William wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:41 AM:I liked Greta's program on Fox this week. I hope she makes a breakthrough on this missing Natalee case. In case you don't know what is new,the suspect now says a man bought her that night on the beach in Aruba for $10,000, and took her away on a boat.

Besides even if Natalee was not "sold" as a sex slave there are thousands who are in that situation now, even in the USA. More should be done to find and free them,and prosecute those who do such things to other people.

But my gripe with Greta is not about Monday and Tuesday this week. It is about last week.

Greta was wrong about high paid auto executives should not have come to Washington in private jets.
Actually one did drive from the Airport to the Capitol in his companies new hybrid or electric car.
How many times did you see that on TV! I only saw it once.

These hardworking executives have even a harder time during the stress of recessions. They probably work 70 hours per week to try to save their companies already. They are responsible for hundreds of thousands of workers livelihood, and annual budgets in the multiple billions.

By flying on the company jet they can keep in touch with their office, they can bring along other high executives to discuss private corporate information and plans. These could not be discussed in airport waiting rooms, or on a commercial flight. Duh!

Also do you have any idea how many criminals would plot to kidnap high paid executives for ransom.
It is almost a common practice in some countries, even in nearby Mexico. Executives there have to travel with armed bodyguards, and in armored cars.

And in such large corporations there are always disgruntled ex-employees a few of whom might plan to kill the top executives if they had a chance.

In a financial crisis time like this it is even more important for the executives to utilizes their time most efficiently and is well worth the cost of the private jets. After all it is not just one large plant they oversee.
There are large plants lots of smaller plants they oversee.

I felt so bad about how Greta and Bill O'Reilly ranted about that last week, that I went out on Saturday and bought a new hybrid large Cadillac SUV for myself, and a new Lincoln sedan for my wife.

(Don't I wish I could have!)

Bob wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:00 AM:Regarding a letter above this morning.
It is amazing to hear the controvery about 9/11 and melting steel. First of all the steel does not have to melt to loose nearly all it's strength. Anyone with a gas range and a wire coat hanger can demonstrate to themselves. Just stick part of the WIRE coat hanger just above the flame until it turns red and feel how easily it can be bent.
.

To Richard Sauerheber wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:54 AM:Please keep us informed. My father and his sister both died from bone cancer. Both residents of upstate NY where flouride is a given. I wish that I didn't need to drink our Escondido water. It leaves more than a bad taste in my mouth.

Perception is Reality wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:48 AM:Since 1991, our family has purcased six new cars..they have all been Japanese..when we car shop, we don't even visit a Big Three dealership..the Big Three are not on our shopping list..we're not alone...virtually every new car purchased by my neighbors is Japanese..virtually every new car purchased by my colleagues at work is Japanese..the Big Three has lost the confidence of the consumer..rightfully or wrongly, there is a public perception that the Big Three build junk and that the Japanese build cars that are bullet proof..and, as they say in politics, perception is reality.

Equal Protection wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:15 AM:Same-sex marriage supporters claim they are denied equal rights under the law. But same-sex marriage is not permitted for some and withheld for homosexuals.

The same-sex proponents try to identify their fight with that of the civil rights movement of the 60's. Bad example. Rosa Parks only sought seats on the bus which were available to others. She didn't want to sit on top of the bus or in the drivers seat.

Kevin wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:17 AM:Hugh Mays clearly does not like socialism as one can see from his rant (above). He blames the financial crises on Democrats and their socialistic policies. Mr. Mays, do you know what a CD0 is? Do you know what happens when a company like Moodies gives AAA ratings to financial instruments that are on the backs of people that cannot afford their loans. Mr. Mays, do you know what a credit swap is? Do you know what the uptick rule is (should I say was)? Do you know that the low end estimate of our national debt (including unfunded liabilities) is approximately $55 trillion. Most of this debt layered on by the Bush and Reagan administrations. Mr. Mays, you keep living in your superficial dream world with Fox News as your dream's main story tellers. I know there are socialists out there somewhere for you to rant against. The rest of us are trying to read and listen to real news and draw real conclusions with regard to what caused the financial crises.

Poor Kelsey Kim wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:42 AM:The news is reporting that 8% of the people interviewed regret their vote for Prop 8. While polls can be wrong, the fact is that many people were not aware before the election that so much pro 8 money was coming from out of state, and thanks to the protests are now realizing how much damage Prop 8 actually did.

Those who favor Prop 8 are desperate to hang on to their victory, but it is clear that they have no more than two years before the right to marry whom you love comes up on the ballot again and is overwhelming passed in favor of equal rights for all.

Enjoy it while you can, Kelsey Kim.

Debbie wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:46 AM:"All they seem to talk about is being treated fairly, equality, rights, and being tolerant and respectful. All I see is a bunch of hypocrites. What ever happened to the Golden Rule of treating others the way you want to be treated?"

I know! Who do those gays think they are! As long as they live their lives according to my standards, they should have nothing to complain about!

Gay people are so rude!

Ron wrote on Nov 26, 2008 6:52 AM:Ya see... sometimes you just have to ignore the uneducated, but in this case, you have to meet it head on:

>>>To Ron {Nov 25} @10:51 AM:
"Ron wrote on Nov 25, 2008 7:03 AM:
Yep, that's where it's headed Sybil Frances.
In other countries where same sex marriage has been made legal, the gay avtivists have gone way beyond in legal terms, and have made "hate-speech" illegal.
What is hate-speech to them?
Simply saying marriage should remain between a man and a woman."
Ron, you are such a ... LIAR.>>>

Might I suggest this poster read the following, and a lot more next time before saying that I'm a liar:

"In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.
The complaint stems from Canada’s debate leading up to state legislation recognizing so-called same-sex marriage. In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as “wicked” and stated that: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”
The activist subsequently filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission — a quasi-judicial body that investigates alleged discrimination within the Canadian province.
While agreeing that Boisson’s letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” Moreover, the tribunal’s decision “prohibited [Boisson] from making disparaging remarks in the future” about the activist who filed the complaint and witnesses who supported the complaint. Many of Canada’s religious leaders and civil libertarians have expressed concern that the government’s human rights tribunals are interpreting any criticism of homosexual activism as ‘disparaging’."

Like I said... ILLEGAL.
Clearer now?

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 26, 2008 6:54 AM:Is It RACIST to Discuss he Economy Without mentioning injustices against Mexicans?
The post from "sdraoul" (11/25 - 6:11pm) becomes increasingly desperate, as he throws a petulant, childish tantrum essentially accusing me of racism against Mexicans. You gotta hand it to "sdraoul" -- who else could take a discussion of the ECONOMY and use it to accuse someone of racism against Mexicans simply because one does not deviate from discussing the ECONOMY to itemize every single instance of injustice in American history.

Even more amazing is that "sdraoul's" underlying assumption is actually WRONG! My post (11/25 - 1:40pm) that he purportedly responds to does, in fact, explicitly acknowledge and condemn the racist aspects of FDR's administration on a blanket basis, which would by definition include the Mexicans "sdraoul" is so singularly obsessed with (racism), despite being unrelated to my stated topic (the ECONOMY).

"sdraoul" also complains that I keep defending FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt), again exemplifying his fact-challenged foibles since I have NEVER brought up the subject of FDR, but have only responded when others try to unjustly discredit his successful economic policies in ending the Great Depression.

If I wanted to follow the example of "sdraoul" and try to accuse someone of racism for not saying something (that they actually did say!) on a subject unrelated to the topic of their post, I could just as well argue that his own singular obsession with only Mexicans, and lashing out and calling everyone else "racist" (even based on WRONG "facts"), is itself a perfect example of racism. One could argue that someone who wants to keep ILLEGAL ALIENS both illegal AND remaining in this country, intentionally keeps them in desperate straits so as to be able to easily exploit them for cheap labor. I'm not making that argument, but it would be more rational than "sdraoul's" bizarre little tantrum with which he expresses the desperate frustration of being unable to address the actual issue on the table.
Get a grip, "sdraoul"!
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Ron wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:05 AM:I'd like to make a small suggestion to Michael McNulty.

