More than two-thirds of the people who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll Aug. 23, 2006 say the federally mandated No Child Left Behind program does not effectively prepare students for successful careers.

A similar percentage said federal funding for schools should not be tied to test results.
Asked how they would evaluate the emphasis on standardized testing, 62 percent said "too much," 15 percent said "just right" and 23 percent said "not enough."

Here are comments by those who took the survey:

1. If they can not pass grade 8 math and English tests, why should I pay for them to go to school? I am tired of paying higher taxes and getting no results, remember it is all about making it easy for the children. Well, this is a wake-up call. Easier is not always better.

2. It's bulls---. Kids don't need to start school so young. They just get sick of it sooner and smoke weed and party at a younger age. Stop wasting school hours teaching crap and get back to the basics. California spends more money than any state and the kids still can't count change? Teaching "gay pride" or "every one wins" just wastes money, time and discourages kids to do well in life.

3. Accountability of the education establishment to the kids and the taxpayers has been sorely lacking. Verifying successful results in exchange for some additional funding does somewhat advance the objective of teaching children to be competent, educated adults.

4. NCLB test results tell a story of poverty and segregation, not school success or failure. Schools in Sonoma County with 50 percent or more English learners had one in four students scoring as proficient in second grade while schools with around 10 percent or fewer English learners had around three in four students scoring as proficient. How are the lower scoring schools going to catch up? NCLB proposes taking resources away from lower scoring schools. Is this how they catch up? Get real. For poor and minority kids, NCLB has been as effective as FEMA was for drowning kids in New Orleans. With the Bush administration's track record of abject and unmitigated failure in every kind of policy initiative, why in God's name would anyone expect their education policy to be any different?
5. The public school system is a disaster. Teachers have no option but to spend all their time teaching to the test rather than teaching our children how to think. Parents foolishly tout STAR rankings and somehow think that that means their child goes to a great school.
6. The No Child Left Behind policy is an opportunity for the Bush administration to try and discredit public education and thereby move their agenda along to get a federal voucher system in place. That would provide funding for religious schools from the federal government. Currently these schools have a very different set of requirements for teachers, compared to the credentialed teachers in public schools. There are no weapons of mass destruction in our public schools.

7. How else can you find out what they know -- give out hugs and sing songs? No, I know -- give them all awards for just showing up like they do in Little League. Makes the kids feel good. This does nothing but delay the fact they did not learn anything in school.

8. ... and even more destructive to the education of our children than "No Child Left Behind" is universal preschool. Next they're going to want to take babies away at birth for government led education in walking and talking.

9. Education is a function of the states, not the federal government. California schools are below average because of Proposition 13 and the fact that we have millions of tax dollars not accounted for. This is because we have people living in houses that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more than what they are actually taxed on. Then there is the illegal immigration issue; way too much money is spent on children who do not belong in our schools, and this waters down the available funding for those children who do. California is simply going to have to put more money into our schools to make them better.

10. I am an educational researcher. The major issue is keeping educators accountable for their work. NCLB is at least an attempt at that. Whatever its faults, it moves the discussion forward..

11. The Bush administration should review its strategy.

12. As a local educator, I could give you an earful on this issue. But I will limit my comments to several points. First, let me say that I have never met a SINGLE teacher who balks at the idea of accountability. As professionals, we are highly dedicated to doing whatever it takes to help ALL of our students succeed. However, there is a difference between true accountability, where one has real control over the outcome, and what I might call "contrived" accountability, which is sort of like telling someone to make the grass grow faster. As an example, allow me to relate the experience of a fellow teacher. This spring, he was required to administer the STAR test to a student who a) had only attended this particular school for ONE DAY, and b) had only been in the U.S. for about a month, and spoke almost no English. Yet this student's test scores were calculated into the overall measure of progress for that school under NCLB. I am not making this up. Tell me, exactly how was this school accountable for this student's performance? This is not an isolated incident. I wonder how many people outside of the educational system are aware that this kind of thing is happening. And finally, as of this year, the scores of special education students are being calculated into the totals for whatever school they attend, as opposed to looking at them as a group district-wide, as was done in the past. Many schools do not have special day classes (SDCs), for example, and their students who qualify for such services are enrolled at the few schools in the district that do. So, a school that is "host" to a special day class, with students from all over the district, now has to absorb the very low scores of the SDC students, while schools without SDCs do not have to worry about this factor. Not to mention, it is absurd that SDC students are required to take the STAR test at all, considering that, in order to qualify for a SDC in the first place, most students' academic levels are AT LEAST two years below grade level, DUE TO SIGNIFICANT DISABILITIES. Thank you for giving me the chance to vent about this.

13. I think this law serves the companies who make and sell standardized testing services, while doing very little to educate children and a great deal to harm their sense of wonder and love of learning. It shows that our educational system and leaders have lost all sense of what it's like to be a child and all what children need to grow into full human beings.

14. This has been a disastrous unfunded mandate, that is gutting elective programs -- including those designed to prepare students for the world of work -- across the country.

15. The idea of standardized testing is ridiculous. I excused my older child from participating in it on a yearly basis. The younger ones I tell to just mark any bubble and not to bother. The test means nothing for their grade and my kids all are very jittery testers. They are A and B students, but are overwhelmed with anxiety and do very poorly. For the most part, I feel they are robbing my children of an entire week where they could be learning something of value instead of wasting their time showing everybody how poorly they are truly being taught. In my opinion standardized testing only widens the gap between the schools in the more affluent areas (white and English speaking) and the schools with more immigrant children who have a poor grasp of the English language. I work for the school district and last year the teachers even resorted to the despicable practice of handing out "in school suspensions" to those who finished the test too soon to try to force the issue. I plan to just remove my other two for the week from this time on. They should base the funding on collective grades or attendance or both and stop robbing our kids of a week of learning.

