see how long it takes for the McCain/Rovian slime crew to find some "gotcha"s about Biden. By selecting Biden, Obama picked a guy who knows as much about foreign policy as anyone. A huge set of criticisms about Obama's "experience" was just erased, in the same way Cheney's self-selection as Bush's VP gave Bush-backers an answer to similar charges against their guy. But unlike Cheney, Biden seems to have a deep respect for the Constitution. He also comes from a working class background. But no amount of experience or knowledge will matter to the slime machine. And we will all have to put up with the continued tossing this great country's electoral process into the mud.

Polls change wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:39 AM:I've heard that more than ten percent of Hillary's supporters say they'll sit this one out rather than vote for the man that beat their gal. Between now and November, however, one message that'll be out there repeatedly is that if McCain wins, it is likely that via the next Supreme Court appointments, Roe will be overturned. Does anyone really believe that Hillary's feminist base would rather that happen than vote for Obama, which would ensure that Roe remains the law of the land? Puh-lease.

Ron wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:48 AM:Oh, I thought we were finished with that particular conversation, "TFB"
@9:58 AM? As I recall, you said something to the effect of: I will not continue a conversation with a warmongerer, who advocates the killing of innocent's by use a cluster bomb's, or something to that affect.
Right?
I guess you wish to continue this line of conversation, I was just making an observation of liberals who complain about peer-review/monitoring/gatekeeping
practises of the NCtimes, when they defend those same practises in scientific journals, against Big Oil scientists. I just find the similarites very strking, is all.

Nick wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:52 AM:a little back ground on ICECAP:

ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon.

Through ICECAP you will have rapid access to our experts here in the United States and to experts and partner organizations worldwide, many of whom maintain popular web sites or insightful blogs or newsletters, write and present papers, have authored books and offer interviews to the media on climate issues. We spotlight new findings in peer-review papers and reports and rapidly respond to fallacies or exaggerations in papers, stories or programs and any misinformation efforts by the media, politicians and advocacy groups.

ICECAP is not funded by large corporations that might benefit from the status quo but by private investors who believe in the need for free exchange of ideas on this and other important issues of the day. Our working group is comprised of members from all ends of the political spectrum. This is not about politics but about science.
Cheers, Nick.

Iraqi refugee wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:58 AM:You're right, Leon. It's called "Invade the World, Invite the World," Geo Bush's legacy to America.

Nick wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:07 AM:Dispelling the myths of Global Warming. This comes straigh from ICECAP:

-Weather extremes such as droughts, floods, hurricane, tornadoes, and heat waves have become more common.

Scientists have studied this issue and come to the opposite conclusion: extreme events are becoming LESS common. Atlantic hurricanes were much more numerous from 1950 to 1975 than from 1975 to present. Hailstorms in the US are 35% less common than they were fifty years ago. Extreme rainfall in the US at the end of the 20th century is comparable to what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Roger Pielke, Jr, in the journal Climatic Change (1999) said “it is essentially impossible to attribute any particular weather event to global warming.” For flooding, Pielke did list a number of important non-climatic factors that have the potential to influence flooding in the future, including deteriorating dams and levees, changes in land use, building in flood-prone areas, governmental policies, as well as other societal influences. Pielke, R.A., JR. 1999. Nine fallacies of floods. Climatic Change 42: 413-438.

-Climate has been stable for a long time but now is getting increasingly extreme.

Climate swings are nothing new. Between 800 and 1300 AD, much of the world was several degrees warmer than today. People grew wine grapes in England, figs in Germany, assorted crops in Greenland. Then came the Little Ice Age, and temperatures considerably colder than today persisted until the climate warmed again around 1900. The likely cause? Changes in the sun’s energy output, or perhaps the Earth’s orbit, say Harvard-Smithsonian scientists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.

-CO2 is a pollutant.

CO2 is an essential nutrient for plants. Plants absorb CO2 and release oxygen, while animals inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Researchers have proven that higher CO2 concentrations enable plants to grow faster and give them better drought tolerance.

-CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.

Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect.

-The greenhouse effect is a bad thing.

The greenhouse effect is necessary for life on earth as we know it, were it not for the greenhouse effect, temperatures on Earth would be about 60 degrees F (33°C) colder than they are at present. The global warming discussions center on the claims that human enhancement of the greenhouse will raise temperatures, and that these will be large compared with natural variations.

More to come.
Cheers, Nick.

Chuck wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:09 AM:Chicken little
[-] wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:08
Yea sure. Then why is it you were so desperate to pass SB777 in order to add to your racket. Bouck - cluck - bouck! The sky is falling. Bouck-bouck. we need little kiddies to get in touch with their true gender and feelings. Bouck-bouck

QED wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:11 AM:Biden certainly does nothing for the "Change" quotient, but he does continue the Lawyer Party model.

And, Biden represents the Left (or Kennedy) wing of the Lawyer Party, as opposed to the more moderate (or Clinton) wing of the same Lawyer Party.

But the Clinton wing is relentless. A Clinton supporting lifetime lawyer and Democrat (just incidentally a Hillary supporter) has filed a suit claiming that Obama is not eligible for the Presidency because he is not only not a "natural-born citizen," but not a citizen at all. I don’t know, and I guess the Courts will quickly sort that out.

thewolf wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:12 AM:To TFB and the rest: If the fetus is left alone to develop what happens? A child is born. My view is not based on a religious one but common sense. What you are afraid of admitting-that we are nation that condones infanticide? Grow up and just say it and we can agree. I never wrote that is should be illegal. It is men who want abortions-they, like you, are cowards.

Chuck wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:13 AM:Iraqi refugee
[-] wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:58

Great, now we have the chicken littles who ran away from their country, now bashing the country that made it possible to run away. Its just like the pop and drop illegals. They have no interest in assimilating. They just want all the freebees they can sucker the liberals into giving them

Nick wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:13 AM:Dispelling more myths of Global Warming:

-Modeling the earth’s climate is nearly an exact science.

General Circulation Models (GCMs) vary by a factor of 3 in their forecasts; they require arbitrary adjustments; and they cannot properly simulate clouds. Their forecasts of substantial warming depend on a positive feedback from atmospheric water vapor (WV). Many of the natural variations (sunlight, El Niño, volcanoes, and so on) cannot be predicted with any skill in the future.

-Summers will be extremely hot and dry.

According to greenhouse physics, the effects of increases in greenhouse gases will be much more significant in the driest air. This occurs in the coldest regions (cold air is able to hold much less water, in the form of water vapor, than warm air) ¯ the polar regions, in winter, at night. Temperature effects in tropical or mid-latitude regions and in summer are expected to be much less significant.

-The sun is a constant source of energy.

The sun’s radiation varies over many time scales, from short (11 year sunspot cycle, 20-27 year magnetic field) to medium (170- and 210-year cycles) to long (tens of thousands of years). Northern hemisphere temperature variations over the last 200 years closely match estimated solar intensity, as one would expect.

-Glaciers all over the world are shrinking because of global warming.

Actually, this is somewhat true, but it is unlikely that changes in glaciers are affected by recent climate changes. According to the Glacier Program at Rice University (http://www.glacier.rice.edu), the response time to climate changes for different sizes of glaciers are as follows:

Ice sheet: 100,000 to 10,000 years

Large valley glacier: 10,000 to 1,000 years

Small valley glacier: 1,000 to 100 years

For very large glaciers such as the Antarctic Ice Sheet, considerable time is needed for the ice sheet to respond to any environmental changes. Changes in climate may take tens of thousands of years before the entire ice sheet has adjusted to changing, and by that time, the climate may have changed again.

-Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City.

Sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years. The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” Unless there is another Little Ice Age, they will continue rising at roughly this rate for centuries to come. As to open water in the Arctic, it happens every year in late summer—following weeks in the 40s and 50s.