Please Sir,

Look up the "Steady State" theory,
and then please your next letter expressing your pleasure of a
minority view.

As for Al Gore, the guy is either a very, very poor journalist, or just a Kook from the James Hansen wing of environ"mental"ism.

But, I will say this for Gore, he does know how to make a buck, if he can get huge investments of government cash.
You do know, that is his business model, for without government mandates, and cash infusion, "green" energy would be a complete bust.
What have I told you about this inter-mingling of business & government, where you gotta go to Washington D.C. and pull levers either to thwart your competition, or receiv huge amounts of government cash?
Under NObama, ya just might see it.
And skyrocking energy bills too.
Cause... that's the plan.

Ron wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:09 AM:>>>Brian Berg: I am not advocating a blind bailout, but instead, loans with conditions. This is an opportunity for the Big Three to address the root causes of their problems, namely organized labor. Meanwhile, the Detroit-bashers should be careful what they wish for.>>>

Welcome to Congressional Motors!
Over here....

We have the Pelosi, complete with an 11-point safety harness {hockey helmet included} with a maximum speed of 28 mph!

And...
Over here....

For the family man, we have the Fwrank sport van, seats 3.

Need I say more?

Vista Granny wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:19 AM:Cheri Cathey must live at the top of one of the bluffs in Solana Beach. Yes, the bluffs crumble and fall, but this is often caused by those who live at the top pouring water on plants and lawns. The added weight of buildings does not help either. Sea walls won't stop the bluffs from collapsing, though they might save a life by keeping people out of the caves. There is no reason why those who chose to live in a place where the earth wouldn't collapse under them should pay to protect your property -- and that's what Cheri really wants.

And, Elena Seitz really takes her job seriously, doesn't she? I, for one, would not want to be her patient. Yes, eating right and not smoking prolongs life, but being preached to can drive you to drink!

Karl wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:32 AM:The letter from Hugh Mays is ridiculous. He implicates the last two Democrat Presidents and the present President Elect Barack Obama for the finacial mess we are in now. "The socialism was government actions starting with Presidents Carter, then President Clinton, and to a lesser degree, Sen. Obama". First of all Obama has not been sworn in yet, how utterly stupid does he think readers are?

The DNA of both Republicans and Democrats alike are all over the financial crisis. It flat out amazes me how partisan hacks from both party's can blame the other side for every mistake made, while defending their party as lilly white.

Get real Hugh.

Peace

ing9e

Karl wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:45 AM:Vista Granny @ 7:19 AM:

Granny, may I suggest a course in Geotechnical Engineering for you? While the weight of a house and the watering of plants at the top of a slope may have something to do with collapses, their effect is minimal. Soil conditions, soil density, mother nature and the absence of a slope toe have much more to do with the collapses than anything else. For you to propose that homeowners pay for something out of their control and not on their property is ridiculous. Then again this is the philosophy of the Democrats, soak the rich (pun intended).

Peace

itypf

Paul wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:52 AM:To Kelsey Kim

What ever happened to the Golden Rule of treating others the way you want to be treated?

***you mean like, 'I don't want my rights taken away so I won't take away the rights of others?'

As far as I know, we all have the exact same rights.
They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like I can. Our rights do not differ one bit.

***put differently, you have the right to marry the person you love, but they do not. Ironically, they were in the process of getting equal rights when prop 8 came along ...

by the way, the idea that Mormons are authorities on the sanctity of marriage may be one of the funniest things I've ever heard!

to Kelsey Kim wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:56 AM:Prop8: Kelsey Kim writes "Get over it."

MONOGAMY

What will you do Kelsey when your federal or state rights are taken away.

Not having the same state and federal rights as you do is un-American.

These are American citizens.

What changed in your life during the 2008 time that same sex adults legally married in California.

No one for Prop.8 has described pain and suffering in any of the letters to the editor nor in the blogs. They have mentioned hate (S.R. Polito NCTimes Nov 22 2008 and others).

In the meantime, we have people stressed (those that want the same rights) while we are facing additional serious problems.

Prop.8 is a hateful prop. It takes us back to the KKK, women not being able to vote, blacks and other minorities not able to marry who they loved, the unfair notion of separate but equal, etc.

The Dark Ages.

Prop.8 is much like forcing Americans to follow the bible (the parts that are hand picked) as law instead of our Constitution. Bible is not law.

Reminder: a citizen does not have to have a religion.

The amount of money that Prop.8 bible people spent could have been better spent by helping those in need. In other words, powerful church leaders (somewhat like the powerful Enron board) want to rule and do not care about the people.

Nor do the church leaders care about child molesters.

~Tony

Paul wrote on Nov 26, 2008 7:56 AM:Ron's at it again
there is some need for subsidies to build any energy source, and even two favorites of Ron's, nuclear power and the petroleum industry, are subsidized (nuclear because it's a money loser, oil because it owns a big chunk of the government. Big Oil also used its power to destroy public transportation infrastructure in the US, as with the Red cars in LA

Ron is the king of this type of misinformation, but I don't have to tell NCT readers that ...

You do know, that is his business model, for without government mandates, and cash infusion, "green" energy would be a complete bust.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:09 AM:Truths, Inconvenient and Otherwise
The published letter from Michael McNulty is excellent. It does note that Al Gore, not a scientist (and who has never been cited by environmentalists as one since we have plenty of real ones in the virtual unanimity of peer-reviewed scientific and academic research journals), but that -- as a trained journalist -- he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his clarity in helping make difficult environmental and climate issues understandable and accessible to the general public.

In contrast, the childish post from "Ron" (7:05am) joins the chorus of those who seek to denigrate real science in favor of propaganda from those who profit from petrodollar pollution. What could possibly be his motive for such public interest treachery? Of course, none of us have any way of verifying others' claims in this anonymous forum, but do ya think his claims to have oil company stocks could have anything to do with it? Ya think?

From my window overlooking the Escondido valley, the sun is shining and the ground is wet from rain. Just the way I like it! Rain all night, brilliant sunshine in the morning to power the solar panels that produce more energy than I can use. Like the bumper sticker on my car says: "Renewable Energy is Homeland Security."
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

mailbox political signs wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:16 AM:Political season as usual:

Campaign signs were destroyed from many others not involved with Prop.8.

Must catch them doing the illegal deed which is almost impossible.
Without evidence they cannot be punished.

Definitely punish the rascals if you have the proof.

REF political flyers per Federal Government
Federal Law: No material, especially no campaign material is allowed on any part of the outside of the mailbox
from the top (including the FLAG) to the very bottom of the box OR the bottom of the pole in dirt or concrete.
i.e., Political info must be mailed/sent out with correct postage and the political info will arrive inside the mailbox in the usual delivery fashion.

REF political signs per SD County Zoning Department & SD Registrar of Voters

County of San Diego / SD County Zoning Department / unincorporated area:
#6562 EXEMPT ON-PREMISE SIGNS #H. POLITICAL SIGNS on private property can remain.

Registrar of Voters: OTHER political signs must be removed within 10 days after the election.

While political campaigning is in progress, it is illegal to steal political signs.

Wanda wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:26 AM:Well, Karl, I've figured out where your sensless numbers and letters come from, but I'm still trying to figure out why?

ihyuw

Wanda wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:33 AM:Well, Karl, at 7:32 AM, while I agree with you, I'm pretty sure the Hugh Mays' letter is actually from Chuck, and is actually intended to be as funny as it is :)

Karl wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:42 AM:Well, Perception is Reality @ 4:48 AM, My 2000 GMC and My wifes 2004 GMC have and continue to treat us good.

Peace

7jo1t

Arne wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:44 AM:Bob compares the world trade center construction to a metal coat hanger. who cares that they were built to withstand multiple jetliner impacts. Victor Chabala's facts are so good no wonder it took 6 months to reply to my letter. it takes time to turn propeganda into facts... WHAT ABOUT FLIGHT 93 VICTOR? YOU DIDNT TOUCH THAT PART OF MY LETTER WITH A 10 FOOT POLE.