16. This is more indoctrination, censorship and intellectual manipulation from the crew of neocons who are bringing Nazi Germany into the 21st century. False-flag terrorism, evisceration of the Constitution, torture, media control, election fraud, illegal wars, treason against the American people. Enjoy, America!

17. Teachers should take the time to teach children. If there is a learning problem it should be addressed by the parents and teachers together. Teachers used to take time to help children who were having learning problems with a subject. Parents used to help their children with their problems. Now they give them money and tell them to go away. I know teachers and parents won't agree with this but I see it. And what ever happened to a teacher becoming a teacher because they really wanted to teach children? I know quite a few teachers and they all say they became a teacher for three months vacation a year and all the other time off. I think all schools should be 45/15 then maybe a teacher would become a teacher for the right reasons and then our kids will be taught and no child will be left behind because they actually learned something.

18. No Child Left Behind unfairly punishes schools that do poorly on tests by withholding funding when really it seems that those schools need the funding the most in order to improve and provide better opportunities for students attending those school.

19. NCLB leaves Petaluma's students without science, P.E., and social studies. Check out the LEAP document. How sad!

20. Kids are dumb today. Face reality. They can't even give change. When they can not pass an 8th grade level test to graduate high school. Good thing I send all this money on schools it is really paying off.

21. The program is inadequately funded, forces teaching to the test, and lacks personalized evaluations. It also falls short on resources for developmentally challenged and special-needs children. It's part of the poverty incentive machine of BushCo and needs some adjustments.

Eighty-eight percent of the people who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll Aug. 16, 2006 say they believe the local health insurance situation is getting worse.
Eighty-one percent believe they are paying too much for health insurance.
Opinion about a universal health-care plan was less clear-cut. Forty-six percent support a universal health-care plan for California, while 38 percent do not and 17 percent are not sure. Such a plan could pay for health care for all residents, regardless of medical condition or financial status.
Asked what share of health insurance employers should pay, 42 percent said the same as now, while 40 percent said more than now and 19 percent said less than now.
Here are comments by those who took the survey:
1. My prescription costs tripled this year.
2. Why does everyone want something for free? I got a job and made sure that some health-care plan was included. I also have a medical-saving plan. I take care of myself. The last thing I want is government doing this. If they take over it will cost me five times what it does now. People just have to wake up and face reality " you have to look out for yourself.
3. Hard to beat Kaiser's approach to health-care delivery. They do a solid job for a fair price.
4. The government needs to get a backbone and finally say no more free money to support the dregs of society; it is time to force them to stand on their own. Why should I work to support myself and the others that don't want to? Last time I checked, no one is paying any of my bills. If there is going to be universal health care, it should only be for legal California residents. I am tired of paying for people who should not be here. That is one of the major reasons why health-care costs have skyrocketed. I am also tired of hearing it is for the children; if you cannot support having children, maybe you should keep your legs closed.
5. Illegal immigration plays into skyrocketing health-care costs in a huge way. Health care will come under much better control when our borders are sealed and the people here illegally now are deported by the hundreds of thousands.
6. My insurance for my family just went up $237 more a month. My raise doesn't even cover this. I keep making less each year because of health insurance.
7. The accompanying article in your paper quotes Daymon Doss as saying "Congress could have decided that drug companies cannot sell at a higher rate than the federal government pays for veteran's medication " but it didn't." I wonder if Doss would be comfortable having the government decide if he is making "too much money" in salary?
He also says insurance companies "aren't willing to take a hit on their bottom line." So? Can you name an industry that is willing to curtail its profits voluntarily? Doss seems to think we live in a socialist country where government decides what things will cost. We don't. This is a capitalist economy and the solutions to health-care costs must be market-driven. Last I heard, the law of supply and demand hasn't been repealed.
Doss is also disingenuous in insisting that Canadian companies are selling drugs more cheaply than American companies. Of course! Canada has price controls and a socialized medical system! Oh, and by the way, the Canadian pharmacies that are selling drugs to Americans are making a profit, aren't they? Isn't that as immoral as Doss seems to feel it is when American pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies do it?
8. Question 3: Only for legal residents of California. Question 4: Employers should pay for employee only and not dependents.
9. I don't want to pay for other people to have medical insurance. I work for what I have!
10. For senior citizens, the health-care crisis is hitting extremely hard. If you can't afford to have a secondary insurance you are "dead in the water." Check on the number of doctors in Petaluma who are not accepting Medicare! It's very frightening as to how many no longer accept Medicare. Doctors do not like what Medicare pays out for medical care and therefore it is just easier to not accept this insurance. But it is leaving a large portion of people in the community without decent health coverage. Why can people who are in this country illegally receive better health care than the "seniors" who've worked all their lives, paying taxes for other's health care, and now aren't covered? This is a disgrace and needs to be looked at very carefully and quickly.
11. There are many pros and cons to universal health care. There are about 40 million uninsured living in the U.S. When they get extremely sick they will finally go to a tax-funded hospital. Yes, we pay even though they are not insured; neat how that works. If we have universal care, many of these individuals could have gotten inexpensive preventative care before it became a problem.
12. Prices are way out of line, but is that any different than the housing prices around here.
13. Why is Kaiser building so many more clinics? Where are they getting so much money? I don't believe the Mexican population has the dollars for the coverage, but when you visit Kaiser, the patients are mostly Mexican.
14. With all the money that's being wasted on war these days, you think they could pony up some more to cover people's health care.

