Letters 10-26-06

Article Tools

Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments

Bookmark This

del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!

P is For Priorities

It seems Chief Sanchez did not read Measure P closely before writing his opinion piece [“Joint Considerations, Oct. 4]. Measure P does not invalidate any existing law. What it does is make marijuana the lowest police priority. In this way, it frees up the police to have more time to deal with serious problems like gang violence, home burglaries, and child abuse, all of which are on the rise.

I support Measure P because I believe we should deal with our marijuana policies locally, not hand them over to the Bush Administration’s Drug Enforcement Agency. This is a waste of tax dollars and not consistent with the real concerns and governmental priorities of most Santa Barbarans. I know of several instances where local sheriff deputies or police have arrested bona fide patients. This type of misplaced priority has led to a waste of police time and resources, clogging our courts and jails.

Another concern I have is that many medical marijuana users are poor. As a result of the intimidation of physicians by the Medical Board of California only a small percentage of doctors make medicinal marijuana approvals to their patients. It’s difficult for poor ill folks to find a second doctor if their primary doctor is reluctant to offend the Medical Board of California and a spare $150-$250 to make a visit to get the required physician approval. Should ill people who can’t afford to see a doctor be targets for arrest?

I think most Santa Barbarans would rather see our police working to make Santa Barbara safer by fighting real crime. If you agree, vote yes on P.

-Dr. David Bearman, MD

•••

The marijuana lobby is at it again. This time they are hoping voters will approve an initiative designed to make marijuana a low priority for the police department. Since when was it a high priority? This is obviously an attempt to make drug abuse more acceptable, and to hinder law enforcement. What kind of message would passage of this initiative send? Would we be telling young people that marijuana use is no big deal? Will law enforcement agencies begin to view drug abuse as a less urgent problem? Would policemen be forced to arrest someone for littering before arresting someone for selling dope, driving under the influence, or sharing dope with their friends? Contrary to what some may think, marijuana is not a safe or harmless drug. Several recent articles attest to the fact.

Findings from SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and other researchers show that: Young people who use marijuana weekly have double the risk of developing depression. Teens aged 12 to 17 who smoke marijuana weekly are three times more likely than non-users to have suicidal thoughts. Marijuana use in some teens has been linked to increased risk for schizophrenia in later years. A British study found that as many as one in four people may have a genetic profile that makes marijuana five times more likely to trigger psychotic disorders. Don’t be fooled; vote no on this insidious, ill conceived initiative.

-Nathan Post

Jill V. Elton

I wholeheartedly concur with your endorsement of Jill Martinez. At a fundraiser, I heard a speech by her and I was touched to the core by her passion and commitment to social justice and responsible government, and her interest in everyone in that room and beyond. She will bring sanity, honesty, and fairness back to Congress.

By contrast, her opponent has never cared about public debate, personal appearances to his constituents, nor the rights or concerns of anyone but the far right. I recently wrote to him about his support for HR 3006, the Uniting American Families Act, which would mean the difference between staying in the U.S. or leaving (I am in a bi-national, same-gender partnership), and received this insulting reply: “The bill has been referred to the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, of which I am a Senior member. Should I have the opportunity to consider it, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.” I should mention that this bill (known formerly as HR 832) has been languishing in Congress for over three years. We need to vote this lock-step-with-Bush man into his desired retirement, and send to the House a compassionate, intelligent, and responsive representative in the person of Jill Martinez.

-Naomi Stephan

•••

During his extended tenure in the U.S. Congress, Congressman Elton Gallegly has represented the citizens of his various districts extremely well. He has responded to both local groups and individuals in a most forthright and caring manner. I have yet to send a letter or make a call to his local or Washington office and not received a reply to my inquiry either from his staff or from him personally.

The records show that he travels to and from Washington frequently to meet with his constituents, discuss matters of concern, and then follow up on helping to provide viable solutions. I have been particularly impressed with the actions he began taking a number of years ago, locally and in Congress, to address the ongoing problem of illegal aliens crossing the borders into California and other southwestern states. In particular, his call for a National Identity Card, which could minimize the slow-down problems at airports, ports of entry, license bureaus, and polling places, would also be an effective solution for maximizing efforts to apprehend illegals. Based on his exemplary record of service, Congressman Gallegly deserves to be returned to the U.S. House of Representatives again for the upcoming term. -J. Devereaux Leahy

Drumbeats for Measure D

Everyone knows traffic is getting worse and worse on the South Coast. Fortunately, there’s something we can all do about it this year on Nov.7 at the polls. We can vote yes on Measure D, which will pay for freeway widening, road repairs to get rid of the potholes, and improve bicycle and school route safety. Read your Voter Sample Ballot, pages 23 -35 for details. And don’t forget to vote on Nov. 7!

-Beverly Herbert

•••

Measure D has an interesting coalition of supporters. In addition to the businesses that have traditionally funded the campaigns for such measures, there are almost 100 ordinary people who have sent in $10, $25, $50 or $100 checks. This is unprecedented. Never before has a transportation measure enjoyed the active support of so many regular citizens who man phone banks, walk precincts, and donate whatever they can afford.

Who are they? They are people of all ages and from all walks of life who favor the causes of environmentalism, alternative transportation, and social justice. Many are members of the 26 progressive organizations that have rallied in support of the new Measure D, including the Sierra Club, the SB League of Conservation Voters, COAST, SBCAN, PUEBLO, and the League of Women Voters, to name just a few. They support the measure because it is a balanced plan that dedicates substantial funds to public transportation as well as bicycle, pedestrian and SR2S projects. This will have huge benefits for the environment and the well being of all the citizens of this beautiful community.

