Disqus - Latest Comments for beatnik1209

Re: Update: Pulse-LINK is still alive and doors are open

beatnik1209 — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:43:38 -0000

On November 11, 2009, Pulse-Link, Inc filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/01/why-arizona-a-hornet-nest/

beatnik1209 — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:49:07 -0000

Your comments are not only completely misinformed, but are demonstrating the ignorance fostered by the extremism right wing politicians who are only too willing to take advantage of a block of public sentiment basing it’s believes on jingoism rather than the truth. There charlatans are taking advantage of you because they have no ability or plans to deal with the issues that are important such as budget over runs, state tax shortfalls, cutting essential services and lack of this state to secure favorable loans.

The assertion that it costs the state more to care for undocumented immigrants than it takes in is an absolute lie. According to recent studies done by non-partisan Comptrollers’ Office generates over $1.5 Billion nationally over all costs for services provided.

Also, please do look at the Pew Institute study that draws this same conclusion.

If you still don’t accept these non-partisan organizations then look at this link:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/...
from Fox Business, hardly a source of bleeding heart liberal bias.

Also, the Comptrollers’ Office has stated that legalizing undocumented immigrants would generate between $4.5 billion and $5.4 billion in tax revenue over next 3 years.

It may behoove you in the future to use actual facts before spouting the false and misleading rhetoric than is specifically designed to inflame bigotry against groups with less political power.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/01/why-arizona-a-hornet-nest/

beatnik1209 — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 19:15:19 -0000

I disagree with you that "Under the current scenario they have every right to do what they did."

That is the same as saying You aren't happy with what the government is doing to stop child molesters and that as such you feel justified in grabbing your gun, going out and administrating your own version of justice.

My contention, if states are not satisfied with how the federal government is enforcing border regulation, they need to work with the federal government, not try out their own rules. Picture 50 different states with 50 different sets of laws.

Also, please do explain why this has suddenly become a crisis. Has there been some major development that has seen dramatic increases in crime, economic downturn or damage to wildlife?

Or is this all really just about a group of inept politicians without any other ideas on how to deal with important issues trying to kink up a fuss by pointing their fingers at a group of people that don't have as much voting power?

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/01/why-arizona-a-hornet-nest/

beatnik1209 — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:58:23 -0000

Awww tom, throw in a few more "ipso's" and an "adjudicate" or two and people will think your a regular F. Lee. Maybe you could hang out a shingle.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/01/why-arizona-a-hornet-nest/

beatnik1209 — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:26:01 -0000

What Mr. Navarrette has not point out and it seems few others have bothered to mention, is that the main problems with the Arizona immigration law (SB 1070) is that it is largely a jurisdictional matter. States and local government do not have the right to enforce illegal immigration issues. That is explicitly within the province of the federal government and that is where the real hornet's nest of this matter resides.

I would think that if the Federal government were so inclined they could prosecution Arizona police officers for false arrest, unlawful imprisonment or even kidnapping. I doubt it would ever come to that, but states and local governments do not have authority over this issue. Arizona, Texas and California would do a lot better to work toward a comprehensive resolution with the federal government rather than engage in rabble rousing for purely political purposes.

It is unrealistic to believe that the 12 million or so illegal immigrants could be deported and even if that could happen how many billions of dollars would that directly cost? I'm guessing at least $24 Billion ($2,000 per individual).

There would also be a net aggregate gain in tax revenue (undocumented immigrants pay more in taxes that are being spent on them as a group), that would run into several billion dollars more.

Topped off with skilled and semi-skilled labor losses to businesses engaged in manufacturing, food, maintenance, agriculture and the total net loss to the US industry would run at least $50 billion. Many companies would have to move offshore or go out of business due to lack of inexpensive labor.

Border fences, enforcement agents, monitoring systems, tracking agencies, etc - $$$ billions more.

A rough estimate of total loss to the US economy would most likely come close to the $100 billion mark.

The odd thing is, with the economy being down like it is, illegal immigration is substantially down in the last two years. Only the rhetoric has increased.

It would be nice to tone down the yelling, name calling and political posturing and work toward how to actually deal with the issues, but that doesn't get out votes does it?

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/22/gas-prices-continue-drop-still-well-ahead-2009/

beatnik1209 — Sat, 22 May 2010 17:47:49 -0000

Why shouldn't gas prices be going down? - oil is plentiful. It can apparently be found just floating out on the open ocean and in various marshes in the south.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/02/legalizing-marijuana-not-really-a-dopey-idea/

beatnik1209 — Sun, 02 May 2010 18:19:23 -0000

Michael Stetz,

To is specifically addressed to you. I’ve read your op-ed on why legalizing marijuana is “not really a dopey idea” and you’re reasoning is entirely faulty.