Karl wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:48 AM:Wanda, the numbers/letters started out of frustration with the image verification rejection of double and triple checked inputs. If you see one set of numbers I got through the first time. Two and three sets, well you know the story. It wasn't meant for anything else but a little experiment on my part. It really has been fun but now that You and Alf have figured it out, the fun is over.

Peace

To To To Caro and DD wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:02 AM:(Resubmission. third tome, second day)

Interesting.

I hope you see the problem – each of you supports or opposes some tenet of generalized “liberalism.” In effect, you are “Cafeteria Liberals.”

Well on these very pages, under my former and future name (Reardon), I am accused to simply parroting Rush and Hannity, without regard to my actual position, and the reason therefore on any particular issue.

It may come as some surprise to some newbies that I “support medicinal marijuana, the right to love whomever you choose, reproductive rights, stem cell research, and I do not favor religion(s)." Yet I am lumped in with many with whom I claim only a casual and fleeting association because of support of an issue with which we may agree.

It might do all of us well to stop the name calling, quit questioning the motives and simply address the issues.

sdraoul wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:07 AM:Poor DD! He responds emotionally to my referring to his specific response to FDR's rounding up American citizens of Japanese descent and locking them up in the most grievous assault on the Constitution in history while he ignored another black mark on FDR's assault on American citizens because they looked Mexican.

He whimpers and cries that I accuse him of racism. He accuses me of changing the subject away from FDR's "brilliant" flubbing of his miracle that didn't save the country from the Depression.

I am willing to bet that DD wasn't even aware that Roosevelt was rounding up American citizens of Mexican background and deporting them illegally from Southern California, specifically from Los Angeles.

He dissembles about FDR's record on unemployment blaming "war jitters" for the spike of 50 percent in unemployment in 1938 when, in fact, it simply was a failure of FDR's after five years of his presidency.

He dissembles now when I point out a huge civil rights defect in FDR's efforts to attack unemployment by removing U.S. citizens from the streets of Los Angeles as a reason to criticize FDR's attempts to lower unemployment.

DD dissembles when he emotionally claims that I introduce racism into the debate when all I did was point out that FDR violated the Constitution on a mass basis right here in Southern California to alleviate unemployment.

I notice he doesn't blast FDR for developing the cattle car system of holding American citizens and for transporting them to Mexico illegally. That is the exact same cattle car system used a decade latter by the man FDR watched come to power in Germany and that he did nothing to stop.

Poor DD, his knickers are too tight. He really needs to quit revising history to suit his desire to propagandize on behalf of the liberal faith he converted to; nothing is more boring that a passionate convert.

Ron wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:07 AM:Hey.. ah...

Before we get to carried away here, let me say this to everyone.

I hope & pray that you and yours have a very Happy Thanksgiving!
And I mean that sincerely, and from the heart.

{right about now, some lib is saying: "Ron has a heart?"}

Yes, even you Lib's.. whether your eating tofu turkey and greens..

May you have a great time, in whatever you choose to do, in the greatest country God ever gave to mankind.

Bob wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:21 AM:You're wrong, Wanda, at 8:33 AM. Hugh Mays' letter displays the same low mentality as Chuck, but a much longer attention span.

Vista Granny wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:30 AM:Karl @ 7:45 a.m. -- I know a bit about geo-physics -- and I HAVE LIVED ATOP one of those bluffs in Solana Beach!! First of all, the bluffs don't usually"cave in" - they sluff off from the top -- usually gradually!! Sometimes a big hunk falls off!! When I lived there those in charge were busily killing ground squirrels, thinking their burrows were causing the constant crumbling of the sandy cliff. Meanwhile, they had built within 10 feet of the edge, and had flowers and grass planted within inches of the edge. (which they watered daily) As for "soaking the rich"?? If those who live atop the bluffs aren't responsible for the cave ins -- okay -- but why should someone who lives miles away be responsible? It's not soaking the rich, it's taking responsibility for your actions -- you build atop a bluff -- you care for it. Period.

Cal wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:39 AM:The letter from Jeff Schwilk today is a new low in Minutemania media manipulation.

"Sgt. Peralta shows us again the value of legal immigration to America and why we must preserve it for future generations."

How low can you go? Pimping the death of a fellow marine for the PR benefit of his anti-immigration clan. Shameless.

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:50 AM:Aversion to Mud-Wrestling
The post from "sdraoul" (9:07am) he shows that, when trapped in a blatant lie, his best defense is to REPEAT THE LIE and then start throwing mud a la vaunted Republican Slime Machine.
I'm just going to say this one more time: my previous posts were clear to any literate person.
I was discussing the economy. In that discussion, I did digress just enough to acknowledge that FDR also had his flaws, and I specifically noted the racial injustice of those times. When "sdraoul" now says I specifically limited it to the Japanese Internment, he is lying. I made a general off-topic digression to racial injustice as a whole, and that would include Mexican Americans. "sdraoul" is simply paranoid and delusional. Not to mention either dishonest or illiterate.

I was discussing the economy, not pretending to offer a complete historical analysis of the entire FDR administration in the short space of an online post. "sdraoul's" bizarre attempt to misrepresent my posts and change the subject is essentially his way of conceding the underlying so, thank you "sdraoul."

I'm not going to get drawn down into a mud-wrestling match with "sdraoul." That is his speciality, and I acknowledge he is far better at slime-throwing than me. That's the problem with us Democrats and our annoying preference for issues over character assassination. Since "sdraoul" has conceded the actual issue I was discussing, I am through with him.

And for "Ron" (9:07pm) and his gracious Thanksgiving wish, best wishes to you, too, "Ron" and all other participants here. Including "sdraoul" as well.
And yes, "Ron," we can indeed agree that this is "the greatest country God ever gave to humankind" even if we disagree on the best way to perpetuate that greatness.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Alf wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:55 AM:Well, "Karl" at 8:48AM, I didn't mean to spoil your fun.
Do you remember "The Wizard of Id"?
If you do, or even if you don't, then look at the comment from yesterdays letters at 8 something this morning and you'll see why I say I have my own pet "Lone Haranguer".
I'm blessed.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:59 AM:Well, "Cal" at 9:39AM,
the person of whom you speak has no shame. Or morals. Or ethics.
But he does have the right to free speech, no matter how shameless.
Regards, Alf.

Question for Reardon wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:12 AM:If every liberal picks and chooses from what you claim are the long list of "generalized tenets of liberalism", so that every liberal is a "cafeteria liberal" (even those who choose everything on your list are still choosing), then maybe it's an error to believe that there is such a thing as the generalized liberal. I think being a liberal, like being a conservative, means you have a family resemblance to others, but that it might be hard to say what you believe when it comes to any particular issue. On this blogspace, the words "liberal" and "conservative" are used, usually as insults, in a context of some issue or another. But some of us here write as though all liberals and all conservatives have a list of beliefs, and these lists are more or less non-overlapping. I'd bet that this is false, very false. Things go better when we talk about specific issues, without the categoricals that usually overreach and anyhow have little to do with the issue at hand. You agree?

Oh Paul wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:16 AM:To say that we have equal rights because we can marry whomever we like of the opposite sex makes about as much sense as saying that when mixed-race marriages were illegal, everyone had the same right to marry within their race. In other words, it's dumb and wrong. Face it. Get over it. Homosexual marriage does absolutely nothing, zero, nada to anyone's rights, lifestyle, religion, or anything else. You are as free as ever to detest gays, just as you are as free as ever to detest any other group you detest. That's your business in America. Civil rights, though, are everyone's. Give them marriage, and let's move on.

To Cal wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:17 AM:Why are you so anti-American? Schwilk is 100% correct. The Mexican immigrants who join, fight, and die for this country are hereoes. The illegal alien criminals who sneak in here and destroy our country are the problem. Why do you support such criminals? Alf, you show no shame....ever. You lefties disgust us all. Semper Fi, Sgt. Peralta.

Ron wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:20 AM:Now, given that fact that "Paul" @
7:56 AM is simly misinformed about my stance on subsidy's, prehaps a refresher course is required here?