More to come.
Cheers, Nick.

thewolf wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:15 AM:Alf, the silence you hear is the sound of life growing at 13 weeks. Would you prefer to have been aborted?

McBiden Your Kidding wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:16 AM:What a Joke, If you like McCain, You will love McBiden. Now there is an (old)face for change in Washington. Who said Obama does not have a sense of humor!! LOL

Nick wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:17 AM:And more myths on Global Warming dispelled:

-In 2003 the hottest European summer on record caused more than 20,000 deaths. Extreme heat waves also caused more than 1500 deaths in India.

Many of the deaths reported in 2003 were not from the heat. J.R. Stedman, and air quality scientist, reported that 21-38% of the total excess deaths in the United Kingdom claimed to be due to high temperatures were actually the result of high levels of the pollutants ozone and PM10. P.H. Fischer determined that 33-50% of the deaths attributed to the same heat wave in the Netherlands were caused by the same two air pollutants.

In the Czech Republic, J. Kysely and R. Huth found that a large portion of the mortality increase that is often attributed to heat waves is actually due to a harvesting effect, which “can be estimated to account for about 50% of the total number of victims.” In other words, as they put it, “people who would have died in the short term even in the absence of oppressive weather conditions made up about half of the total number of deaths.”

The real killer in Europe is not heat but cold. According to the UK Department of Health, average winter excess mortality in a normal year in the UK alone is approximately 35,000. There is strong scientific evidence that normal cold temperatures kill far more people than summer heat waves, even severe ones, almost everywhere in the world. And since the primary effect of global warming is expected to be an increase in the coldest winter temperatures, moderate global warming may actually SAVE lives.

-Is global warming really impacting polar bears?

In An Inconvenient Truth, the polar bear drowning on a sole melting piece of ice moved a lot of people and public and political pressure encouraged the US Fish and Wildlife Service to add polar bears as “threatened” animals to the endangered species list.

In 2002, the US Geological Survey in the Arctic Refuge Coastal plain reported the polar bear population was near historic highs. Biologist Mitchell Taylor of the Arctic community of Nunavit who tracks 13 of those colonies, says 11 are stable or thriving with populations that have increased 25%.

There are approximately 19 worldwide polar bear populations, the Fish and Wildlife action was based solely on reviewing data for only one of those populations in western Hudson Bay which has declined by 259 bears in last 17 years. The decline is due to hunting to prevent overpopulation and ironically the Canadian government is looking to increase the quota. (US Geological Survey in Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 2002, and Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist, Department of Environment, Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada “Last Stand of our wild polar bears” 5/1/06)

Cheers, Nick.

thewolf wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:18 AM:To TFB 2nd: you answer your own question, unfertilized eggs or sperm are not life obviously. As I asked Alf, would you prefer to have been aborted? Would the world be better off without you?

Chuck wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:19 AM:>>who advocates the killing of innocent's by use a cluster bomb's, or something to that affect.>> Damn it your right, we all advocate dropping cluster bombs to kill innocents. Come to think of it, what do you care about innocents? You haven't made one post condemning the innocents the terrorist bombers have killed, or the innocents the Russians killed in Georgia, or the innocents killed in partial birth abortion or the innocents killed by Chavez and Castro, or the innocense killed by the gay agenda

Nick wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:20 AM:Now some conclusions on the myths I have just showed you:

The CO2-induced global warming extinction hypothesis claims that as the world warms in response to the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content, many species of plants and animals will not be able to migrate either poleward in latitude or upward in elevation fast enough to avoid extinction as they try to escape the stress imposed by the rising temperature. With respect to plants, however, we have shown that as long as the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration rises in tandem with its temperature, most of them will not “feel the heat,” as their physiology will change in ways that make them better adapted to warmer conditions. Hence, although earth’s plants will likely spread poleward and upward at the cold-limited boundaries of their ranges in response to a warming-induced opportunity to do so, their heat-limited boundaries will probably remain pretty much as they are now or shift only slightly.


