To David Engel wrote on May 14, 2007 9:11 PM:Go watch the Laramie Project and tell me that type of crime is justified. If Grandma gets mugged, it's for her money...if it were a specific crime targeting her because the assailant hated women or senior citizens then that too would constitute a hate crime, and becomes much more than a burglery. The fact that someone can take their "opinions" to the point where violence against another human being is justified and defended by people like you is just disgusting.

Engel has it right wrote on May 14, 2007 11:55 PM:The term 'Hate Crime' as commonly used is simply a redundancy. Very few criminals commit violent assaults on others out of an excess of love. The behavior and the intent are what deserve punishment, not the underlying thought behind the crime. Otherwise, we end up in a situation where someone killing a native American because he hates red skin is somehow more guilty than a gang member killing another gang member because he hates people wearing red jackets. Engel's not justifying violent crimes, he's just accurately pointing out that it's the crime that should be judged, not the political correctness of the criminal's motive.

"L" word wrote on May 15, 2007 5:23 AM:I have a word that Lee Pryor might not have in his vocabulary - "LIABILITY". Look it up. Next comes the phrase - "DEEP POCKETS". Look it up or google it. If one wants, nay demands, "quiet zones", then the one(s) wanting it can pay for it. With any luck the money will finance the LIABILITY insurance to cover the increased risk of accidents, injuries, deaths and LAWSUITS that will undoubtedly occur. Get real.

Bob wrote on May 15, 2007 5:58 AM:Good crime? love crime? hate crime? Its the act that should be punished ...not the thought..thought crime laws should be abolished. It so a corrupt DA in Riverside County can prosecute the innocent...how do I know? It happened to me.

Hey Ron wrote on May 15, 2007 6:01 AM:What I could not post yesterday - That region has been in some war or another for over 5 thousand years and George W Bush is making things infinitely worse, not better. How many more graves for the dead soldiers are YOU willing to dig? How many more sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, mothers and fathers do you think is an acceptable number for George W Bush to send to their death for his ego? What number of deaths that forever damage families do you think is appropriate? Will you be satisfied when you and/or someone close to you has a son or daughter killed because George W Bush sent them where they did not belong based on lies? Or are you so out of your mind gung-ho that even seeing George W Bush send your own son to his death will not phase you? If you are, may God forgive you.

Ron wrote on May 15, 2007 6:01 AM:Couldn't have said it better myself, Joseph Kraatz. Taxes on gas are .18 cents federal, .18 cents state, plus 7.75% sales tax, unless you buy in Vista or El Cajon where it's another 1%, and a few others thrown in for good measure. Who's making a profit? These gas taxes were supposed to be spent on road and infrastructure construction, not any more. That's what bonds are for. If you add the cost of road, and mass transit bonds into the cost of gas, your not saving a dime. At least in the Big Oil world, I can buy stock, and receive a dividend check.

Ron wrote on May 15, 2007 6:09 AM:Douglas Dunn wins the strawman argument for the day. He not only completely avoids any facts, he seeks to instead discredit sources and never address any factual evidence. This is the new tactic. You simply say that the otherside got their information from a tainted source, and believe you have discredited the entire argument. I admit, even an old leftist like Ted kennedy can use good facts from time to time, you need to address those facts, instead of attacking the messenger. As for Global Warming, please tell us why Al Gore insists world wide sea levels will rise by 20 feet, when the IPCC says they will only rise 11 inches? In my math book, I'd fail the examine by almost 19 feet and 1 inch.

TO Lee Pryor wrote on May 15, 2007 7:21 AM:If you are under the delusion that "one hundred plus train whistles a day" and numerous crossings are what keep downtown Oceanside from being perceived as "an attractive and safe place to visit," you've been in the sun too long. Quiet zones in the downtown area will benefit those who live in the downtown area, period. Trains don't deter visitors; vagrants and ruffians do. Spend a little money on those items before "quiet zones." Then maybe even Oceanside residents who don't live downtown will come downtown.