I'm not big on subsidizing business of any kind. Big Oil can stand on their own, same to with nuclear.
But, given your obvious preference towards "green" sources, I can now understand why you say they need to be financed.
Remember where all of this inter-mingling came from, 1930's and FDR.
He set up the model, whereby, each administration, each Congress would according to their own political bents, and campaign beneficiaries would either reward, or punish business accordingly.
That's the model.
So, under your thinking, you believe the global warming mythology, hence...
you want your money to finance windmills.
Ya see? That's the problem.
Since when.. does government need to push and prod privately run business?
To pay one, and punish another?
This, is a political model, not a business model.
Business's have had to adapt to Washington, go to Washington, and beg Washington in many cases, just to survive. The market should determine who lives and dies, economically.
Not some hack politician looking to be re-elected, nor some cubicle sitting bueracrat looking to find some revolving door once they retire @ 90%.
In short, it's incest.

But, here again, the mythology persists, and I need to correct it:

QUOTE: Big Oil also used its power to destroy public transportation infrastructure in the US, as with the Red cars in LA." END Quote

Ya know... it would be nice if you had your facts correct.
First the government under FDR decided the private electrical firms/utilities could not run privately run, public transportation.
Under the 1935 Public Utilities Act, they forced many to divest, and then other companies who wanted to sell Buses, bought up the electric transit, scrapped them, and made public transit petroleum based.
Government did that, they opened the door to it. By fiat.
Get your facts straight!

WELL SAID wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:32 AM:“Much as we may deplore partisanship in Washington, bipartisan disasters are often twice as bad as partisan disasters – and [the bailouts] is a bipartisan disaster in the making. Too many people who argue that there is a beneficial role for the government to play in the economy glide swiftly from that to the conclusion that the government will in fact confine itself to playing such a role. In the light of history, this is a faith which passeth all understanding. Even in the case of the Great Depression of the 1930s, increasing numbers of economists and historians who have looked back at that era have concluded that, on net balance, government intervention prolonged the Great Depression.” – Thomas Sowell, PhD economics, Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University

Thank You Mr. Schwilk wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:52 AM:For your great tribute to Sgt. Peralta. Yes, its all about the difference between legal and illegal immigration. Legal immigrants will fight and die for this country. Illegal aliens will break more of our laws and most don't give a rat's behind about our military and our nation.

North County Liberal wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:11 AM:North County Liberal [TFB]: 11/26 -
Reardon at 9:02 a.m. calls Caro and DD "cafeteria liberals" because they fail to conform to HIS pre-determined stereotypes of what the "legitimate" "tenets" of liberalism are.
Reardon does not even call himself a modern liberal, so why does he think anyone picked him to be the liberal god to define what liberalism is.
The TENETS of LIBERALISM are free-thinking, populist, egalitarian, pro-peace, pro-freedom and pro-democracy, and for balance between preventive and reactive solutions to problems.
Differing free-thinking INDIVIDUALS will apply these basic tenets differently to specific problems. Liberals do not always agree. We do not go around saying "dittoes" or "megadittoes" to someone else who has been designated to do our thinking for us.

And quit that "cafeteria" talk.
You're makin' me hungry.

sdraoul wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:43 AM:There you go again, DD.

The "Republican Slime Machine?" Please.

You never delivert a truthful analysis of political economy questions.

"Mud?"

Come on. You want to discuss unemployment, do so truthfully.

It is obvious you knew nothign about the cattle cars that took American citizens of Mexican descent to Tijuana after they were illegally rounded up by FDR stormtroopers workign with the corrupt LA Police department.

Come on, DD, admit you didn't know this took place. Admit that if you knew you wouldn't be so eager to extoll the virtues of FDR.

Admit that you don't know much.

"Slime machinme?" Unless youc an disporve my contentions, DD, it is you who slime.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:53 AM:Sgt. Peralta still a hero I do certainly agree that the courageous Sgt is a hero who gave his life for his squad mates and the United States of America. You mention that this supports legal immigration. If the valorous Sgt had been an illegal, would that vindicate the value of illegal immigration?

Focal Point wrote on Nov 26, 2008 11:56 AM:Thank You Mr. Schwilk That is a lie. Illegal immigrants have been in our armed forces at various times throughout our history. There are illegal immigrants serving now in them. I suspect that you will find illegal immigrants fighting in Iraq. You are worried about an illegals opinion about our military and country. I remember a time when many Americans did not care about their military or country.

OBSERVATION wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:00 PM:BAGHDAD, Nov. 26 -- Iraqi lawmakers postponed until Thursday a scheduled vote on a security agreement that would extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq. But they have agreed to make the pact subject to a national referendum next year that could require a complete American troop withdrawal by July 2010 -- 18 months ahead of what the agreement now envisions.

To To Reardon wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:01 PM:Yes, I generally agree, but not everyone on this Blog or anywhere differentiates themselves by issue.

There are Obamaacolytes who will find no fault with anything Obama ever says or does.

There are Bible Thumpers who believe every word of a book in which there are many questions and contradictions. My position is closer to that of Jefferson’s Bible, which cut and pasted the morals without the miracles and superstition.

There are those who believe everything they want in their particular philosophy is a "civil right," and perhaps some day society will agree with several other countries that plants and animals have civil rights but I believe that the people should be the brake on such sweeping things through the ballot box. Convince them. A judicial oligarchy is as bad as any other type.

There are many positions from many people who claim conservative of liberal as a general world view, but who can never find fault with others of their same claimed position, even when there is disagreement -- there is just silence.

I have no problem with liberals, conservatives or libertarians, just a major problem with intolerance for others views that rises to name calling. Just read today’s blogs – few facts, little light, an abundance of name calling, and a lot of it by people who think of themselves as "tolerant".

jvc wrote on Nov 26, 2008 12:52 PM:These Conservative bloggers need to repent not carry on!

Bill wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:05 PM:How do the conspiracy theorists, that claim 9/11 wasnt a plane hitting the towers, explain the passenger lists and those who died on that plane?

Where did the passengers go?

Claiming that a plane did thbit the towers is lunatic fringe thinking.

Legal vs Illegal wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:23 PM:Why does Jeff Schwilk have to make this an issue about illegal immigration? A report I read about Rafael Peralta is he was born on April 7, 1979 in Mexico City. Son of Rafael and Rosa Peralta, the oldest of four siblings Icelda, Karen and Ricardo. He immigrated to the United States and joined the United States Marine Corps as soon as he had a green card. This tells me that when he came to the United States he was undocumented. This fact does not make him any less of a hero! It does say one thing though illegal immigrants do contribute to this country some even give up their lives for it. God Bless America.

To Cal or Jeff wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:39 PM:You are pathetic and hilarious.

The truth wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:39 PM:Know why there are more gay people today.because people are telling kids as young as 5 that its cool", so they are turning to it because of cliques. If I have a kid and he/she thinks they are gay I will get them Christian counseling, not acceptance of a lfestyle not approved by God. and before you say anything i am against divorce too and premarital sex.

Bill wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:43 PM:For the millionth time now........

There is no precedent to back the No on 8 supports claim of civil rights violations. There is an equality issue however that can be remedied by a stronger civil union. Therefore, as long as a remedy is available that is not being pursued, the gays are contributing to their own damages. The No on 8 backers are using a segregation argument that was upheld in Brown v. BOE but the definition of segregation doesnt fit their cause.

There are no civil rights being denied according to the courts.

Those that claim civil rights are being denied dont understand what constitutes a civil right and are using their own definition that isnt backed by any legal precedent. The gays have a right to equality but not social acceptance and legitimacy.

They will never get that in court because that isnt a right.

These arent my personal opinions but rather the legal precedednt that has been set.

Using precedent established in Brown v. BOE is a flawed argument because the courts only claimed segregation was a rights violation because it created the public perception of inferiority. The gays are not being segregated though like blacks were. The courts, in the Loving case, determined that a civil union or DP doesnt create that perception. Therefore, the courts do not define a civil union as inferior and therefore, there are no civil rights being denied. Seperate but equal is only unequal if it creates the public perception of inferiority and that isnt the case. This is the basis of the SCs decision in Brown v. BOE and it stands as binding precedent and law. Therefore, there are no civil rights issues to be ruled on which is why the SC will not issue a writ to hear the case. The SC reserves these spots for cases that divide the lower courts and that hasnt happened with the gay marriage issue. The opinions of those that continue to claim civil rights are denied are worthless personal opinions not backed by precedent.