You stated – “Only about 1,630 — or 1 percent — are serving time for either having significant amounts of marijuana” and yet you even go into the fact that having less than an ounce (actually 28.5 g or less) is only a $100 fine. In other words virtually no one is serving prison time for having an ounce of less of marijuana.

The proposed law would eliminate the prohibition of possession of an ounce or less as well as allow small amounts for cultivation. That is basically it. Possession of larger amounts, sales, distribution, public usage, etc would all remain crimes – in many cases felonies. The change in the number of people serving prison time for marijuana related offenses would be negligible. Your reasoning is based on faulty interpretation of the figures.

Michael Stetz, you are a staff reporter for the Union-Tribune. I’m highly disappointed that you don’t seem to feel the need to bother with facts and instead quoted said Aaron Smith, California policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project (hardly an unbiased source) “It would free up prison spaces for really, really bad guys.” Again there is no rational for how more space would be freed up from legalization – just someone’s gut feel that this would be the case.

This is the root of the entire debate – feelings, guesses, self interests, half truths and very, very little actual data.

Example: How much can we expect to see auto accidents rise due to increased marijuana usage? 2 percent, 10, 20? Where is the data for this? How many more people will go to prison for impaired driving while under the influence of this drug?

How much increased usage will this legalization lead to?

How will those under 21 years of age be prevented for gaining easier access?

What are the additional heath and mental related costs? It turns out marijuana does have long term physical and psychological risks, according to a number of university studies – what are the costs for care going to be for that and will the amount of tax collected going to be enough to cover that?

There are a thousand other questions that could, should and must be asked and answered, but so far all I’ve seen is guesswork and emotional responses.

You state that because of marijuana enforcement violent crimes are on the increase and the solution rate is on the decline, yet none of the data I’ve read for the DOJ, state and other resources bear that out. Again you are misusing small bits of data to try and bolster a very shaky case for legalization. I would expect better of a professional journalist, but perhaps I’m overreaching with that assessment of your profession these days.

And then there are the statements: “If it’s made legal, it’s also goodbye to the black market’s near-total control of the sale and distribution of it, Mecke said. And some of the crime associated with that, including violent turf wars in Mexico, will drop.”

As well as:
“If government controlled and taxed it, the possible revenue could be around $1.3 billion, Ammiano’s office has estimated.”

By that same form of reasoning, why not have government open up and run brothels? After all, cutting into the pimp’s trade would cut the crime rate, because government would be getting a cut of the action and “regulating it”.

The problems I have with this is I don’t want the state or local government involved in criminal activities (any more that they are ready are). I find the figure of $1.3 billion in additional tax dollars to be highly dubious and wonder where Mr. Ammiano got this figure from.

And finally the idea that the government can regulate the distribution of marijuana seems even more far fetched. Just look at the disaster that the marijuana heath clinics are now. The reasoning behind them was to allow access for those that had a legitimate need for that kind of treatment. By Michael Stetz’s own limited investigation and assessment, this is not currently working out at all.

Municipalities have no idea how many of these so called “clinics” exist, who’s running them, who’s prescribing this drug, where they are located or who really has a legal right to access them. The law is by most estimated be widely abused. Why would we want to do this on a much larger and even more uncontrolled scale?

Whether marijuana legalization is a good idea or not, it’s difficult to judge on a purely rational basis given the lack of verifiable information. I would hope that some legitimate studies with verifiable facts and figures be presented, along with coherent plans for how all of the potential problems will be addressed before we change the law.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/25/driver-blamed-string-crashes-says-he-smoked-pot-fi/

beatnik1209 — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:58:53 -0000

So far you are only making an argument against alcohol. So typical to deny the facts, rush.

As to none of my business. YES, it is!!! The man committed a series of crimes and endangered lives. I now have every right to know why.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/25/driver-blamed-string-crashes-says-he-smoked-pot-fi/

beatnik1209 — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:53:24 -0000

And given all the problems already associated with alcohol, why would I want yet another substance for people to abuse to add to them?

Medical marijuana has already led to numerous problems.

I am adamantly against legalization of marijuana!

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/25/driver-blamed-string-crashes-says-he-smoked-pot-fi/

beatnik1209 — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 00:25:19 -0000

13 crashes, hit and run, battery on a peace officer, 2 people taken to the hospital - all due to one guy being "under the influence of marijuana" obtained with a medical marijuana card for an "undisclosed ailment".

And yet there will be many people here still arguing for the legalization of marijuana. "Just an isolated incident" or words to that effect.

The main argument for is that there are "so many people smoking pot already...", it justifies allowing a dangerous substance being sanctioned.

These kind of crimes will increase with legal pot. Medical problems will increase. More kids will get access. The legalization initiative has not be well thought out, just like medical marijuana hadn't.