Will they eat crow? wrote on May 15, 2007 8:43 AM:Remember back in November '06, after the elections? Remember how some people on this blog were touting the character of Republicans who lost and, unlike Gore and other Democrats, did not question their defeats but took it "like men"? If only. As the Congress and the press look more carefully at the Justice Department under Gonzales and Rove, multiple efforts to go after "voter fraud" in battleground states is coming to light. So-called "voter fraud" cases are attempts to block the votes of poor and minority citizens who were likely to vote for Democrats. Turns out many of the fired Federal prosecutors (and others who were fingered to be fired) were deemed "lax" by Rove/Gonzales in their persecution, oops, I mean prosecution, of these Democrat-likely voters. The Department of Justice is a political arm of the Republican party, seems like. So, yes, the Republican candidates didn't whine to the public about their defeats. They whined to Rove/Gonzales, and those prosecutors who insisted on doing their jobs honestly were attacked and fired. I'll take a public whiner over a Constitutional underminer anytime. You?

Hate Crimes are Illegal wrote on May 15, 2007 8:57 AM:To borrow the favorite phrase of many of you, "What part of illegal don't you understand." If you do the crime, do the time.

Nor wrote on May 15, 2007 10:47 AM:If Doug Dunn is guilty of avoiding facts by discrediting sources, he must have learned it from a neo-con.

Nor wrote on May 15, 2007 10:55 AM:Talk about a strawman argument! Let's look at the breakdown on a gallon of gas ($3.50 bucks for the sake of argument). If .36 on state and fed taxes are correct, and if you double it (.72) to cover sales and local taxes, it breaks down to $2.78 a gallon. Take about a nickle a gallon to the station owner, and the oil men walk with $2.73 a gallon. Taxes may be irksome, but the oil companies are sticking it to us.

To "To David Engle" wrote on May 15, 2007 11:01 AM:You stated "If Grandma gets mugged, it's for her money...if it were a specific crime targeting her because the assailant hated women or senior citizens then that too would constitute a hate crime, and becomes much more than a burglery." You may not be aware of this, but a burglary is a burglary no matter whom it is perpetrated against. Hating someone is not illegal... at least not until the Thought Police make it so.

Wrong Analogy wrote on May 15, 2007 11:24 AM:Boston Tea Party -- was an unjust tax. No one but the few on Cleveland want this tax, so it would be UNFAIR and UNJUST to tax us all, just because we happen to live near the tracks. The train doesn't bother us. Learn to live in the city!

Mike America wrote on May 15, 2007 11:29 AM:Hey Mr. Editor; what happened to yesterdays posts? Was there a "luxury" (sic) of posts indicating what an educated idiot and nonsensical activist fool Arcela Nunez-Alvarez is?

Mike America wrote on May 15, 2007 11:32 AM:Did anyone see the History Channel special, "Hippies", this last Sunday P.M.? It gave a little insight to the rantings of Eric Parish and company.

Just disgusting wrote on May 15, 2007 11:43 AM:David Engel's letter doesn't say, or imply, that violence against another human being is in any way justified. To say so (as the 9:11PM post does) is to either exhibit one's lack of reading comprehension, or one's hatred of another individual simply because they contradict your opinion. In my view, slandering a person out of disrespect for their opinion may do more harm to them than punching them in the nose. How would Mr/Ms "9:11PM post" like to be arrested for today's hetefully slanderous attack on Mr. Engel ... and face the embarrassment of having to cop the poor reading comprehension plea?