The higher courts have NEVER stated that.

Once again, I voted against the proposition on the equality issue but the status quo is not a civil rights matter.

If backers of Prop 8 really wanted equality, they would seek to strengthen the DP and civil unions and not to force legitimacy on society. They do not have that right no matter how many uninformed people think they do. This has no compelling federal interest which is why the SC wont issue a writ to hear it. In addition, there is no contradicting precedent in the lower courts. Had there been civil rights issues at stake, the SC would jump all over this cause and they are not and never will because there are no civil rights issues being effected. Lack of equality is only a civil rights issue if the damaged parties have no alternative remedy. The civil union needs to gain full faith and credit and the issue of equality is remedied. But apparently that isnt enough to satisfy those that erroneously claim that civil rights are being denied.

Gays have no such right to the broader goal of social legitimacy and acceptance.

Equality is acheieved by strengthening the civil union to include equal rights and full faith and credit.

Thats a viable remedy that the gay marraige backers arent pursuing and its why they continue, and will continue to lose in court.

This amounts to squandering an opportunity to get what they want.

They do want equality right?

Then why arent they pursuing that angle in court?

There are some very confused legal novices in this room.

This isnt about civil rights.

Its an attempt to force legitimacy on society.

Gays are contributing to their own damages by refusing to settle for equality which is in their reach by strengthening the civil union.

But that isnt enough it appears.

I challenge those that claim civil rights are being denied to provide supporting precedent to support an argument.

They cant!

SDRowdy wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:46 PM:SDRaoul at 9:07 a.m. seems to think that any white person who dares to disagree with him on any issue without paying tribute to every Mexican who has ever suffered any injustice, no matter how unrelated to any other issue, is automatically a RACIST.
This stereotype is, itself, RACIST.

It is also a rather unconvincing way of dodging questions one finds himself unable to answer.

Global cooling wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:48 PM:Inconvenient Weather
1. London was hit by its first October snow since 1922
2. The Swiss lowlands last month received the most snow for any October
since records began. Zurich got 20 centimeters, breaking the record of 14
centimeters set in 1939.
3. Ocala, Fla., experienced its second-lowest October temperature since
1850.
4. October temperatures fell to record lows in Oregon as well. On Oct. 10,
Boise, Idaho, got the earliest snow in its history — 1.7 inches. That beat the
old record by seven-tenths of an inch and one day on the calendar.
5. In the Southern Hemisphere, where winter was winding down, Durban,
South Africa, had its coldest September night in history in the middle of the
month. Some regions of the country had unusual late-winter snows. A month
earlier, New Zealand officials reported that Mount Ruapehu had its largest
snow base ever.
6. At the top of the world, the International Arctic Research Center reported
last month, there was 29% more Arctic sea ice this year than last.
Oh, where is Al Gore when you need him for Global Cooling!
7) Upon examination of all tropical cyclone activity in the basins
throughout the Northern Hemisphere for the past 2 years, a remarkable
downward trend in cyclone energy has continued and reached historic levels
of inactivity. Even though North Atlantic hurricane activity was expectedly
above normal, the Western and Eastern Pacific basins have produced
considerably fewer than normal typhoons and hurricanes, respectively in
2008. Using a 24-month running sum, we see that Northern Hemisphere
ACE remains at historical lows. Moreover, there has only been 1 Category 5
15
typhoon (Jangmi) during the past year. This cyclone activity is consistent
with continued colder conditions in the Pacific Ocean and the previous
strong La Nina last spring.

Illegal Aliens in our Military wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:51 PM:Now that would be against the law since a requirement to be in the U.S. Military is that you are a US Citizen or LEGAL resident. Do these alien activists / bleeding heart liberals have no shame?
Is there any U.S. law that you think should not be broken? You expose your criminal agenda each time you open your mouths. How about we all just support LEGAL immigration and tell the illegals to go home?! What part of ILLEGAL is confusing to you???

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:19 PM:The truth[-] wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:39 PM
This is an outright lie. People are born gay. They do not chose to be gay. Now if your Christian young heterosexuals think it is cool to be gay then they need your counseling. Coming on this blog and spewing your absolute lies is disgusting.

Focal Point wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:21 PM:The truth[-] wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:39 PM: Gay statements is an out right false hood, Who cares about your view about divorce and premarital sex?

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:25 PM:Illegal Aliens in our Military[-] wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:51 PM: Hey Dubo! Who said that serving in the US military when an illegal alien is acceptable? Name the liberal who made such a statement! I just can not stand people of your ilk who come on this blog make unsupported claims with out documentation. But, by the way, illegal or legal, the US military does not care. They are short of bodies for the war. Hell, they will even take you. Want to join up?

To Illegal Aliens in our Military wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:26 PM:If you are responding to my comment of 1:23 p.m. Please read it carefully because you seem to have missed something. I don't understand your tirade! Once again and read it slow now okay; He immigrated to the United States and joined the United States Marine Corps as soon as he had a green card. This means only one thing when he got here he DID NOT have a green card. This means he entered this country illegally. He is still a hero. I hope Jeff Schwilk keeps fighting for the right thing for this former illegal immigrant and fellow Marine. Sempre Fi

GOTTA WONDER wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:28 PM:Debbie[-] wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:46 AM:
A real Dumbo here. Golden Rule. Treat others like you want to be treated. Great. Puff! There is no longer marriage of any type for heterosexuals.

Paul wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:28 PM:Dear Oh Paul

was this directed at my comments? If so, please re-read them. I was quoting Kelsey Kim's letter and my replies were preceded by asterisks
i then threw in the comment about the Mormons with no asterisk
I agree that gay marriage is no threat-just want to be clear on that ...

Oh Paul
[-] wrote on Nov 26, 2008 10:16 AM:
To say that we have equal rights because we can marry whomever we like of the opposite sex makes about as much sense as saying that when mixed-race marriages were illegal, everyone had the same right to marry within their race. In other words, it's dumb and wrong. Face it. Get over it. Homosexual marriage does absolutely nothing, zero, nada to anyone's rights, lifestyle, religion, or anything else. You are as free as ever to detest gays, just as you are as free as ever to detest any other group you detest. That's your business in America. Civil rights, though, are everyone's. Give them marriage, and let's move on.

Alf wrote on Nov 26, 2008 2:53 PM:Well, "Bill" at 1:43PM,
although you implied it, you didn't specifically mention the requirement to repeal or overturn DOMA to achieve equal protection. DOMA is, in my opinion, nothing but codified discrimination at its worst for it specifies the group to be discriminated against and the exact nature of that discrimination. Consider if the word "black" was substituted for "homosexual" in DOMA,
would that or would that not be blatantly un-Constitutional discrimination?
Regards, Alf.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:01 PM:To Karl:

This is totally off topic but I can help you with the Image Verification issue. What happens is that the site generates an image verification for the time you first load the page. If you, like me, take a while to formulate your responses, then that initial Image Verification sequence times out and you have to reload to get a new one.

The reasoning behind that is so that someone cannot write a script to over-ride the Image Verification process.

Sometimes it just plain ol bugs out.

The Boss wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:02 PM:How many people here are blogging on company time?

Oh, forget it. Just take the rest of the afternoon off.

Happy Thanksgiving.