Seventy-six percent of the people who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll last week said they would like to see a minor league baseball team in Petaluma -- four times as many as those who did not want to see a team.

Sixty-two percent thought the proposed site -- at the current location of the speedway at the fairgrounds -- would be a good site for a baseball stadium, compared with 32 percent who did not.

Forty-four percent of people who responded said that they would attend games of a Petaluma minor league team regularly, and 33 percent said they would attend sometimes. Nineteen percent said they would never attend the games.

Here are the comments by those who took the survey:

1 Only if they receive no public money at all. I am tired of paying for some rich person to get richer off my dime.

2 Baseball is for juicers.

3 What a great deal for the city. At last.

4 I think it would be awful to loose something so family-friendly. But my honest opinion is that it's related to the new homes going in along the freeway. And the city just wants us to think it's about the baseball team. But it's really about getting rid of the noisy racetrack to add some appeal to the homes that will be backed up by the 101. Put the stadium somewhere else. Get them to help replace the fire-damaged field at CG and put it there. Oh, no, they can't there, they are building more homes. No place to play.

5 If done right, including an affiliation with the major leagues (as the California League is), minor league baseball would be a successful venture in southern Sonoma County. It would be an activity the entire family could enjoy.

6 Keep the speedway.

7 I love baseball. It'll be a great community uniter. Local little leagues can go as a group. It was a shame to see the Crushers go.

8 I think the team is a great idea, but I'm not so sure about the location. There are an awful lot of race and stock car fans and it seems a shame that they should loose out.

9 There's no comparison between a speedway and a ballpark " the speedway epitomizes speed and danger and consumption of resources. A ballpark represents team spirit and community.

10 I would love a minor league team in Petaluma but not at the cost of losing the racetrack. If I had to have one or the other I would prefer the baseball team.

11 It didn't work for the Crushers, so why would it work here? The proposed site is going to be the Target site. What a traffic nightmare. We need some decent shopping before baseball.

12 I live on the east side and hate the noise from the raceway but not enough to have it replaced by a stadium. The Crushers didn't make it in Rohnert Park, what makes people think minor league baseball will survive in Petaluma? I think it would be a waste of money and would take away something that people have enjoyed for many, many years. My only request would be to work on lowering the noise and/or lowering the curfew " with my windows closed it sounds like it is right next door and we are five to 10 miles away.

13 A minor league baseball team would continue an already established great tradition around Petaluma's true love for the game of baseball from little league through high school. Not to mention alleviating the annoying mosquito-like buzz of cars driving around in endless, meaningless circles every weekend putting huge amounts of pollutants into our air.

14 Baseball fits the Petaluma lifestyle much better than speedway. I would love to stop the noise of speedway every Saturday night, which is loud, no matter where you live in Petaluma. I would love the opportunity to attend local baseball games, which would make a great contribution to the small town atmosphere most of us love about Petaluma.

15 What are they going to try and spend my money on next? I would like a velodrome in that spot. Track racing is more exciting.

16 Having a minor league baseball team in Petaluma would far more desirable than gas guzzling racecars.

17 Petaluma is large enough to support many activities without having to go to Santa Rosa or Rohnert Park.

18 Imagine a Saturday night without the noise of engines, just the sweet sound of the crack of a bat and the roar of the crowds.

19 Didn't we have a team in Rohnert Park called the Crushers? Didn't Ex-Giant slugger Kevin Mitchell play with them for a while? They ended up folding, so why would a team in Petaluma be good? I love baseball and would go to the games but I just don't see it happening again. We had our chance with the Crushers and they are now gone and an empty stadium sat for years. I think we need a softball complex much more then a new baseball stadium, especially at the fairgrounds.

20 The raceway is proven. It is a place for those who want to race, can race and keep it off the streets. The racetrack is an institution in Petaluma. It is a place where I went as a kid (and still go) and where my kids went and still go. On another point, if the fair board wants to increase numbers to the fair, then don't charge one price for entrance. If you don't ride the rides you are not going to spend the money to see the fair. My wife and I haven't attended the last few years because we don't ride the rides and it is too expensive to pay just to see the fair. I think they just want the fair to fail.

21 Sounds like a great idea to me. Since they got rid of the Crusher Stadium, there is no super local ballpark I can take my kids to.

22 This gives the local families a chance to see professional baseball at an inexpensive price. No many people can drive to the peninsula to see the games -- and at those prices, not many want to go.

23 Great for Petaluma, much more community friendly. We will not miss the noisy racing.

24 Baseball, baseball, baseball. More baseball for all.

25 I would buy season tickets.

26 It would be an opportunity to bring Bay Area visibility to Petaluma. We have a town that is primed for growth and attention.

27 Ideally, the team would be affiliated with one of the Bay Area professional teams but if not at least the currently affiliated teams would be regular visitors here. The youth of Sonoma and surrounding counties will get to see quality young players working toward a spot in the majors.

28 I think bringing a minor league team to Petaluma would be excellent. I don't think however, that we should eliminate the racetrack. I live near the track and the noise is no bother. Furthermore, the city and its citizens really need to think about the revenue the racetrack brings in on the weekends when there are races. So to sum it up: Baseball absolutely 100 percent, racing definitely. This town can do it all and give the people what they want. Lastly, Colorado Spring has a minor league team called the Sky Socks. Colorado Springs got this minor league team together without taxing their citizens. You may want to look at how they did it.