Ron wrote on May 15, 2007 11:59 AM:to Hey Ron @ 6:01 AM: You misjudge me Sir. I weep every time I hear of a soldier who has lost their live. I weep when they lose a leg or an arm. I weep when they lose their eyesight, or their minds. I weep when they come home only to lose their family. They have pledged everything they have for this country, and they deserve our undying respect, and whole hearted efforts to restore them, as is humanly possible, to a life after their service. If your new to war, educate yourself. I keep repeating several thoughts here, only because I want them to seep down into your mind. The number of deaths is not a reason to utterly give up. It is a reason to fight harder to achieve victory. What the left is proposing is to give up, because too many soldiers are dying. We lost 6,000 on D-Day, we lost 6,800 on Iwa Jima, if not for the A-bomb, we might have lost nearly 500,000 in an occupation of Japan, unless we utterly defeated them. In this global age, isolationism is not a strategy. Total withdrawal, which is the Democrat plan, is not a strategy. It's a retreat, a surrender, without a plan to re-deploy. Per the Democrats, they want a withdraw plan "just over the horizon", so that we can re-deploy in case of an emergency. They have not spelled out what "an emergency" is. What would cause us to re-deploy? Further, John Murtha wants them re-deployed into Okinawa. Is that over the horizon? Again, I ask... if Afganistan is the correct war, why aren't they calling for a formal re-deployment into Afganistan to pasify that country? All I'm hearing is: "Our troops are dying, we need to get out." Ok, so then what? Hunker down at home, and wait? They want to let the Patriot Act expire. They want GITMO closed down. They want NSA to delay by going to the FISA court. They leak the SWIFT information to the NY Times, because they don't want us to track terrorist money? They don't like rendition. They don't like interrogating suspects. So, tell me, what the plan is, other than getting out? Inspect shipping containers? That is not a plan. Rearrange more intelligence programs? Didn't we just do that? Lastly, thank you for your concern about my two sons proudly serving. They chose to serve, as a free American. I fear for their safety everday, because I understand what kind of animals we are dealing with. Anyone who would cut the head off of an innocent as was done to Daniel Pearl, or Nick Berg is just plain criminal, and needs to be brought to justice. For me, a bullet will do. These are not reasonable people, they are much like Japanese kamikazes sacrificing themselves for the Emperor. This is why this war is so hard, because they are not afraid to die, as many Israeli's will tell you. There is no conflict resolution for them, only power. This you need to understand. And I fear you do not. I think you buy into this idea that 9/11 was a one time, lucky strike, never to happen again. You are more wrong than you know. Like Hitler moved into Africa, so are we seeing this radical style Islam surging, and overtaking those people. This Caliphate is moving, and gaining strength. Until the rest of the world comes to it's senses, and realizes what we see, it will continue to grow. And that's why we needed the rest of the world to help us to do this task. Until they wake up, were on our own. Funny how history repeats itself. Prior to WWII, Churchill begged the US to help them. FDR did, under the nose of Congress by shipping them arms. After the Japanese hit us, we had our reason to fight Japan, but we not only did that, we helped liberate Europe.

Ron wrote on May 15, 2007 12:02 PM:Is everything ... believes a conspiracy? My god man... how do you shop for groceries? LOL

Ron wrote on May 15, 2007 12:03 PM:Nah, Mike.. I was too busy with more valuable things to spend my time on last night. I know how it ends, anyways. ... That about it?

Realist wrote on May 15, 2007 12:49 PM:People need to see that the Iraq war is NOT about oil, NOT about Bush's ego, it's about protecting the western way of life from Islamic fanatics. It's about helping a people form a stable government and heal their nation that has suffered through decades of tyranny. If the terrorists had not entered Iraq and Afghanistan and sabotaged our efforts, our mission would have been completed long ago. But nothing ever goes to plan. I would like to hear the plan that Democrats have about the War on Terror. So far all i hear are calls of "Retreat!" and "Invasion of personal rights." These people are trying to destroy our great country!

Stuck on stupid wrote on May 15, 2007 12:51 PM:I am afraid the global warming debate has moved on and left Douglas Dunn stuck on bumb. The GW debate has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with politics, a potentially enormous expansion of government power, loss of liberty, and the bureaucracy's highly questionable ability to wage a "War against Climate Change" in which the "cure" may cause a bigger disaster than the alleged "disease." OR, to put it in a context that the very partisan Mr. Dunn may be able to get his head around ... an even bigger "disaster" than the War in Iraq.

