Re "Sometimes justice isn't served"

You forgot to post the article where the father and son were murdered by illegals that had prior convictions and were not turned in by the city of San Francisco for deportation.

Just in case you forgot.

And just a thought, if some time had been spent securing the border by any of the administrations the subject of the story might well have still been alive, something that the reporter bends over backwards to not say.

What he does take time to do is to put in a line for thousands of lynchings of "African-Americans" and I am not sure quite what happened to the Hispanics in Texas. And another line about some DJ in Boston. But apparently this happened in California, which having lived there is NOTHING like Boston, the south or Texas.

Also I do not get the concept of trying folks for the "violation of civil rights" as any person beat to death by four people is equally dead. Just as I don't get that the death penalty is only given in New York where the victim is a Judge or police officer. (See I stuck in something from another state that really didn't apply to the situation either!)

---

Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain

And just a thought, if some time had been spent securing the border by any of the administrations the subject of the story might well have still been alive, something that the reporter bends over backwards to not say.

he could have been just in vacation, they sure did not ask first "are you illegally here or on vacation", but still they killed him.

And he could have been an astronaut on the space station.

---

Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain

I am not aware of any rule that says I can’t have more than one “purpose” per post. I simply pointed out the contrast between people who made such ignorant and factually incorrect statements (the examples I gave) and my position regarding our new president. It is much more constructive to support even those whom one did not vote for than to spend one’s energy constantly attacking and trying to tear down whatever your opponent does. Making false statements, like the ones I cited, is not helpful.

Neither am I, but when a comment is stated to serve a purpose, then, surely, it's reasonable to conclude that the purpose it is stated to server is its primary purpose? You stated "This statement is meant to contrast the ignorant sentiments", if the preceding statement was the primary purpose of your post, this instruction on how it was meant to be interpreted was not helpful.

Stating my logic is faulty does not make it so, you told readers how your words were meant to be interpreted, and that was as a contrast to comments by others with which you clearly disagree. That is how I read the post.

True, stating something does not make it so, but I went beyond that and gave an explanation. If you don't understand what I said, that does not make my statement false.

Indeed, you suggested my logic was faulty with claims that "it was not meant to "criticize the opinions of others."" and "It was partly meant to point out the patently false statements of others". As noted, the instructions for interpretation conflict with this defense of your second post to this thread, so why is my logic faulty? While it is true that my logic was limited to a parsing of what the post actually said, rather than what you later say it was meant to be, this does not make the logic faulty.

. . . A word count will show there is greater stress what the positive aspect is to be compared with than the positive aspect itself.

I don’t understand that sentence.

Apologies, the structure was awkward and unfortunately a word was missing, perhaps this will help:
A word count of the second post to this thread will show a greater stress on "the contrast" than on the "positive aspect".

FWIW I was not a citizen in 2000 or 2004, so I did not consider your statement as directed at me.

And indeed, it was not. But you did accuse me of flaming, and you did ignore the positive part of my message, so I responded. Even now you seem to say my message had bad intentions. All I have done is state my support for my country's president while pointing out a little history of the sentiments expressed in this thread (series), which provided an object lesson in divisiveness and bad citizenship. If you can’t see that point, well, maybe the fault lies with you.

If there was an accusation it was implicit, and while your "good definition" limits flames to attacks on "another participant", this is not one that I could find on dictionary.com:
"Computer Slang. an angry, critical, or disparaging electronic message, as an e-mail or newsgroup post."
"Computer Slang. to insult or criticize angrily in an electronic message."
"Informal An insulting criticism or remark meant to incite anger, as on a computer network."
"To rant, to speak or write incessantly and/or rabidly on some relatively uninteresting subject or with a patently ridiculous attitude or with hostility toward a particular person or group of people."

And if you can't see the irony in drawing attention to "an object lesson in divisiveness " while using the interesting choice of words I originally quoted, then perhaps the "fault" does not lie with me after all.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Governor Arnold prepares for worst in budget

---

me@rescam.org

Forget panicky plan to sell fairgrounds

Union Tribune editorial

May 15, 2009

For successive generations of San Diego families, it wouldn't be summer without a trip to the Del Mar Fair or the race track.

Indeed, the Del Mar Fairgrounds are one of San Diego County's most popular attractions, drawing 3 million visitors to more than 300 events each year. In addition to the Del Mar Fair, whose attendance topped 1.2 million in 2008, the fairgrounds host thoroughbred horse racing and scores of flower festivals, concerts, arts and crafts exhibitions, rodeos, bazaars, auto shows and other events.

Aptly described as “perhaps the state's most valuable commercially used property,” the fairgrounds each year create 4,000 jobs and generate a $400 million bonanza for the San Diego economy.

So, to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger we say: Keep your hands off!