Consequently, in a world of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, the ranges of most of earth’s plants will likely expand if the planet continues to warm, making plant extinctions even less likely than they are currently.


Animals should react much the same way. In response to concurrent increases in atmospheric temperature and CO2 concentration, they will likely migrate poleward and upward, where cold temperatures prevented them from going in the past, as they follow earth’s plants. Also as with earth’s plants, the heat-limited boundaries of their ranges should in many cases be little affected, as has been observed in several of the real-world studies that have been wrongly cited as providing evidence for impending species extinctions, or their entire ranges may simply shift with the rising temperature, as has been observed in many real-world studies of marine ecosystems.


To summarize, both theory and observation paint the same picture. A goodly portion of earth’s plants and animals should actually expand their ranges and gain a stronger foothold on the planet as the atmosphere’s temperature and CO2 concentration continue to rise. If the air’s CO2 content were suddenly to stop increasing, however, the biosphere could find itself facing a significant challenge, as the world’s plants would cease acquiring the extra physiological protection against heat stress that is afforded them by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Consequently, the end result of curtailing anthropogenic CO2 emissions might well be just the opposite of what many people are hoping to accomplish by encouraging that policy, i.e., many species might actually be driven to extinction, rather than being saved from such a fate.

I hope this gives some of you some food for thought on the other side of the issue of Global Warming.
Cheers, Nick.

QED wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:27 AM:The next supplicants for a federal bailout are likely to be the car manufacturers from Detroit – and they will be seeking some $40 billion, according to an article in today’s WSJ. . They fall in line behind Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, lenders and borrowers everywhere. “Never steal anything small” and you can apparently get to be so big that you are too large to fail.

The safety net for the lazy has enlarged to become the safety net for the stupid.

Ron wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:42 AM:Continuing the conservation with
"TFB" @10:06 AM.
Now, "TFB", in your response to
"TheWolf" @9:38 a.m., you say:

QUOTE: "Blastocysts, zygotes, embryos or fetuses do not have feelings, sentience, consciousness or ANYTHING remotely similar to what qualitatively defines a human person." END Quote

Again, I would caution you from using this phrase: "...qualitatively defines a human person."

You example of using sperm or unfertilized ovum in comparison to that of a zygote, is disturbing.
Sperm and ovum have a life cycle, it is temporary, defined to a particular purpose. After that, successful or not, they die. That is their lifecycle.
It is quite different when talking about a zygote. In it's particular lifecycle, it divides, grows, and finally becomes a person. A human being.
That's it's lifecyle.
What you are talking about in abortion is stopping the life cycle, artifically.
Now, according to our law, you, or more precisely, a mother can decide to execute her unborn child, because of her mental health. Since I believe in the Constitution, and presently, abortion is the law of the land, I do not have a legal objection to your having an abortion, it is your legal right. But, I do object to not calling it what it is. Let's, at least, be honest here.
My personal wish is, however, that the Constitution would be righted, and this law go through the normal legislative process as it was designed by our Founders. I think today, it would pass.
That would not make me happy, but I would be happier, since the real legislative process would have been allowed to work, and not subject our legal system to legal nuances, based upon "penumbras, formed by emanations."
But, again, I would caution you as to catagorizing human beings based upon qualitatively defining a human person.
And I also happen to think, and believe, that destroying by abortion has coursened our culture, making it more susceptible to developing attitudes about living persons. Like the example of Oregonian Barbara Wagner, 64 year old cancer patient denied treatment because healthcare funds were being reserved for children.
They instead offered her pallitive care, which included doctor assisted suicide.
Or the hundreds of Terri Schiavo like cases that happen each & every year.
Step lightly, my friend.
Those decisions you make today, could snowball into something completely different, than you ever imagined.