Nor wrote on May 15, 2007 12:55 PM:History never "repeats itself". To the academic, history is the sum of historiography, chronology, and events; to the more sophomoric, history is merely events, that when examined and compared closely with other events net more contrasts than similarities.

Hey Ron wrote on May 15, 2007 1:47 PM:When we stormed Normandy there were many lives lost, BUT THEY had a reachable, well defined goal. They had the full support of ALL our Allies. What we are doing is costing lives and allies. What do we have in Iraq? We are not moving forward, we are not fighting and securing anything, all that is happening is that soldiers and civilians are getting killed. Death is a part of war, it is for that reason that it should be entered into with a clearly defined, achievable goal. That goal should NEVER be such a loosely stated, politically motivated, ill conceived, assinine "going after terrorists, wherever they are" or "War on Terrorism". That sort of political grandstanding is complete bull and has resulted in well over 3,100 lives lost. Are we, the U.S. going to stop civil war in general or, specifically, the civil war in Iraq? Are we capable of stopping terrorists and terrorism? If you think so, you have more than a dozen loose screws. I repeat - How many more graves do YOU want to dig for George W Bush's ineptitude and ego? All he is doing is inspiring the creation of more terrorists EACH DAY, for every one that blows himself up, Bush's stupidity is generating five. What is the clearly defined, achievable goal? Peace in the Middle East is something that only a fool considers to be attainable by foreign (U.S.) military. The best way to ensure that another 9/11 DOES happen is to keep "staying the course". The ultimate irony would be to have another 9/11-like terrorist attack here BECAUSE Bush would not get out of THEIR country.

Jules wrote on May 15, 2007 2:02 PM:As usual Mike Americas posts just reek of intolerance and outright ignorance toward a group of people who think differently than he does, so he resorts to his usual name calling tactics. Love how he and Ron are such tight buddies,. Ron who yesterday claimed that the poor in America all have more than one car and at least one color TV, right Ron all those homeless people on skid row drive home and watch TV when we are not looking. I read somwhere recently (The Week) that Bill O'reilly during his show name calls every 8.8 seconds. WOW. I said I had to stop reading the hatred spewed here and for a long time I did, but like alot of things in life I was drawn back and sad to see nothing has changed.

Hate Crimes wrote on May 15, 2007 2:09 PM:If I steal your purse, that's a crime. If I steal your purse and beat you to a bloody pulp while issuing forth racial epithets, in other words, rob you for money but beat you for no other reason than you are a race that I hate, THAT'S A HATE CRIME. Get it? Hate crimes are no longer just for the likes of the KKK. Got it? To do something to another human being, not because of what they did or who they are, but because they are different than you is a hate crime. Get it? Got it?

To "Frank Bodden" wrote on May 15, 2007 2:48 PM:Don't expect miracles from Sharpton. He has no credibility anyway. Until he and Jessie Jackson start to come down on the rappers and their ilk, what they have to say about Imus or anything else has no merit.

Question wrote on May 15, 2007 3:54 PM:If David Engel has a problem with the term "hate crime" where does he stand on the word "terrorist". Isn't anyone who terrorizes a terrorist? Do we need a "special" classification for these types of evil doers as well, or is it as "erroneous" as the terminology of "hate crime". Or are terrorists just "criminals"? Just wondering, because "terrorists" are treated differently than just mere "criminals".