Oh, anyone hear about the pot smoker that left his baby in the oven over night?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRI...

More to look forward to.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/11/woman-asks-obama-to-cut-27-year-term-for-crack/

beatnik1209 — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:29:06 -0000

Sorry to have disputed your opinion with something that at least resembled facts. The Wiki article does site sources. That is more that what you put down, now isn't it?

All you did was parrot the old "do the crime ..." line. Great, if you disagree with my quoting from Wikipedia, then put up a disputing source.

I don't understand what your thing about Michael Irvin has to do with anything. Seems to me if he was arrested and had mugshots taken that that indicated he was arrested. If more people posted them on a Cowboys website, so the heck does that have to do with a moderated Wikipedia page?

Do you only consider Conservapedia to be a legitimate source of information?

What really bothers me about you is you disdain for punctuation and capitalization. It's fine for a 15 year old texting another 15 year old, but your just being lazy.

Since my repeating information bothers you soooooo very much, then look above to see the rest of my thoughts.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/11/woman-asks-obama-to-cut-27-year-term-for-crack/

beatnik1209 — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:14:22 -0000

"Nuff said", or so'd you think, Frank.

I could not care less if some people "like" what I say. I don't guage my opinions on what other people think.

I also have no idea how many people "like" you opinions or how many you've make. I don't give a rat's beh**d. It seem to be important to you. Good luck with that.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/11/woman-asks-obama-to-cut-27-year-term-for-crack/

beatnik1209 — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:10:31 -0000

Well gee wizz and shucks, I had no idea that SignOnSanDiego was considered to be such a highly regarded example of our higher education system in this country, professor. I was under the impression that this was a discussion forum and that it might be useful to add a little light to the woefully uninformed opinions expressed here.

Sorry, it doesn't meet your high "academic" standards. I didn't have the time to run down to the law library and completely research the case.

Now as far as what Wiki has stated, I tend to believe most of what is there. The federal government has a long history of double or triple length sentencing for those involved with crack cocaine, rather than powder, due to the social-economic breakdown of those involved.

My hypothesis, Prof. Rezqewr - poor fold do more time in prison that upper class. There are dozens of sources that bear this out beyond Wiki.

I'm so terribly sorry to have actually presented something that contained even a grain of factual information, rather that just expressing the lockstep opinion of "do the crime, do the time" mentality.

Tell ya what, instead of just insulting me, why not present something to dispute my source? Oh, wait, that would require effort, and let me guess, that's no fun for you.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/11/woman-asks-obama-to-cut-27-year-term-for-crack/

beatnik1209 — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:39:58 -0000

Taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Hamedah Hasan, a mother of two, with one on the way, she moved from Portland, Oregon to her cousins' house in Nebraska to escape an abusive boyfriend. At the time, she was aware that her cousins were selling drugs but she did not take part, except on a few occasions when they asked her to wire money. The house was busted and all adults were arrested. Because Hamedah was not really involved in the drug smuggling, she had no information to trade for a reduced sentence and was given a longer sentence than the conspiracy leaders, a natural life sentence of 27 years. After 10 years Hamedah was able to get her sentence reduced to 12 years, but the ruling was overturned because her judge did not follow the federal sentencing guidelines. With the help of her attorney, Korey Reiman, Hamedah submitted an application for a presidential commutation. Her request was denied in 2008.

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/11/woman-asks-obama-to-cut-27-year-term-for-crack/

beatnik1209 — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:39:41 -0000

Taken from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/04/gop-lawmakers-seek-to-suspend-calif-climate-law/

beatnik1209 — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:39:49 -0000

Do you really beleive the suff you are saying or are you just completly out of you mind?

Re: Official defends pace of anti-drug effort - Tijuana / The Border - SignOnSanDiego.com

beatnik1209 — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:40:10 -0000

Because the people who are getting the money from the illegal trug trade are not the same group as the people we are giving the money to and we are trying to prevent the illegal flow of drugs into our county.

Re: Authorities: Mom gave up baby to suspected dealer - Nation - SignOnSanDiego.com

beatnik1209 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:47:58 -0000

This is a very sad case, but most of the comments are simply directed at the kind of person the mother is. Not to say that what she did was not very wrong, but the problem itself is much deeper than that. I've seen cases of meth addicts doing far worse for their drugs.

Meth is a truly horrible drug -highly addictive, very damaging to the mind and body. Ultimately, we need to curb the use of this drug and other such addictive substances.

I would imagine the mother will eventually be indicted and depending upon her past record, placed on probation or sentenced to jail time, but she is really just a symptom of a much deeper social problem. The methods we are now using are not working. The War on Drug has been conducted for nearly a half century and we still have massive social problems from illicit drug use.