Nick wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:59 AM:Well "QED", I have a feeling your right. So far, we have bailed out the Airline Industry (not once, but twice),
Home lenders, and who else am I missing?

Funny, I posted a speech a few days ago by Dr. Ron Paul to the House Financial Services Committee from 5 years ago predicting the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and what should be done to prevent it from ever happening, and not one person had anything to say about it.

I wonder how many people on the House Financial Services Committee are now feeling like a bunch of idiots for not heeding his advice?

Cheers, Nick.

Media Watcher wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:03 PM:The Philadelphia lawyer who sued in federal court with the claim that Obama is not only not a "natural born" US citizen, but not a citizen at all, claims he is preempting a similar revelation by Republicans after the nomination.

He contends that the Republicans are laying low until Obama is selected as the Party Nominee before revealing this information, and he further contends that the Republicans have much more information than he has.

This election has many, many turns remaining and none of us has a clue!

Ron wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:18 PM:Let's not get ahead of ourselves here..
"Let the games begin" @10:37 AM.

QUOTE: "Let's see how long it takes for the McCain/Rovian slime crew to find some "gotcha"s about Biden." END Quote

McCain/Rovian slime machine? LOL
You really are reaching there, aren't ya bud? LOL
Biden said a bunch of stuff very recently, that no one can ignore. Not even the MSM, or Oberman. LOL

He said it to the Messiah's face:
"You were asked, 'Is he ready?' You said, 'I think he can be ready but right now, I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'

Or...

"I would be honored to run with or against John McCain because I think the country would be better off."

For me, personally... I just can't help but see the strikingly similarities between GWB's pick of Dick Cheney, shoring up his own inexperience.
And Obama choosing Biden to shore up his own sense of the need for "Gravitas."
Are ya getting just how delicious this is?!

I want to know when all of the news networks, and Saturday Night live are going to re-run their statements about the need for "Gravitas."

chuck wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:18 PM:>>>The next supplicants for a federal bailout are likely to be the car manufacturers from Detroit>>> Why not. The liberals danced in the streets when they forced Detroit into unattainable standards, so why shouldnt liberals now have to bail them out. Whats the old saying::: What goes around, comes around

Richard wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:27 PM:Biden most certainly does plenty for an about-face change in policy. Biden supports a loose federalist type of government, rather than the restricted demands of Bush requiring his democrat form of government with a National Assembly and endless restrictions on oil legislation, etc. Biden expects a bare minimum that has a chance of being agreed upon by most in Iraq, where their nation is responsible for guarding its own borders and allowing their national oil to be apportioned for the benefit of all ethnic groups there. This is the exact opposite of Cheney and Bush, who drew up invasion plans on an Iraq map long before 9/11 that labeled all the regions where oil was enriched. In fact, if oil prices continue dropping like they have recently, then my suspicion is that it is because Bush has gotten permission to let U.S. and Chinese oil companies into Iraq for heavy drilling, simply because of Cheney's original oil map that he fails to ever grasp is oil that does not belong to him or us. In my view I want to boycott Iraqi oil, knowing we paid in blood for Bush to tell them how he wants their oil laws written. But gas companies won't provide information on how to do that. Best I can tell Middle East oil is mixed with American oil so it cannot be boycotted itself. Unless you completely give up your car ownership completely, which here is a near requirement to exist, which is then wrongly boycotting American oil at the same time. Biden is most assuredly a candidate to change this pre-emptive invasion, evil program promoted endlessly by the Project for the "New American" Century, with its implied tenet that something is inherently 'wrong' with America unless we change and become 'new', by spreading ourselves and our wise goodness into other countries whether they want our help or not. Biden for change, because Biden has the know how to do it and a chance to do it if the anti Democrat GOP would let him.
And I wish Hussein and his sons and Osama Bin Laden and his sidekick had definitely been aborted. Where was Roe v Wade when we needed it?

Richard wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:29 PM:Biden most certainly does plenty for an about-face chang