But Realist... wrote on May 15, 2007 4:04 PM:Iraq had virtually no Islamic fanatics before the invasion. Saddam had them all squelched in his secular state. You seem to want it both ways: Iraq is seething with Islamic fanatic terrorists. Iraq is teeming with people who want the Western democratic way of life. Which ones are shooting at us? Which ones are shooting at each other? Which ones are the enemies? Enemies of what or who? The bipartisan Iraq study group had many suggestions. George McGovern had a plan. Others also have offered ideas. The reason these are not discussed much is purely political: anyone who criticizes the Bush "plan" (which, face it, is not anything like a plan) is called a defeatist, a "cut and runner", a traitor. End of discussion. This is a terrible dynamic for a democracy. But it's the only tune Bush knows. Fortunately there have been a few, tiny jarrings of his arrogant ego. Pelosi went to Syria, and then Bush sent his own reps there, and to Iran. Republican leaders met with Bush and chewed him out about reality, and then he talked about compromising on benchmarks. The surge itself was only a result of relentless pressure on Bush to do SOMETHING differently. If any of you are in any way impressed with what Bush has done about the threat of terrorism, I don't know what to say other than you are one cheap date.

Mike America to Jules wrote on May 15, 2007 4:06 PM:You read the Bill O'reilly dity on MoveOn..., were you get most of your liberal garbage. Did I say welcome back,....... and glad to se you're still a fan.

to Stuck on Stupid wrote on May 15, 2007 4:10 PM:"The GW debate has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with politics" You've been had. The GW situation is about one thing: the global climate, which is going to do what it's going to do. There are political/economic aspects to discussions of it, but if you think it has nothing to do with scientific research, then the game is over and we've lost, because we've been spun into thinking that science has (and will have) nothing to say about the climate, that it's all political jockeying for power. But the climate is the climate, and it may or may not turn out to be affected by human activity. While the politicians are yammering, and we are thinking it's all and nothing but yammering, we shall see. Science, meanwhile, will learn a lot from the outcome of this experiment. I am endlessly amused by people who are so sure that the GW issue is "nothing but politics" and simultaneously equally sure that what the President tells them (and O'Reilly and the rest) is the God's-honest-Truth. These two positions share one important factor: evidence to the contrary is to be ignored.

to Realist wrote on May 15, 2007 4:11 PM:Son, you are anything but. Go sit around the camp fire, sing kumbyeya, and decide where next the armies of compassion will go to help those who are suffering for no other reason than just good old fashioned do gooding. Are you really for real, Realist? Really?

Hate crimes wrote on May 15, 2007 4:15 PM:I find this a fascinating topic, a juicy "grey area". Aren't there other crimes that are adjudicated with consideration of thoughts or intent? The different degrees of murder or manslaughter, for example. Different forms of assault or battery. Libel. And sentencing is often influenced by the jury's idea of what kind of person the convicted is, which is similar. To me, the argument for a "hate crime" category is that the intent can show that the crime was intended to harm not just the literal victim, but also to terrorize people in the victim's "category". Terrorism acts are similar, meaning not just to kill some number of, say, Israelis but to make ALL Israelis feel frightened. And we are the first to say that "terrorists" should be treated differently than simple murderers (like the Virginia Tech shooter): the number of victims might be identical, but the intent is very different. Makes sense to me.

OBSERVATION wrote on May 15, 2007 4:22 PM:TO: Realist wrote on May 15, 2007 12:49 PM: from Observation. That is why over 60% elected a Democratic Congress and why over 70% disagree with you and GWB. I and they are not buying your repetive mantra anymore.

To "Hate Crimes" wrote on May 15, 2007 4:36 PM:So if I only beat you to a bloody pulp and don't say anything, I'm okay? No hate crime... only a bloody person with no purse. Get a clue. You cannot legislate what someone thinks.

Jules to Hate crimes wrote on May 15, 2007 4:50 PM:post at 2:09 excellent!!!

To Jules wrote on May 15, 2007 4:56 PM:Maybe these comments are a safety valve. All I know is that the advocacy of continued occupation of Iraq, with it's resultant body count, sure seems to polarize people. The Rons and Hey Rons and Mike Americas and the "usual suspects" in the actual letters to the editor seem to be binary; rabidly pro or rabidly con whatever the topic. The comments on the article on Jerry Falwell's death follow pretty much the same "he was a jerk" or "he was a visionary" division. Angered as I was by his divisive, judgemental rhetoric, I practice the inclusive part of the principles that he chose to ignore and hope that He judged Falwell as the New Testament God that I know.