29 Petaluma needs something that appeals to more people than speedway racing. It is cleaner for the environment, and you don't need to hear it every weekend night from miles away. It would also contribute to improvements being done in the area. The motor speedway should be moved to the fringes of the town, say down by the new sewer treatment plant, away from downtown and homes.

30 People complain about the noise on Saturday nights, if there is a baseball park, there will be noise four to six nights a week. I'll take the racetrack, thank you.

31 The venue would be great for concerts as well as baseball. Finally " family entertainment for Petaluma on a regular basis.

32 I think the speedway is important to Petaluma. Also, I would hate to see it go.

33 I believe a minor league team would be a huge draw in Petaluma. I have a family and don't know any in town who goes to the races. It seems the only people going to the races are people who live outside of Petaluma. It's time to create a gathering place where families throughout town would be welcome and entertained.

34 No. Bad idea. Talk about traffic concerns. The speedway may not be the most modern and the most fun place for people to go (I don't) but it's Petaluma and I know plenty of people who enjoy the track. Stop destroying Petaluma. Stop trying to change it into something it was never meant to be. I know it's too late already, because of all the homes and unnecessary building, but there is still time to stop before there is no hometown left. One more thing: Didn't we already have a ballpark in R.P. with a team called the Crushers? Where is that ballpark and where are they?

35 Our family would much prefer a baseball stadium with the ability to be a concert venue. We have lived here 35 years, and have always hated the racetrack.

36 Minor league baseball would be a community-building asset to Petaluma. More local activities and jobs we can walk to, a top-notch regional facility that could also showcase youth baseball playoffs and other events, and a great alternative to more dense development in the heart of town. I love auto racing, but I think there is a lot of upside to this idea, especially given that it would be a major league affiliate. Let's ask the hard questions and see if it pencils out to a win-win for Petaluma.

37 We have lived here in Petaluma for 27 years and have raised 3 boys, all involved in local baseball from t-ball through high school. We all love baseball and will continue to love it, as it's a wonderful sport. Build it and we will come.

38 A minor league team would be great, but do we want to get rid of the speedway?

39 Baseball is All-American and I think entertains a wider fan base than car racing.

40 We miss the Crushers.

41 I think it would be wonderful. As long as it does not take away the Sonoma-Marin Fair. I would much rather spend money in our local area for a baseball game than going to San Francisco.

42 Yes, it's a wonderful idea. I like the site and would attend regularly. And it would get rid of the noise pollution I hear every weekend even though I live on the far west side.

43 I think there could be a better location other than one in the central part of Petaluma that will just increase the already increased traffic congestion we already have prior to the completion of the Kenilworth, Theatre District and Riverfront projects. The location of the Sonoma Country Crushers stadium in Rohnert Park was an excellent site, but the almighty dollar demolished that stadium. And isn't it sad that in this age, when everyone has our natural resources on their minds, that we tear down something that is working and use new resources to build something that could at least be built somewhere else and retain the use of the existing site?

44 What would happen to the raceway?

45 I think the city of Petaluma deserves a Golden Baseball League team. I live in Chico and love attending Outlaws games. They are fun and my kid like it. We could see the Outlaws play when at the gramps house.

46 Great opportunity for teens to have something to do. What I would really like to see is an 11 p.m. curfew enforced in Petaluma to decrease the crimes committed by anyone under 18.

47 What happened to the Rohnert Park baseball team? Didn't they go bankrupt? And wouldn't the fair be losing income? I think that the city needs a new mayor and some council members if they think that this is a good idea.

48 I like having the speedway. I grew up in Petaluma and I always loved the sound of the races. My best friend's father would go there every Sunday. Please keep the racetrack.

49 Night games will be too cold to enjoy. There must be another location better than the fairgrounds. Traffic on game day. Check out the other stadiums in the California League. I have been to all of them for many games and there is much to learn from their mistakes.

50 Leave the speedway alone.

51 As a life-long National League baseball fan, I find the prices and difficulty of getting a group of tickets to the Giants games off-putting to say the least. Gone are the days of spontaneous ballpark excursions and $7 tickets. I would love to see minor league ball here in town and hope that the prices and availability of tickets (that is, the place wouldn't be completely pre-sold via season subscriptions) would encourage lots of local enthusiasm for this terrific pastime.

52 A great, new, and exciting idea for Petaluma. Go for it.

53 It's about time. We would purchase season tickets tomorrow if they were available.

54 What a great addition to Petaluma a minor league team would be. It would provide entertainment for all ages.

55 Perhaps it could be located on the river at the site of the old cement factory.

56 I really think they should look somewhere else than the raceway to build it, like over by Casa Grande on Frates.

57 Great idea.

58 I think there is room in Petaluma for both baseball and racing.

59 The speedway is a Petaluma icon and hosts upward of 3,000 people a week. Build the park by the outlets or elsewhere. By the way, where is Cruisers stadium? Hum.

60 The people planning this should try to come up with a design where both the speedway and baseball stadium are on the same site so that everyone would be happy, and there would be more revenue for the fairgrounds.

61 Remember the crushers? If the mayor was affiliated with the Giants, shouldn't he abstain from any voting or comments?

62 I think it is fantastic that we could get a stadium right here in town, and if we do, hope that the community supports the team fully by attending games regularly. We sure have grown as a little town.

63 I've never supported a sports team before, but I would definitely support a hometown baseball team. It's a great opportunity for family participation. Please move forward with the plan.