In a panic to raise money and “avoid cutting programs,” according to a report written by his advisers, Schwarzenegger wants to sell to the highest bidder the 400 acres on which the fairgrounds sit. Bye-bye, Del Mar Fair. Bye-bye, Del Mar Thoroughbred Club. Bye-bye, flower shows and other popular attractions.

There is no doubt that this prime coastal real estate – “where the turf meets the surf,” as the Bing Crosby tune celebrates – is highly valuable, worth $1 billion or more. But today the property is a public benefit, enjoyed by millions of San Diegans and out-of-town visitors.

The governor's hastily considered scheme would transform the site into private property. It's doubtful a private developer would preserve the fairgrounds as they are today. A more profitable use, from a developer's perspective, might be a posh seaside resort or luxury estate homes or even an upscale shopping mall. The historic amenity enjoyed by millions of San Diegans for more than seven decades would be lost forever.

What's next? Selling the state Capitol as a way to “avoid cutting programs”?

The fact is, the fairgrounds are entirely self-supporting. They receive no money from the state's deficit-ridden general fund. Run by an independent state agency, the venue generates $50 million a year in revenues and lives within its budget.

The only reason Gov. Schwarzenegger has cast an envious eye on the Del Mar Fairgrounds is the desperation surrounding Sacramento over the budget crisis. For years the governor and the Legislature have spent far more than the state collected in taxes. Now, this reckless deficit spending has culminated in near insolvency for the state.

The five budget-related propositions on next Tuesday's special election ballot (Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E) are other glaring symptoms of Sacramento's corrupt political culture, which seeks to deceive voters about the gargantuan $16 billion tax hike hidden in Proposition 1A. Schwarzenegger's bid to sell off the Del Mar Fairgrounds deserves to be defeated just as much as the flawed ballot propositions do.

---

me@rescam.org

House speaker in a hole of her own making

Union Tribune editorial

May 16, 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pro-choice. Now, given how she answers questions about what she knew about waterboarding and when she knew it, we know that she can also be multiple choice.

First, the California Democrat, who has harshly criticized the interrogation technique in bashing the Bush administration, said she was never told that the CIA was engaging in water-boarding, only that it was an option on the table. Then, this week, after being contradicted by other House Democrats and members of her own staff, Pelosi reluctantly acknowledged that she was informed but insisted that the CIA only told her of the practice as a courtesy and actually misled her and other members of Congress.

When you're a lawmaker thinking of digging yourself out of a hole of your own making by declaring war on the CIA, the first piece of advice is: “Don't do it.” The agency has a gift for saving itself, and it won't hesitate to leak whatever information it needs to in order to stay afloat. CIA officials know exactly what they told Pelosi, and soon so will the rest of us.

But Pelosi's real enemies are closer to home. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, whose job Pelosi wanted to give to her ally John Murtha of Pennsylvania, covets the speaker's job. So it was no surprise when Hoyer endorsed the idea of an independent commission looking into the issue “not so much for what was done but to ensure that what we do going forward is legal, consistent with our values, consistent with our morals and consistent . . . with protecting our nation and our people.”

And if what is uncovered leaves Nancy Pelosi unprotected, then, as far as some fellow Democrats are concerned, all the better.

CIA chief stands up against Pelosi

---

me@rescam.org

How long before they waterboard Pelosi to find out what she knew and when she knew it?

---

How long before they waterboard Pelosi to find out what she knew and when she knew it?

I don't think congress would have any more luck getting a straight answer even if they waterboarded HER. The public couldn't get an answer about offshore drilling ban in international waters other than it won't be discussed until after the election. Anybody heard discussions on this YET?

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

Pelosi

Infighting in the wilderness

By Ruben Navarrette
Union Tribune

May 17, 2009

Many Republicans still worship Ronald Reagan, but some of them are having trouble adhering to the late president's 11th commandment:

“Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.” These days, that admonition seems downright quaint. In fact, Republicans seem to be going after each other with more energy and enthusiasm than many of them show when they butt heads with Democrats.

Bill Bennett, one of the country's leading conservatives, joked recently that he is willing to mediate the dispute between Colin Powell and radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh since he likes them both. Their tiff started when Limbaugh said that Powell had endorsed Obama “purely and solely based on race.” According to the National Journal, Powell responded in a speech that “what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without.” Limbaugh returned fire on his show, saying that “what Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat instead of claiming to be a Republican interested in reforming the Republican Party.”

If Bennett is serious about wanting to mediate conflicts, then he's in the right party. He could also turn his attention to the divide between Powell and former Vice President Dick Cheney. During a recent appearance on CBS' “Face the Nation,” when asked about the spat between Limbaugh and Powell, Cheney let loose with this barb: “My take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican.” Cheney said that Powell's endorsement of Obama gave “some indication of his loyalty and his interest.”