FDR and the Race Card wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:05 PM:SDRaoul at 11:43 a.m. now tries to take a general complaint he made yesterday about alleged FDR racism (first regarding the Japanese, then about Mexicans) and tie it to labor issues when the relevance was questioned.
Backtracking, Raoul, backtracking.
Not very convincing.
If you wanted to address this as an employment issue, you should have raised that when you first started dissembling, but you didn't.
Even now, your hurried change of subject looks like a real stretch.
You started out with the Japanese Internment, but since that was DURING World War II, it was pretty hard to tie it to the pre-war economic recovery issues, wasn't it?
So you had to switch gears and pull the Mexican race card.
But oops, Raoul, you still didn't show how this is relevant.
What are the numbers involved?
How many Mexicans got rounded up?
In what pre-war-buildup year(s) between 1933 and 1937 did this occur?
What was the total national employment during those years and what effect did this have on the actual employment percentages that have been cited here?
Raoul, you offered NOTHING AT ALL.
That's why it looks mighty suspicious that you're just pulling out your old standby, the race card, that you fall back on every time you get stuck.

ANY PROOF GOTTA WONDER wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:05 PM:that you're born gay? I trust God more than man.

Alf wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:07 PM:Well, "Focal Point" at 2:21PM,
the pro 8 folks have taken to using one of the tactics of GWB -
profuse repetition of flat-out lies, in this case its "choice of lifestyle".
When challenged to specify when THEY chose to be heterosexual and when THEY made a choice to live a "heterosexual lifestyle", you've seen how they clam up or change the subject.
They try to baffle with bull because they have no brilliance with which to dazzle.
Regards, Alf.

Greenergy wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:28 PM:Global Cooling at 1:48 p.m. is another in a long line of those who do not understand the issue of global warming or the difference between weather (local and short-term) and climate (general and long term).
Because of people like this, the preferred term has now become "climate change."
As has been noted by many here, the pattern is one of increased extreme fluctuations of colder low temperatures and warmer high temperatures, with an overall long-term trend toward warmer global mean temperatures.
So both terms, "global warming" and "climate change" are ultimately accurate, but to avoid confusing people like this, "climate change" is easier for them to understand.
The extremes of weather described in this blog are consistent with the predictions.
Thank you for providing this additional confirmation of data validating the impending crimate crisis.

To Cal Legal vs. illegal wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:28 PM:I agree with both of you!

Thanks for comments. I agree - 100%.

To Ron wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:38 PM:"The complaint stems from Canada’s debate leading up to state legislation recognizing so-called same-sex marriage. In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as “wicked” and stated that: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

The pastor was lying too, Ron. You can't go around lying about people and causing them harm, RON.

He lied, he got called on it. ... Face it or don't.

IF wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:42 PM:IF the state is to remain in the BUSINESS of LICENSING MARRIAGE and
IF the state is to comply with its EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE in its Constitution,
THEN there can be ONLY TWO questions that must be satisfied for issuing a MARRIAGE LICENSE;
Are the two of you ADULT CITIZENS?
Are the two of you CONSENTING?
That's it, nothing more.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:44 PM:I honor the memory of Sgt. Peralta just the same as I do any and every Marine that has fallen. This Marine had the fortitude to get his green card, join the United States Marine Corps and perform an act of heroism while making the ultimate sacrifice.

Not every illegal immigrant is a "bad" person. There are exceptions to every rule. The world is not so cut and dry people!

That said, there is still the obligation we have as a nation of laws to uphold those laws. We cannot make exceptions. Doing so, would create an atmosphere of "exceptions". This leads to anarchy.

All we ask of those that desire to experience the American dream is to follow the rules of that dream. Come here legally and we will welcome you with open arms. Flaunt our laws and we will scoff at you.

Sgt. Peralta got his green card. That removes him from the status of "illegal".

Where there is a will, there is a way!

Do not dare tarnish his memory and his accomplishments for some "agenda".

The man did what he had to do, numerous times. The least you can do is respect that.

To Ron wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:49 PM:Thank you for your Thanksgiving wishes and I wish the same to you and yours, and everyone else on this blog.

That was cool.

Retired wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:54 PM:Blogging on my own time!
Thank you.

Karl wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:07 PM:Question for Reardon @ 10:12 AM:

Well said my friend. I believe that there is a huge difference between "Conservatives" and "Republicans". I am not so sure that there is a big difference between "Liberals" and "Democrats". I have no idea whether I am right or wrong on either but judging by this blog all Liberals vote Democrat and not all Conservatives vote Republican. This is the basis for my theory today. Tomorrow is a different day, ALF!!!

Peace and I mean it.

To Greenergy wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:09 PM:Please let us know when the water is lapping the first floor of the Empire State Building.

Cal back to at 1017 wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:10 PM:The poster at 10:17 thinks I am un-American. Boo-hoo. Does this bogger even know what American is? I don't think (s)he does. My ancestors founded this nation and set it up so we could critique our fellow citizens and government. Freedom of speech is as American as it gets. As for Schwilk and his ilk - in this American's opinion, they need to be challenged on their contemptible use of dead marines to further their racist views. Have a great turkey day. Be thankful we still have an American constitution after the last 8 years and a fantastic new president to lead us into the future.

Karl wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:18 PM:MarineGunner @ 3:01 PM, thanks for the advice. Someone on this site offering help to a fellow blogger is a welcome respite.

Peace to all MarineGunners

Global cooling wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:29 PM:More facts for Green Energy.
The International Energy Agency, an adviser to 28 nations, said it assumes
oil import prices will rebound to average $100 a barrel between 2008 and
2015 and said the threat of a ``supply crunch'' remains. The agency cut its global oil demand estimate for 2030 by 10 million barrels a day, to 106 million barrels, ``reflecting mainly the impact of much higher prices and slightly slower GDP growth,'' in an executive summary of its annual World Energy Outlook today. The full report will be published on Nov. 12.
``There remains a real risk that under-investment will cause an oil-supply
crunch'' by 2015 as the decline in output from mature oilfields speeds up, the Paris-based adviser to 28 oil-consuming nations said. ``The current financial crisis is not expected to affect long-term investment, but could lead to delays in bringing current projects to completion.'' The agency raised its forecast for the world's energy investment needs from 2007 through to 2030 by more than $4 rillion to above $26 trillion. The world will require another 64 million barrels a day of oil capacity as declining production in existing fields accelerate to 8.6 percent from 6.7 percent currently, the IEA said. Global energy demand, including oil, natural gas and coal, is set to grow 1.6 percent a year in that period, according to the summary. Global oil demand 12 growth will average 1 percent a year in the period, with all of the increase coming from developing economies. OPEC's share of the world oil market, provided those nations invest in new supply, will rise to 51 percent in 2030, from 44 percent last year, the IEA said. Production ``has already peaked in most non-OPEC countries and will peak in most others before 2030,'' it said. Now do I have you confused?

Karl wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:36 PM:Alf @ 3:07 PM:

While your argument holds water, your theory is also valid on the other side of the argument. The Mormons have no right to make phone calls etc. Baloney, they have every right to argue their beliefs and vote accordingly. I am really tired of both sides arguing over the word "marriage". Both sides suck in my humble opinion. Civil unions with all the tax penalties and heir options that come with it are fine with me.

Hell, call my relationship with the Mrs. whatever you want, I could give a rat's droppings.

The guilty on both sides of this issue are ludicrous in their portrayal of their adversaries.

Peace

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:48 PM:to:Greenergy
[-] wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:28 PM:

Are you aware that there are folks who dispute your claim? "Global Warming" was not changed to "Climate Change" in order to make their agenda "easier for them to understand". It was changed because the message was found to be innaccurate.

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel and Chief Meteorologist at a very local News channel, has published many papers that debunk your "climate change" theory. Look it up.

There are other scientists, that have joined in the fight against the "climate change" agenda. While you will not find anyone that advocates ecological irresponsibility, you will find that the whole agenda you are espousing is in serious lack of qualified scientific quantification.

It is a scam designed to rob you of your money. IE: Tax increases based on "environmental concerns".

Point 1) The ice core record clearly demonstrates that increases in global temperatures precede increases in atmospheric CO2 by periods of several hundred years.
Google John Mitchell OBE FRS

Point 2) Palaeoclimatological evidence, which is grounded in the geological study of very long periods of time, shows that over multi-hundred-million year periods there has been no connection between temperatures on Earth and atmospheric CO2 levels.
Don't believe me? Look up:
Yale geologist R A Berner and University of Texas geologist C Scotese.

Point 3) Climate models based on anthropogenic warming have been proved wrong.