64 We supported the Redwood Pioneers and the Crushers, so this would be wonderful. The Crusher Booster Club still exists.

65 Cant we just have peace and quite for a change? I am tired of hearing noise come from that part of town. If a ball field is going in there, all the games should be during the day, ending no later than 5 p.m. We need peace and quite. I vote and I will remember who votes for what.

66 A baseball team would be very wholesome for the youth. New role models, they would be at games instead of on the streets and the events at the games are a lot of fun. There is no price that can be put on kids having role models.

67 If the track goes away because Sorres looses his lease at the original contract date, whether it is his choice or the fairgrounds, that's one thing. But to take racing away from the drivers, crews, families, fans, workers, machine shops, tire stores, race shops, auto part stores, fuel stations, concessions, etc., well, that is just wrong and should be considered. A lease is contract that should be good until the date that was agreed.

68 We already have affordable family entertainment with the races.

69 What a great way to promote family fun and create lasting family memories. I always said that if I ever leave Petaluma, I would move somewhere where there was a minor league ballpark. Now Petaluma is truly the perfect town to raise a family.

70 Lose over $200,000 a year? Sounds like the fair needs new management.

71 Waste of money. Let's build something that everyone can use.

72 I think a minor league team would be a great asset to the whole county. I grew up in Petaluma and now live in Windsor, but I would definitely drive my family down frequently to see some baseball games.

73 I think Petaluma should think of other ideas to generate money other than big box stores that are also located a few miles away. A baseball team would give Petaluma more of that "old town" feeling that we are trying to keep.

74 Maybe we can get the A's? Ha ha.

75 Keep the speedway and put the stadium somewhere else on the outskirts of Petaluma, maybe where they wanted to put that big sports park that never got built.

76 It's time to get rid of the old rundown racetrack.

77 I think baseball would be great, but I also do not want to see the city extend the fair's lease for dozens of years without thoughtful consideration what is in the best interest of its citizens. The current fair board has not done that. I don't like driving by seeing used car sales and other uses that are not supportive of the city. I do not support the city giving away the lease for years and years without the fair board being more responsive to the citizens of Petaluma, who are giving them the right to use its land for $1 per year.

78 My family has lived in this town since the late 1800s. This was once a wonderful town to live in, but the overgrowth of homes and businesses has destroyed it. The streets now cannot handle the growth nor the traffic coming off the Washington exits. I feel that our city council should take a good look at what this town is before making a huge mistake. I don't care how much money this investor has, that's not the issue. It's what it will do to this town, which is adding more problems. It will bring more outsiders from all over that will raise the risk of more crime, etc. I feel this town is not really a good place for this baseball field and especially where you want to put it. It should be placed down near Highway 37 for it to be easy for everybody to get to from all the directions of all the cities. This is just common sense.

79 I want to see both the speedway and the minor league team and ballpark be part of Petaluma's future.

80 This is such a great idea. But the Crushers didn't do so well in RP, what makes Petaluma more viable?

81 A fantastic idea that would provide ample opportunities for family entertainment.

82 Love it.

83 I hate to see the fairgrounds altered in any way because chances are we will lose forever another piece of Petaluma culture by not having the track and surrounding grounds replaced at another location. History dictates otherwise. Just look what has happened to McNear Park. A small group of neighbors can ruin what was a tradition very easily by ignoring their disclosure documents when they purchased their homes. I grew up on Seventh Street, then Sunnyslope Road, and lived at the Boys Club and McNear Park (remember the summer rec programs?) and to see what has become of this jewel of a park is ridiculous. The neighbors when I lived in Petaluma welcomed the baseball games and activities that occurred at McNear. I'm just fearful of the same thing happening with the fairgrounds. "Not in my backyard" seems to be the growing sentiment nowadays.

84 What a great idea. When is the groundbreaking?

85 The timing of this proposal is excellent. With the Oakland A's anticipated move to Fremont, North Bay A's fans would be prime targets to adopt a new team. I am a longtime A's season ticket holder and would relish having an A ball team in Petaluma.

86 It's just what's needed for the town, no more crappy fairs with drifters and unsafe equipment not protected by any laws. It would perhaps give young men a chance to start with a minor league team, too. I would imagine the cost of admission and foods would be normal for families, and guess what " the players are kid-friendly. It's great idea but my fear is there is always some group that will fight it for some reason.

87 Exciting proposal; unique opportunity; win-win situation for everyone; race fans have Infineon Speedway and Lakeport Speedway and perhaps there's a spot for racing in northern Sonoma county.

88 Yes, yes, yes. Excellent use of the old racetrack space. Whole families could walk to a baseball game " not just noisy racing enthusiasts. And concerts at other times. Great idea. Thank you, Mr. Paulson, for thinking of Petaluma. A class act addition to this town and the whole downtown renewal underway. Yes.

89 A ballpark makes Petaluma a destination city. It generates revenue for the city, which can be used for other social services. It also promotes local businesses, as the people who come to town will spend money that they'd spend elsewhere. It also makes our city a great place for families to live, which in this day and age is a rare commodity.

90 It would be great to have minor league baseball back in the North Bay.

91 While I am not a racing fan at all, I know there will be a lot of folks upset about replacing the speedway with a ballpark. Why can't we have both? The old Kenilworth Junior High site would have been perfect for a ballpark, instead of yet another ugly shopping mall.

92 Put anything there except another strip mall.

93 Sonoma County just lost the Crushers and the stadium. I think that the city council is putting the cart before the horse.