Or maybe Bennett could smooth things out between Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and potential 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney. While serving as guest host of Bennett's radio show, Steele responded to a question by citing the former Massachusetts governor's penchant for flip-flops and saying that the GOP base rejected Romney in 2008 because it “had issues with Mormonism.” A Romney spokesman charged that Steele misfired when trying to “shoot from the hip.”

Bennett could also bring together Romney and a likely rival in 2012: Sarah Palin. Told that Palin had been chosen as one of Time magazine's 100 most-influential people, Romney quipped: “Was that the issue on the most beautiful people or the most influential people?”

Or Bennett could try to play peacemaker between former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and a group of forward-looking GOP leaders – including Romney, Rep. Eric Cantor, of Virginia, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush – whom Huckabee recently mocked for launching a “listening tour” to reach out to voters, the first stop of which didn't make it outside the Beltway.

There is nothing wrong with a robust debate about the future of the Republican Party. Nor is there anything wrong with GOP leaders poking at one another. As Indiana Rep. Mike Pence likes to say: “Rubbing is racing.” But there is a difference between a healthy competition of ideas and personal attacks motivated by ego, envy and an eagerness to get to the front of the line.

The Republican Party has never excelled at diversity, but what it needs now is a tolerance for diversity of opinion. Limbaugh should be free to criticize Powell and express his view about what sparked the general's endorsement of Obama. But at the same time, Powell should be able to endorse a Democrat for president when inspired to do so and still be considered a Republican, just as – on the other side of the fence – so-called Reagan Democrats crossed party lines in 1984 and yet managed to find their way home in subsequent elections to vote for Bill Clinton and, later, for Obama.

Instead of engaging in childish infighting, this is the time for Republicans to settle on their values, hone their message, and choose their leaders. The GOP needs to re-brand and market itself to the country. It needs to explain to voters – especially the immigrants and young people who represent the future – why concepts such as personal responsibility, limited government, respect for the individual and local control are still worth championing. Most of all, some of its leaders need to realize that winning elections is about lifting new people into the boat, not tossing the crew overboard.

---

me@rescam.org

Elect the president

---

me@rescam.org

The president and Pelosi's problem with the CIA

By David Ignatius
THE WASHINGTON POST

May 19, 2009

It has been the nightmare scenario ever since the modern system of congressional oversight of intelligence was created in the late 1970s: When a scandal erupts, a member of Congress will put his (or her) political interests above those of the intelligence agency whose secrets he (or she) has sworn to protect.

That's what's so troubling about the campaign for self-vindication that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been waging. To escape from the charge that she was briefed about – and implicitly condoned – interrogation methods that she now calls torture, Pelosi is accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of lying. And not just the Bush-era CIA, mind you, but the Obama CIA as well.

If you read the CIA's careful 10-page summary of the 40 briefings it has given to Congress since 2002 on “enhanced interrogation techniques,” it's pretty hard not to conclude that Pelosi is shading the truth to retrospectively cover her backside. “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah . . . and a description of the particular EITs that had been used,” reads the entry for the Sept. 4, 2002, briefing for Pelosi and her House Republican counterpart, Porter Goss. Those techniques included waterboarding, whose use Pelosi has repeatedly claimed she wasn't briefed on.

Congressional Democrats are acting as if there is something sinister in the CIA releasing the records of its briefings (see, for example, Politico's May 12 post “Democrats: CIA is out to get us”). But the deal with congressional oversight is that if members of Congress are briefed on a subject and don't object, they shouldn't trash the agency later in public when there's a flap. That undermines not just CIA morale but the integrity of the oversight process itself.

Pelosi's apparent rewriting of the record would be shocking, if it weren't so typical of congressional behavior on this subject.

Playing politics with the CIA is a way of life on Capitol Hill – love 'em when they're up, trash 'em when they're down. Republicans and Democrats both play this game, from administration to administration. Rarely, though, has it been as naked as in Pelosi's case. Having climbed up a very tall tree, she is now watching – and yelping – as the CIA saws off the limb.

CIA Director Leon Panetta delivered a sharp riposte to Pelosi on Friday, serving notice that he is removing the “kick me” sign from the CIA uniform. He said in a message to employees: “There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.”

CIA veterans remember how William Casey protected his flank when he was CIA director in the 1980s. To get congressional support for his plan to undermine the Nicaraguan economy by having the contras plant mines in Nicaraguan harbors, Casey invited leading members of Congress to the super-secret Site 39 in North Carolina where the operation was being planned. There was even a photo of then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan sitting atop one of the big mines that was to be used, “looking like the actor Slim Pickens riding a nuclear warhead in 'Dr. Strangelove,' ” remembers a former agency officer.