You still don't get it wrote on May 15, 2007 5:15 PM:To Hate Crimes: You still don't get it. Sceneario 1: I steal your purse, because I want money, and then beat you up, because it had no money inside. Scenario 2: I steal your purse, because I want money, and then beat you up, because I hate your race. Why should the person who got beat up because they had no money in their purse get any less justice than the other? Is this concept really that difficult to grasp?

Hate Crimes wrote on May 15, 2007 5:20 PM: To To Hate Crimes - Have you ever heard of something called the sentencing phase of a trial? First comes the guilt or innocence phase, then the sentencing. At the sentencing many things are considered to determine whether it's 3 years or 3 decades. Why is there a first degree murder versus justifiable homicide, why are their sentences very different if not for the consideration of intent? Get a clue, what someone thinks ALREADY determines the charge and the sentence. The only thing that a "Hate Crime" designation does is further clarify and add weight to the fact that hate crimes occur not for monetary gain, not to feed your family, not because of WHO the victim is, but because they were a random pick by a hate-filled mind. The ultimate "Hate Crime" (killing Americans because they were heathen Americans) in the last decade was 9/11. Perverse because of it's random victims, terrorism is, if not the ultimate then at least the penultimate "Hate Crime".

to Ron wrote on May 15, 2007 5:26 PM:Why are you invoking 9/11 when talking about the War in Iraq? Your logic is a logical fallacy: terrorists attacked us on 9/11, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, there are now terrorists in Iraq, therefore we must fight a war in Iraq? Who's next?

Ya Know wrote on May 15, 2007 5:34 PM:To "Hate Crimes" - you are right, sort of. What one thinks can not and should not be legislated. If someone ACTS on those putrid, vile, despicable thoughts and commits a crime, THEN the line is crossed. THEN it does become something that can be legislated. THEN, buddy, laws like this ensure that your goose is cooked. One of the biggest problems with civilization today is that too many people are forgetting what civilized means. "It is far easier for a civilized man to behave like a barbarian than it is for a barbarian to behave like a civilized man." and once barbarism is embraced, it becomes harder and harder to be civilized again.

Does Hate equate? wrote on May 15, 2007 5:35 PM:To Hate Crimes: You still don't get it. Sceneario 1: I steal your purse, because I want money, and then beat you up, because I'm angry that it had no money inside. I don't explain why I'm beating you up. Scenario 2: I steal your purse, because I want money, and then beat you up, because I hate your race. I also explain to you why you are getting beat up. Why should the person who got beat up because they had no money in their purse get any less justice than the other? Is this concept really that difficult to grasp?

To Does Hate equate? wrote on May 15, 2007 10:39 PM:I understand quite well that you want to try to remove the distinction between acts of violence based on nothing more than hatred of another skin color or nationality or belief system and random crime. Understanding does not equal agreement. There was nothing random about 9/11, it was directed at a group (the U.S.) out of hatred. There is nothing random about a synagogue or a mosque or any labeled group being targeted for crime. Swastikas on a synagogue are painted out of hate, not out of need. Why do we have the "special circumstances" addendum as it has to do with murder? Because it denotes intent and intent is thought. You might as well say that all people who murder, no matter what the circumstances deserve the exact same punishment because all those who are murdered deserve the exact same "justice". This is not so. If I kill (murder) someone who puts my life or the lives of my family in danger, it is a far different thing than if I go to someone's house, lay in wait and then kill them, is it not? By your "thought", there is no difference, but the law recognizes that there is a world of difference.

Realist wrote on May 16, 2007 11:21 AM:fyi, "to realist" i watch ALL the news channels and scan the internet on a regular basis. The opinions i have are the conclusions i have drawn up from ALL the stories I've read. I do like camping and hiking, though.

Another Grandma wrote on May 16, 2007 9:56 PM:I am sure the Tele Tubbies are breathing a sigh of relief now that Falwell has passed on. They no longer have to fear those awful attacks.