94 I think this is a fabulous win for Petaluma and the fair board. It serves many affected groups with only the racing folks losing out. On balance, I think the gains outweigh the loss. Let's play ball.

95 We need a good baseball field in town for high school playoffs and championships.

96 It is a great opportunity for Petaluma.

97 I believe that a Petaluma team would inspire our youth to a great American past time without having to pay high ticket prices of MLB games either in San Francisco or Oakland.

98 It is too cold in Petaluma at nights and the traffic heading south around game times is miserable. I would not go.

99 I would never go if it were at the fairgrounds.

100 Bringing in big business is a joke.

101 I think this is a great idea. It will be used more that the speedway and would be more family friendly. It would also bring people into the downtown area to eat and browse. So go minor league.

102 I'm a 37-year-old married father of two. I grew up in Petaluma all my life, bought a house in Petaluma and am now raising my children here. I've been coaching little league baseball and fall baseball for the past seven years with my son and feel that this is the greatest town to raise your children in. There are not very many family orientated programs or attractions in Petaluma, and being that my family are huge baseball fanatics along with many other families in town, this minor league park would not only draw people but would be a valuable asset to our community.

103 Although I believe that a modern baseball park would be an asset to the community as a whole, including additional revenue for the city, I'm not willing to give up the only racetrack for miles around for a ballpark. Find a place for the racetrack or find another place for a ballpark. Besides, I'm sure that the homeowners in the very local area may not like the noise on Saturday nights, however with a ballpark there will be considerable more on more dates.

104 There are many reasons not to do this. One complaint heard is the noise of the speedway. This is one day a week. The baseball field will generate noise more than that per week with the games, as well as the proposed other events such as concerts. So weigh the options: One night per week or up to five nights a week? Same annoyance, same troubles, same issues. Why risk the city's money when you can spend nothing and have a limited annoyance? Just my two cents worth.

105 Until the City of Petaluma can improve its traffic infrastructure, any additional events that could add to the traffic mess already on Washington Street would not be practical. We haven't even begun to fight the traffic with the upcoming shopping center next to the freeway. You can forget about any cross-town traveling.

106 The motor racing is too noisy.

107 I would rather have a sewage pond than a baseball field. Baseball is for people who take drugs and lie I don't want that around here.

108 Petaluma is being sold to the highest bidders. First, all the Theatre District development that has brought what? Traffic congestion, parking problems, overload to the base infrastructure, litigation by the developer. And where does the developer live " not in Petaluma.

109 Do residents comprise the minor league team? No. They are a business and are paid to play. When the "entrepreneur" tires of his team and pulls out or sells, Petaluma is stuck with a stadium, parking lots, etc. Remember the Crushers? How many people from Petaluma drove the whole 20 minutes to see them?

110 The speedway is one of the last remaining Petaluma venues and it has its aficionados as well. If the speedway is gone, those fans and participants would have to travel all the way to Ukiah.

111 If the city wants to sell a part of Petaluma for a minor league team, let it be in an area where there are already fields. How about the flood plain where houses are now planned? Baseball is seasonal, right? So is flooding. What about water for the playing field?

112 Just say no to more development and look and see what is happening now and what
the impacts are going to be in the future. It's time to re-evaluate and pay for what has already been "bought."

Sixty-two percent of the people who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll Aug. 2, 2006 say they believe global warming is a real problem -- more than twice as many as those who believe it is a myth.

Fifty-three percent believe global warming is mainly caused by humans, compared with 32 percent who believe it is naturally occurring.

However, 43 percent of respondents believe that global warming was not responsible for the heat wave in late July that sent temperatures soaring to 106 degrees.

Sixty-three percent feel the government is not doing enough to curb global warming.

Here are comments by those who took the survey:

1. There are many things you can do to help: Change all your lightbulbs to fluorescent. Recycle and buy recycled products. Buy EnergyStar products. For your next car choose a car with higher mileage. Plant a tree. Buy organic, locally grown if possible. Turn off or unplug lights and appliances when not in use. Buy your power from a green energy company or buy solar panels. Insulate your home well.

2. Read some real facts and don't pull things out of thin air. Do you not know that places like Antarctica once was a tropical paradise? The Sahara was once covered with lush trees. When that all changed it was done by Mother Nature, not man. I am sure we are helping things along a little, but come on, we are just piss ants. Get over it; you are inconsequential. Now go to your shrink and cry get a real life and worry about things you can change " like that mullet you still have.

3. Climate fluctuations are normal, or I'd have a pet dinosaur trained to eat the mullet-haired wackos who are always crying "the sky is falling!" and they think they are important enough to have caused it. But all the crappy weather, hurricanes and giant waves are really caused by GOD, he's mad and going to wipe us out for skipping bible study last week or it could just be normal weather patterns and stupid self-important humans.

4. We should do what most other nations have done and sign the Kyoto Protocol. Turn in your SUVs and buy a safe, fuel-efficient vehicle.

5. We do need to clean up our air and water for reasons other than global warming.

6. Human Body Tempeture varies slightly over time but nobody suggests getting the government involved. Could it be that those who believe that more government is the answer to every perceived ill see global warming less as solid science and more as a political opportunity?

7. Al Gore is a dumbass.

8. Science or hypothesis. Why guess when the cause and effect is so scientifically proven? The naysayers are those who are afraid voters won't vote for them, or businesses afraid of the short-term losses involved with new technology. We are dooming the next generation to pain, and their offspring to disaster. All for a quick profit or an inability to grasp reality.