Look up Anthony Watts, or John Coleman for more data.

Be skeptical. Do not just blindly follow a mantra adopted by a huge coalition of self-interested supporters, whose only goal is to garner themselves as the saviors of our planet.

Greenergy wrote on Nov 26, 2008 4:48 PM:The person responding to me at 4:09 p.m. demonstrates typical conservative myopia. S/he wants to ignore the overwhelming consensus of REAL science and wait until the waters are lapping at the Empire State Building instead of preventing it in the first place.
Kind of like George Bush ignoring the PDB about Bin Laden planning to attack and then being surprised when the planes were "lapping at" the World Trade Center.
Real smart.

Alf wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:07 PM:Well, "Karl" at 4:07PM,
you are right, tomorrow is a new day!
Tomorrow, Thanksgiving, is a day for several things -
A day to reflect on all those things and people for which we can be thankful.
A day to greet family, friends and strangers with a smile and to treat them all with compassion and love.
A day that I'm not going to be on this blog (I can hear the applause even before this is posted, psychic or??).
A day for devilled eggs, HUZZAH!!
A day for food, fun, food, family, food, festivities, food, frivolities, food and food.
Did I mention food?
The columnist Jon Carroll coined the idea and name "Untied Way" (NOT a typo), google Jon Carroll Untied Way.
May you all and each one of you and yours have a fine Thanksgiving Day!
Regards, Alf.

tjefferson wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:08 PM:Our country's eight year nightmare is at an end. We will finally, after all those bleak years, have a brilliant, honest president who will bring our nation back to sanity and stability. We did it, we voted to return integrety, honesty and intelligence to the White House. Happy Thanksgiving!

to Bill wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:14 PM:Bill wrote on Nov 26, 2008 1:43 PM

MONOGAMY

Why did the Cal. judges rule for 'same sex marriage' recently.

Why would some churches allow and approve 'same sex marriage'.

Why was the vote a close vote.

I think the intelligent people know Prop.8 is a scheme to purposely hurt homosexuals (minorities).

Some tax-free churches used their freedom of speech to harm minority citizens.

For the Prop.8 supporters the bible is their answer to torment minorities.
Religious wars continue to kill more people than any other wars.

Religions that practice "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" and that help support individuals (mentally and physically) and families are worthy.

What changed in your life during the 2008 time that same sex adults legally married in California.

No one for Prop.8 has described pain, suffering, or death in any of the letters to the editor nor in the blogs. Though many use harsh ugly words. And spout "some of their best friends are homosexuals".

Use an up to date dictionary and you will find variations defining the word marriage.

It is a civil right issue. Most rather not be homosexuals. It is not a choice. Just like it is not a choice to be born with blue eyes or brown eyes or to be born with a small attractive nose or a large nose.

It is their body comfort zone and it is not contagious nor dangerous.

They are American citizens: brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, neighbors.

Bill, they deserve the same rights you have.
~Tony

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:24 PM:ANY PROOF GOTTA WONDER: Yeah. There is plenty of proof. There are over 10 million gay people in the United States. Ask a few thousand. Observation and testimony supports being born gay. You have any proof that you are born hetro?
No, you are just born that way. Your sexual orientation becomes evident at puberty when the hormones are activated.
You super duper Christians are always referring to God. You seen him lately? Ever meet him? Maybe you caught him at a book signing for a bible? There is no proof that the God of the Bible is the Creator. It is merely a matter of faith. Faith is not scientific fact or evidence. Now, if you observe God, that would be evidence discernible to the eye.

Surfer wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:26 PM:Alf[-] wrote on Nov 26, 2008 3:07 PM: They try to baffle with bull because they have no brilliance with which to dazzle. Kahuna, I like that one.

sdraoul wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:28 PM:Another critic dares question me on the illegal FDR sweeps of Mexicans off the streets of Los Angeles in an effort to open up jobs for unemployed white people during the Depression.

I don't make these things up. Again, I 'll bet that DD had no knowledge of this gigantic violation of the Constitution by his "God" FDR, nor did this questioner.

Here is a bill introduced into the California legislature that describes what happened in California that was illegal:

SB 670 - Dunn * Mexican repatriation program of the 1930s.

BILL NUMBER: SB 670 - INTRODUCED

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Senator Dunn
FEBRUARY 22, 2005

An act relating to Mexican repatriation.

"SB 670, as introduced, Dunn. Mexican repatriation program of the
1930s.

This bill would enact the "Apology Act for the 1930s Mexican
Repatriation Program" and make findings and declarations regarding
the unconstitutional removal and coerced emigration of United States
citizens and legal residents of Mexican descent, between the years
1929 and 1944, to Mexico from the United States during the 1930s
"Mexican Repatriation" Program.

The bill would express the apology of the State of California to
those individuals who were illegally deported and coerced into
emigrating to Mexico and would require that a plaque be placed and
maintained in a public place to commemorate this event."

Here is but one book on the subject.

1. Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the... by Francisco E. Balderrama

f y i wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:30 PM:"In a Generation, Minorities May Be the U.S. Majority

The New York Times, By Sam Roberts

Ethnic and racial minorities will comprise a majority of the nation’s
population in a little more than a generation, according to new Census
Bureau projections, a transformation that is occurring faster than
anticipated just a few years ago.

The census calculates that by 2042, Americans who identify themselves as
Hispanic, black, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific
Islander will together outnumber non-Hispanic whites. Four years ago,
officials had projected the shift would come in 2050." [continued]


"IN A GENERATION, MINORITIES MAY BE the U.S. MAJORITY"

~Tony

Think about it. wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:31 PM:FDR and the Race Card: Just too bad. It was a declared war time. The President can do anything he wants. The President is above the law. So, FDR round up the Mexicans. So what? It was legal. Come to think of it. Could we round up the illegals since we are at war? Very interesting!

WELL SAID wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:36 PM:(for your consideration)
“As with all policy decisions, the choice between combating climate change or continuing the current greenhouse gas emissions trend is a choice between different sets of risks, costs and benefits. Yet, the debate offers little discussion of the benefits of warming or the costs of trying to slow climate change. Those issues need to be part of the public discussion of greenhouse gas policy, as they will affect efforts to reach a political consensus.
There is abundant evidence that an increase in climatic temperature of 2-3 degrees Celsius may well benefit many regions of the United States in the form of enhanced amenity value. ... Global warming can increase agricultural productivity. ... Even though economists can estimate the value of a warmer climate, really large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions depend upon the widespread adoption of new technologies. Yet, the cost of decarbonizing the American economy will be radically unequal to the benefits. By one estimate, the only current method of carbon capture for coal-burning plants increases the typical customer's utility bills by 44 percent. Because the poor spend a larger part of their income on energy, such cost increases will disproportionately hurt poorer people.
Furthermore, change science suggests that continuing, uncontrolled increases in greenhouse gas emissions would constitute a global-level experiment with unknown but potentially very serious and harmful long-term consequences.” – Jason Scott Johnston, Director of the program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania ( "A Looming Policy Disaster," Regulation, Vol. 31, No. 3, Fall 2008.)

tjefferson wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:37 PM:To Bill at 1:43 p.m. NO, in Brown v. the Board of Education the High Court did not claim that "segregation was a rights violation because it created the public perception of inferiority." The Court ruled and clearly stated that "separate educational facilities are inherintly unequal."

Isn't it interesting that the founding fathers made it impossible to change the U. S. Constitution with a simple majority of the voters. The authors of the California Constitution should have been as wise.

sdraoul wrote on Nov 26, 2008 5:41 PM:For those who live in DD's fantasy world.

FDR and race.

FDR did not support an anti-lynching bill in 1940.

FDR deported American citizens because they looked Mexican during the Depression.

FDR incarcerated American citizens for several years because they had Japanese backgrounds.

FDR refused to integrate the armed forces.

FDR refused to allow blacks to join the Marines until 1942.

FDR refused to hire blacks into the CCC, the WPA projects and any other government program during the Depression.

FDR supported the Bacon Davis Act that was designed to keep black workers from federally financed construction projects.