When the mining operation became public and Moynihan and others began expressing indignation – and threatened to call CIA officers to testify – Casey paid a visit to Capitol Hill to meet with the congressional leadership. The demand for CIA testimony disappeared, and agency officers involved in the program suspected that Casey had brought along some of the Site 39 photos in his briefcase.

What will President Obama do in this latest of the never-ending skein of CIA flaps? If Pelosi forces a political showdown, I have a feeling that Obama will side with his CIA director, Leon Panetta, and not with the House speaker.

By reversing his position last week on the release of Defense Department photos documenting the abuse of detainees, Obama put his responsibilities as commander in chief first – and his loyalty to fellow Democrats second. That's the way it's supposed to work, and, if Obama follows through, it will be one of the defining moments of his presidency.

---

me@rescam.org

'Cash for clunkers'
Congress must come up with a better program

Union-Tribune Editorial

May 20, 2009

On the surface, it sounds like a good idea. Provide financial incentives for owners to take their old, high-emissions vehicles off streets and highways in San Diego and across the nation and replace them with more energy efficient, lower-emissions vehicles. Hence, cleaner air and, as a side benefit, increased new car sales at a time when the auto industry is facing very tough times.

Those supporting the idea will suggest looking at similar programs in Germany, France and Britain. The fuel efficiency program in Germany, where gasoline is selling for just over $6 per gallon, did boost auto sales by about 20 percent.

Even in America, some states have used “cash for clunkers” programs with some success. California, for instance, has spend about $50 million per year to give low-income residents up to $1,500 to scrap vehicles that fail emissions tests or $500 to have them repaired. In light of new emissions guidelines, the state is considering expanding this program.

As part of a nearly 1,000-page energy bill, Congress is considering a hastily-devised “cash for clunkers” program. The basics are these: Trade in your vehicle for any 2009 model that gets just four miles per gallon more than yours, and you get a $3,500 taxpayer subsidy. If that new 2009 model gets 5 miles per gallon more for trucks or 10 gallons more for cars, you stand to receive a subsidy of $4,500. Estimates for starting a cash incentive program in the United States run from $3.5 billion to $4 billion. With backing from some powerful Democratic members of Congress, the Obama White House supports the program.

But federal “cash for clunker” programs have come before Congress and usually have died before coming law. This one should also.

There are at least two major problems. First, it provides incentives for people to trade in cars that get only slightly better gas mileage than they are getting on their current cars. Your SUV getting 16 miles per gallon would bring you $3,500 if you traded it in for one that gets 20 miles per gallon. Second, the auto industry needs to get middle income people back into the showrooms. Most people still buying new cars have household incomes of $100,000 or more. Middle-class consumers, not to mention poorer families, are staying away from auto showrooms in droves, and they traditionally buy a lot of used cars.

A well thought-out “cash for clunkers” program may be of some benefit in helping to clean our air and provide further incentives to aid the auto industry, but the one before Congress isn't it.

---

me@rescam.org

I can certainly understand this one - but add the BANKS to the list. Not just credit companies. At my bank - for an 8K savings account balance I can get 7 cents a month interest, but if I carry a card balance with them - It costs ME 19+ percent a month. Shakespeare was complaining about something being rotten?

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

Shabby con job

Union-Tribune Editorial

May 23, 2009

When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers worked throughout 2006 to craft AB 32 – the state's landmark legislation targeting the emissions that contribute to global warming – they repeatedly emphasized their intent to implement the new law with as little economic disruption as possible. Critics questioned how this would be possible, given that the law would force consumers and businesses to switch to cleaner but more costly energy sources. Against all logic, however, Schwarzenegger began to argue with increasing fervor that the law would actually help the economy.

Last fall, the governor's fantasy was reinforced by the California Air Resources Board. The board issued an official economic impact study predicting the forced shift to costlier power would have few if any negative effects.

The study was savaged as unprofessional and unusable by independent economists hired to review it and was further discredited by the respected, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.

In December, the air board adopted the study with barely a nod to its critics. But with the economy tanking, Republicans and African-American and Latino Democrats recently won full consideration of a bill by Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, that would force the air board to actually do a serious, honest study of AB 32's economic costs.

On Wednesday, despite the support of panel Chairman Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, the bill was rejected by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Why did Democratic Sens. Ellen Corbett, Loni Hancock, Fran Pavley and Alan Lowenthal part ways with Simitian and GOP Sens. George Runner and Roy Ashburn? Reportedly because of the lobbying of the air board, which said Dutton's bill might delay implementation of AB 32.

And implementing the law, you see, is what's most important. Even if the law is deeply flawed. Even if it means going back on endlessly repeated promises about protecting jobs in our transition to a new era of energy regulation. Even if it means adding a crushing, unilateral burden on the state's economy in the midst of the biggest downturn in 70 years.

Way to go, Sacramento. These past few years, you've really been on a roll.

---

me@rescam.org