9. Global global warming is: (a) naturally occurring, (b) affected by human activity, (c) occurring faster than originally predicted, (d) will have an very strong influence in our way of life wether we believe in it or not.
I believe that the general increase in temperature may take place at a far more rapid pace than anyone currently believes possible. A quick Illustration- first, we have a warming trend that is very slowly happening (think a very long time) that plants and animals can adapt to. Second, add our contribution of greenhouse gases and other heat retaining substances. how much in the way of greenhouse emissions does a single automobile put out multiplied by the number of them in use. Add in other sources of greenhouse emissions like cattle which emit methane (eeeewww) and uncle Bob who also emits methane (eeeew). Third, the temperature goes up a little more quickly. Plants which have been removing carbon dioxide from the air all have a preferred operating temp. They work less well when not in their favorite temp (assuming of course that the ones near uncle Bob are still alive of course). Fourth, unless new plants that are well suited for rising temperatures are extremely fast growing and aboundant, there will be more carbon dioxide in the air which leads to higher temps and so on. Fifth, the higher temps are melting the polar ice caps. The ice caps have methane trapped in/beneath them, which is released by the melting (more than released by the men at uncle Bob's family reunion. Sixth, ocean water becomes less salty. Seaweeds and algeas that live in the ocean (which were busy processing carbon dioxide) are most likely not going to adapt very well to their "fresh" situation. Again we have more greenhouse emissions in the air and more heat (and we can't blame it all on uncle Bob).
What can we do? (A) Pray for guidance on how to deal with this problem (and the people who don't beleive it is a problem), (B)Find some little thing we can all do in our daily lives to add to the solution (a lot of little things add up), (C) Stop thinking that a cork in uncle Bob is the only solution. ;)

10. I think commercially reasonable efforts to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases can't hurt. But, to be honest, I am not 100 percent convinced about global warming. The Earth's temperatures cycle up and down. In the 1980s, scientists were warning that we could be entering the next Ice Age. Can you imagine what would have happened if we had done something about it, like pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to create a warming effect? I think anti-pollution efforts are always a good thing. But I believe we should follow a slow, measured approach to dealing with what today's data suggests may be a global warming trend.

11. Switch to cars with higher mileage standards, drive less when possible, push for SMART rail, be more energy-conscious in general. Write Congress so they pay attention to an important issue. And let others know to see "An Inconvenient Truth" so they are in the know.

12. Reduce carbon emmissions. Stop driving all the time, or get clean cars.

13. Avoid quick & easy conclusions. It is unclear whether how much of whatever is going on is naturally occurring, caused by humans, or what effect it is actually having. It should be studied carefully. In the meantime, cautionary action should be taken, but no extreme measures until there is more certainty about this.

14. Even if there is only a 50 percent chance the scientists are right about global warming, what a risk we are taking! The planet! Our home!

15. I belive that global warming is naturally occurring. The world has been going through these changes sence the begining of time.

16. Close coal burning power plants and build more nukes! Ask France. Pray that Ma Nature delivers no volcanic eruptions soon. Only takes one ;-)

17. We need to find alternative fuel to fossil fuel as soon as humanly possible, no matter if global warming is real or not. The U.S. government needs to start a department that is dedicated to the search for alternative energy sources that will not only drastically reduce our demand for foreign oil but will also address supposed global warming issues.

18. Our children pay the price for our lack of action on things that will slow down global warming.

19. People are not causing any global warming!!!

20. No real science exists to prove/disprove GWS. There is not enough data and we weather and climate have always been cyclic. 20 years ago the cry was the planet was going to freeze and we would enter a new ice age! The most absurd assumption is that it is American autos that are causing this - China and India burn so much coal and pollute so much more than the US - we have actually been decrasing our hydrocarbon emissions and have reduced our pollution. How about some of our protestors focusing on the real contributors if they are so concerned.

21. Stop the one-sided press. There is no "global warming" crisis. Simply a cyclical event. Stop the hysteria.

22. So many of us make the choice to purchase more fuel efficient cars to have less impact on the environment. Rather than turn our old, gass guzzlers over to a new drive to continue spewing emissions, the government should offer an incentive to turn in these cars to get them off the streets. They do it with guns, why not gross polluting vehicles?

23. Expand mass transit systems. Tax gas-guzzling vehicles heavily. Plant trees. Build bike lanes. Install photo-voltaic energy systems on public and private building. Sign Kyoto Treaty.

24. Governments must stop ignoring the problem and take real, effective measures to deal with the problem.

25. It's time for private investors and individuals to step up and save our planet. Why do we keep thinking our government will do this?

26. Listen to the scientists. Elect LOTS of Democrats this November, and re-elect Al Gore in 2008!

27. 1) Remove George Bush/ Dick Chaney from office. 2) Enter into the Kyoto Protocol. 3) Increase gas mileage standards for all cars and trucks sold in the United StatesI believe that global warming is naturally occurring. The world has been going through these changes since the beginning of time.

28. I do believe that global warming is a natural occurrence. At the same token, I believe that humans with their burning of fossil fuels, coal, etc. are exacerbating the problem and expediting overall warming. If I recall correctly, last year Petaluma did not have a summer day in the triple digits, however 2004 did have a few days. So was this heat wave a product of global warming? I doubt it.

29. We have, as president, a man who ignores advice about war, foreign affairs and science. This is a huge global issue and America is sadly not at the table. A recent "amateur'video on YouTube mocking Al Gore's film was produced by a firm the represents the Republican national party and Exxon/Mobil. 1. We should reconsider the Kyoto Accords. 2. Acknowledge the presence of a problem. 3. Do what we already know needs to be done to limit fossil fuels.