FDR supported the American Labor Movement in its denial of black membership (except as railroad porters).

FDR supported the illegal convictions of black U.S. army soldiers (from segregated units) at an Army base in Washington State (those convictions were just overturned this year).

FDR supported the giant mutiny court martial of black sailors at Port Chicago in California that saw over a hundred black sailors convicted of mutiny. The convictions were based on no real evidence other than the color of skin. Those convictions were overturned in recent years.

Obama Bounce wrote on Nov 26, 2008 6:25 PM:Stocks up again more than TWO HUNDRED POINTS.
First time in - how long? - that we have had FOUR straight up days?
After Obama begins announcing his economic plan and economic team?
Where is everyone who was complaining about the "Obama recession"?
Awfully silent all of a sudden!

The Problems in Detroit wrote on Nov 26, 2008 6:57 PM:The quality problems in Detroit are summarized by the following 2008 remarks by the JD Power Quality analysis:

(Quote) For a third consecutive year, Porsche tops the overall nameplate rankings, averaging 87 PP100. Following in the rankings are Infiniti (which improves from 9th rank position in 2007), Lexus, Mercedes-Benz and Toyota, respectively. Audi posts the largest improvement in ranking, moving from 26th place in 2007 to 10th in 2008.

“Porsche continues its steady improvement and has succeeded in distancing itself from the second-ranked nameplate to a greater degree in 2008—by a gap of 11 PP100—compared with 3 PP100 in 2007,” said Sargent.

(UNQUOTE)

Notice the lack of a SINGLE American car, despite the fact that most of the "foreign" cars are made in America, by American workers.

to jeff schwilk wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:39 PM:You are obssessed with "illegals". You should see a head doctor soon. Always looking for something to cover up your bigotry.You don't fool me.

Its a shame wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:42 PM:Any human would give their life for this ungrateful country full of bigots! Illegal or not, Peralta died in combat serving for the U.S. You bunch of ingrates don't deserve to have Latinos, Asians, Blacks or gays for that matter, dying in the war.

Home Sales Analysis wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:49 PM:I am continually amazed that the press reports the housing market without ever putting anything into perspective. Right now they are reporting that sales are up nationally, by 127% over the same month last year, but that prices continue to fall.

Ahhh, yes and no. Yes, sales are solid but the distribution of those sales is terribly skewed and so reporting median sales prices is less than meaningless – it is misleading.

Suppose an area, like a city or a state has a normal distribution of homes ranging from apartments, small condos, cheap homes, middle class homes, upper middle class homes, and estates.

In a normal month suppose 30 cheap homes sell, 50 middle and upper-middle class homes sell, and 5 estate homes sell. The “Median sales price” falls somewhere in the middle class homes, perhaps even at the bottom of the upper-middle class homes.

Now suppose that we have a market where, as it happens today, 40 cheap homes sell and 25 of them are bank owned and in distressed sales; two middle class homes sell; and no luxury or estates sale.

Guess what? The “median sales price” will be very low, because none of the homes that would normally make up a normal distribution are not selling. When the only sales being reported are distressed sales, the “median sales price” will be a distressed price!

Casual observers who hear the numbers and do not understand the situation, or are the result of our failed educational system and simply do not have the intellectual capacity to understand even if it is analyzed, cause a lack of confidence and a continuing lower market.

In the past 24 hours in Zip Code 92026 (North Escondido) there were 11 new listings, 11 price changes, and 11 homes closed escrow. The problem is that every home that closed escrow was priced under $350,000.

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 26, 2008 9:40 PM:ROLL OVER FROM 112508.
To: MarineGunner:
Nuff Said never said anything about your support or lack of support in the war in Iraq.
Nuff Said never said anything about you, your service or the USMC.
Nuff Said only said that there were no WMD found prior to or after the invasion of Iraq.
I understand precisely what you said and what you meant. The problem is that you do not understand what I said. Nuff Said said only that no WMDs were found prior to or after the invasion of Iraq. That is all Nuff Said. If you believe that I said anything else, go right ahead and quote me. Nuff Said.

Greenergy wrote on Nov 27, 2008 6:58 AM:MarineGunner at 4:48 p.m. confirms the source of his utter ignorance about science.
He cites as the source of debunking THOUSANDS of PEER-REVIEWED papers in journals as, what?
"John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel and Chief Meteorologist at a very local News channel." He flippantly tells me to "look it up."
OK. I did.
JOHN COLEMAN IS NOT A SCIENTIST.
He is NOT A "METEOROLOGIST."
He is a LOCAL TV WEATHERMAN.
Go to the KUSI website. I did!
Or as you tell, me, "LOOK IT UP."
The KUSI website shows him as a TV WEATHERMAN.
Not a meteorologist.
They don't even show that he ever even got a college degree! But they do note that he has been doing TV weather since he was a freshman.
I guess the same people who can't tell the difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER are also the same people who can't tell the difference between a TV WEATHERMAN and a METEOROLOGIST.

Thanks for PROVING MY POINT.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 27, 2008 8:08 AM:To: Nuff Said,
Heya 3rd person responder.

You directed your comment at me when you replied to the post I made about the 1998 Clinton SotUA.
If you were just making a general statement, why direct it at me?

When you post a reply and address someone, it means you are talking to that person.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? I asked you questions, I didn't make any statements about what Nuff Said said.

Based on the flurry of responses you made on the Nov 25th page I must have struck a nerve.

You make me smile.

Have a great Thanksgiving!

Karl wrote on Nov 27, 2008 8:29 AM:Wow, Its a shame @ 8:42 PM, you really backed up your statement "this ungrateful country full of bigots!" with "ingrates don't deserve to have Latinos, Asians, Blacks or gays for that matter". You fit right into the bigot category with that statement.

Peace

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 27, 2008 8:39 AM:MarineGunner[-] wrote on Nov 27, 2008 8:08 AM: I do not have a problem with comprehension. My comment was addressed to you because you presented it. It had your identifying moniker. It is your nerve that was hit due to your bombastic remarks. Again, are you going to quote me or not regarding your statements. You know why you can not quote me. I never said or inferred anything to evidence your complaints.
Marines do not make excuses. You made plenty of them.

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 27, 2008 8:50 AM:To: Greenergy

I never said that John Coleman is a scientist.
He IS the founder of The Weather Channel, and he most certainly IS a Meteorologist.
Did you find the papers he has published on the subject of your beloved "global warming"?

They are pretty easy to find if you aren't a ... Just go to ColemansCorner and you will find a plethora of information for your reading pleasure.

What about all the other information I provided you? Are you going to throw a tantrum and stomp your feet about all that stuff too?

Greenergy wrote on Nov 27, 2008 9:00 AM:To MarineGunner at 8:50 a.m.:
No, being a TV Weatherman is NOT THE SAME AS BEING A METEOROLOGIST and John Coleman is NOT A METEOROLOGIST.
All you are doing is proving that you can't tell the difference.

Note: anyone can publish anything. I'm not questioning that he published stuff.
Do you understand what a PEER-REVIEWED scientific or academic research journal is?
Do you?
None of John Coleman's writings were published in a PEER-REVIEWED scientific or academic research journal.

Again, thank you for proving my point.

Nuff Said wrote on Nov 27, 2008 9:27 AM:MARINE GUNNER: Well. Where are my quotes?
Do you have one where I stated anything about the USMC or your service, rate, time in grade or places of service?
Did I state that you had in anyway co authored the speech by former President Clinton? Did you post the Clinton speech with your blog name, MarineGunner in the left hand corner? All I said is that there were no WMDs found prior to or after the invasion of Iraq. Let us see the quotes?

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 27, 2008 9:31 AM:MarineGunner: Would you release your
DD214 to the public?

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 27, 2008 4:33 PM:To: Nuff Said,

I am having a great Thanksgiving! 2 horrible football games, wonderful food, great company!

You?

On this day of giving thanks, I thank you for providing me with some much needed entertainment!

Cheers!

MarineGunner wrote on Nov 27, 2008 10:02 PM:To Nuff Said and Greenergy,

Who is John Galt?