New solutions are needed.

In the mean time think of this woman as a pathetic object lesson - her life and that of her child will never be the same. Meth destroys.

Re: Prejean tells her side, again, in a book

beatnik1209 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:18:33 -0000

I know the comedy is a bit old, but I can't help but think of what the Church Lady would have to say to Carrie Prejean:

CHURCH LADY: Well, well, here comes little Carrie, all plumped out in with her silicon implants, just swaying back and forth. All display on her sex tape for the world to see. So, did you like making a sex tape?

CARRIE: It was a mistake. I was young and naive when I make it. I was only 17.

CHURCH LADY: Oh, I see. Participating in child pornography. Well, isn't that special.

Re: Cop who killed rider in stolen car is decorated detective - SignOnSanDiego.com

beatnik1209 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:01:17 -0000

Yes, Lauren Z, I am serious. I don't buy your police are always right premise.

The police have as much responsibility to act with due care as anyone else. An unarmed woman was shot to death as a result of a mistake make by a police officer (that is unless you think he intentionally shot her). The priority here should have been to preserve life. This could and should have been handled differently. Perhaps arresting the man before he got into the car, rahter than facing him down with a gun drawn.

Re: Cop who killed rider in stolen car is decorated detective - SignOnSanDiego.com

beatnik1209 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:46:03 -0000

I doubt that Jennifer Favreau will benefit from this lesson. I also doubt the police detective act heroically in this incident. If he was shooting at the driver, he missed. If he fired randomly into a vehicle, killing the passenger, and then was able to jump out of the way, then at the very best it can be consider a tragic mistake or possible negligence. The goal should be to preserve public safety, not enforce the law regardless of the collateral damage.

Re: Jobless? Too bad - SignOnSanDiego.com

beatnik1209 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:06:48 -0000

It figures - More half truths and misleading assumptions

The editorial writer is using the major problem of high unemployment to convince people that it is those awful environmental rules that is behind it.

Notice how the editorial writer didn't even bother signing his own name to his/her own piece Could it be that they are so ashamed of what they had to write, that they didn't want to attach they name to it?

I don't blame them if they did - the opinion is incredibly stupid.

First off - the reason for the high unemployment we are now seeing is NOT because of environmental regulations. It was caused because financial institutions granted loads to people that were unqualified to have them. That drove the real estate and building industries to unrealistic proportions and over heated the stock market. When the inevitable collapse of those industries came, it had a domino effect of the rest of the economy.

Next the writer uses scare tactics in saying "some economists predicting 15 percent unemployment in coming months". Are you kidding? Mr. ??? or Ms. ???

What economists have said that? Some economists could be anyone. Why not quote one or more legitimate individuals, rather that just a vague group of mystery doomsayers?

What your are trying to say is that if the state doesn't scrap it's environmental rules, there will be even more massive economic catastrophic. Run away, run away and hid the children. The enviro boogiemen are coming for us all.

Granted the rules are complicate and restrictive. They are reasons why. At one point California had major pollution problems such as waves of visible smog rolling through San Diego and Los Angles, along with major pollution of the rivers and oceans.

Yet, people such as the writer and the organization he/she is shilling for continue to blame the governor and the state legislator for allowing protections to remain in place.

Perhaps there could be more streamlining of the rules to help out small business, but the fact of the matter is that most people that live here would most likely not want to be dealing with the kind of pollution problems the currently exist in China. OK - sure I haven't conducted a survey, since I'm not paid to that sort of thing, but I'd be willing to bet that this is a good guess.

My Opinion: The answers to unemployment are more careful regulation of the financial industry and balancing of the state budget along with reworking the existing absurdly high individual state tax structure. Gutting environment rules will have little to no effect on our economic problems and only lead to a worse place to live.

If you don't agree - feel free to say so.

I'm not afraid to put my name under my opinion (unlike the editorialist)

Christopher Keil
christopher.keil@gmail.com

Re: Photo

beatnik1209 — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:51:16 -0000

Lokta is right. I can't tell much from this map other that it's somewhere around Escondido and San Marcos.

I know the Union-Tribune is having financial problems, but can't you come up with a better map?

Re: Mom faces trial under social host ordinance - SignOnSanDiego.com

beatnik1209 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:54:39 -0000

And England and the rest of the commonwealth have a tremendous alcoholism problem. I've been there and seen it first had. You don't want to be on the Tubes when the pubs let out.

Sorry, junior, lowering the drinking age isn't the answer.

Re: Whitman: I was too busy to vote, that was wrong - SignOnSanDiego.com

beatnik1209 — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:46:30 -0000

I thought you folks were calling President Obama a Nazi now? Are you back to saying he's a Marxist again?

Perhaps you could call him a Narxcist or a Mazi?