30. What should we do -- go back to living in a cave without fire? Get real! I could care less what happens in 50 years. I will be dead. I am happy driving my Hummer. Hopefully, it gets warm enough to swim in the ocean here all year round. That would make this place just perfect.

31. Regardless if it's the human factor or not, we sure as hell aren't helping it any.

32. Go help the homeless.

Sixty percent of the people who responded to an Argus-Courier online poll July 26, 2006 say they believe pets that are proven to be dangerous should be euthanized.
Seventy-nine percent believe there should be stiffer penalties for owners of dogs that harm people or other animals.
Eighty-five percent said owners of proven aggressive animals should be liable for the cost of confinement or euthanization of their pets.
Here are comments by those who took the survey:

1. Animals are only dangerous if they are raised that way. I have a full-bred German Rottweiler and she is the smallest and friendliest dog you'll meet.
2. My dog was attacked and injured by a pit bull.
3. Tough question to answer categorically. Every issue should be judged on the merit of the offense. Some animals can be goaded into action, while others are just plain mean-spirited.
4. As part of the penalty phase, i.e. first offense for people with aggressive dogs, a training/behaviorial course should be required for owner/pet. In my experience, many of these owners don't even bother to license their dogs.
5. Decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. A dog that bites is not the same as a dog that has attacked and seriously injured a human being. Dog-on-dog aggression must be dealt with differently. A dog that has proven to be dog-aggressive can be managed, but the owner must be willing to take the time to work with and manage the dog's behavior. t begins with prevention and education, not kneejerk legislation from State, County and City Officials. Petaluma is leading by example where as County and surounding cities have jumped on the BSL bandwagon. kudos to Nancee Tavares and all those in the Petaluma Animal Shelter for all they do. As the proud owner of a pit bull, I'd like to see more positive programs that assist pit bull owners with problems they may have with their own dogs, and help secure their homes and yards to prevent escapes. Education works far better than legislation.
6. We need to be careful to not label specific breeds as "dangerous." A shih-tzu can be fierce, too. Stiffer fines should be imposed on animal owners who nurture aggressive behavior in their animals through mistreatment and improper animal handling, and the funds collected from these fees should go toward a public awareness campaign about safe animal handling. Domesticated animals such as dogs depend on us for their welfare, and it is our duty and responsibility to be sure that the public is educated and informed. Well-intentioned dog owners who have an animal with behavioral problems should have the resources available to them to learn what their responsibilities are, as well as their options.
7. Owners have to take responsibility for their pets' actions just like their kids' actions. If their pet is dangerous it should be confined and not be allowed near people or their pets. They should also have to have some kind of tracker to keep track of them in case they do get out of their yard. If they get out more than once then they are taken away. I am also against the no-leash law. Your dog can be well trained, but if something or someone gets their attention, that's that.
8. It is interesting how we euthanize animals due to illness to help ease the suffering, yet we don't give this same dignity to humans even if they decide for themselves. Why?
9. Every pet's circumstances are different. An animal that is proven dangerous to humans should be euthanized if it has a history of having actually done significant or serious harm to a person; if no serious harm has been done, confinement and behavior modification training should be attempted. Dogs that are proven risks to other dogs should not be allowed at off-leash parks.
10. Kill every pet. They all have a chance of hurting someone or something. Then hit their owners with a huge fine and put them in the stocks so everyone will know not to own a pet.
11. If an animal is proven to be dangerous, the possibility of rehabilitation should be explored before the decision to euthanize the animal is made final. Variables, such as whether an owner is capable of following through with a rehab program, the cost of rehab, etc. will need to be considered.
14. Pit bull dogs are dangerous to their owners and other people. One tried to kill our 25-pound dog and his only sin was walking with us on a leash. They can't be predicted. This is not their fault; they were bred to attack and they have massive strong jaws.
15. WE ARE PARNTS TO THESE PETS AS OUR CHILDREN AND SO WE SHOULD BE LIABLE.
16. A canine that can't be trusted around people should certainly be put to sleep. If you have ever witnessed a dog attack, it is one of the most horrifyingly fast and brutal things you will probably ever see in your lifetime! And I love dogs and have cared for my canine companions until they passed away of natural causes. But I trained them never to try and hurt another human or animal.
17. For the protection of citizenry we need to euthanize these animals after the first aggressive act. Persons who wish to own aggressive dogs in Petaluma should have to post a large bond to have the pet in our city limits (my preference would be Sonoma County). This won't protect against an aggressive act, but will cover the medical expenses for the damage to humans or other animals caused by this animal.
18. Obviously the pit bull is at the heart of this survey, but it is not the only dangerous dog. Authorities chould create an official list of known and proven dangerous dogs, like pit bulls, Rottweilers and others. Anyone owning or wishing to own such a proven dangerous animal should at least be required to have the animal spayed or neutered and to attend and have the dog graduate from a certified dog obedience class; these animals have to be dealt with properly and intelligently with the resources at hand. People need to take responsibility if they want to have animals. Obviously I can't keep a wolf or lion in a city or suburban dwelling. Why not? Because they are dangerous and wild animals. Pit bulls and others have proven themselves enough times to be aggressive, dangerous and lethal. How many children have to die from a horrific mauling before people get the bigger picture? There are many fine breeds that will not harm people or inflict the kind of damage that PB's and others can and will and have done to people. And if people want to have a macho animal becase it fits their self-image or attitude towards the world then they need to own up to their values and make the proper contribution to society by taking responsibility for their animals.