-Eva Inbar

•••

Few things are more annoying than reading Travis Armstrong say that he opposes Measure D on environmental grounds. Every environmental organization in Santa Barbara County supports Measure D emphatically and here comes this carpetbagger doing the dirty work for his billionaire boss claiming to know better. For whatever reasons the News-Press opposes Measure D, the environment is not one of them. While claiming the environmental high ground, McCaw and her mouthpiece promote the destructive efforts of Andy Caldwell, Mike Stoker, and Joe Armendariz: an environmental trio, indeed!

-Alex Pujo

Slippery Logic

Here we are, trying to pass a proposition to raise gas taxes in order to get $4 billion in 10 years for renewable energy research, i.e. non-oil based, while we’re dropping $300-plus billion into taking over one of the world’s deepest oil reserves, Iraq. If only, on September 12, 2001, the guys running the show had decided to take the $300 billion-plus and invest it in renewable energy, right now our cars would all be running on pocket lint.

-Andrew Baker

Sheriff Showdown

Something’s fishy in Lompoc and it smells a lot like an “albatross of failed leadership hanging around the neck of” Police Chief Bill Brown. The Chief claims he has exemplary leadership experience, but what’s happened recently in the Lompoc Police Department proves it’s not true. First, there was the arrest and handcuffing of students protesting about the immigration law issue; then the Chief’s embarrassing public apology for having made those arrests, not to mention the lawsuit that’s still facing the school district because of those illegal arrests. Two of Brown’s captains made the decision to make those arrests without properly researching the city ordinance. The chief was out of town, as he is most of the time. Is this good leadership?

Now there is the issue of a Lompoc Police Sergeant, a past president of the Lompoc Police Officers Association, who illegally aided a county social worker in her attempt to enter a homeless shelter using a false government document. Is this more of Chief Brown’s good leadership?

Talk to any of the 50 officers who’ve left the Lompoc PD since Brown became chief and you’ll find the reasons they left are primarily due to lack of support from the chief and a good ole boys network within the department that left them on the outside, looking in at promotion/assignment time. 29 of those officers are now working for the Santa Maria PD. Doesn’t sound like good leadership to me. Vote to reelect Sheriff Jim Anderson.

-J. Baker

•••

The time has come for a new sheriff for Santa Barbara County. Chief Bill Brown should be that new sheriff. Chief Brown will have the ability to bring a legitimacy to the sheriff’s office that has been missing for some time now. The Sheriff’s Council scandal is only one aspect of Anderson’s term that should disqualify him for the office in the future. The fact that Sheriff Anderson does not even have the support of most of his deputies speaks volumes. One cannot lead an organization effectively if he does not have the confidence of his own people.

Bill Brown has proven his ability to lead, and the fact that he has the endorsement of over 75 percent of the Deputy District Attorneys and a majority of the County Probation Peace Officers demonstrates that he will have the ability to be a more effective sheriff than Anderson. Support of one’s troops is imperative in order to properly lead a force. The lack of that support from the deputies of the county is a large reason that the current sheriff has lost so much credibility.

-Gary Morris

District Decisions

The current election includes a race for two seats on the Santa Barbara School District Board of Trustees, which governs the public elementary schools in Santa Barbara and the secondary schools from Goleta to Montecito. Kate Parker and Suzy Cawthon both have excellent backgrounds and experience, and will provide new perspectives that complement the progress that we’ve been making as a district. They are passionate about students and will work hard to assure high quality education in our schools. They are both very positive and solution-oriented. We need new boardmembers who will work with their colleagues to address the challenges facing the board, and keep attention focused where it belongs: on students.

Kate and Suzy have both been endorsed by four Santa Barbara school boardmembers; the Santa Barbara Women’s Political Committee; the Santa Barbara Teachers Association; Supervisors Salud Carbajal and Susan Rose; and numerous other local leaders, individuals, and organizations concerned with our schools and community. For more information on their campaigns, visit www.kateparker2006.com and www.suzycawthon.com.

-Lynn Rodriguez, Member, Santa Barbara School Districts Board of Education

•••

Rosanne Crawford will be a great member of the Santa Barbara Board of Education. At a time when our schools face many challenges, Rosanne Crawford will bring the expertise, background, and dedication to create improved educational opportunities in Santa Barbara. Rosanne Crawford is the one candidate running for the School Board who speaks Spanish fluently. Rosanne is a staunch advocate of neighborhood schools. As a Board Member of Citizens for Neighborhood Schools, Rosanne has attended many school board and committee meetings. No non-incumbent candidate running can match her experience. She values music, art and P.E. programs and will protect them when elected.

As a parent at Roosevelt, Monroe, Santa Barbara Junior High, and Santa Barbara High School, Rosanne has worked for better schools at the site level. As a local business owner, she understands the fiscal issues the Santa Barbara elementary and secondary districts face. Open, accessible, and independent, Rosanne Crawford possesses all of the attributes required of a good school boardmember. Voters should cast their vote for the Santa Barbara School Board on November 7th for Rosanne Crawford.

-Elizabeth Guerrero

•••

The Santa Barbara School District has cut classified classroom employees’ paychecks by 10-20 percent. They have decided to pass on the rising costs of their group medical plan to their employees. Some classified employees are losing their benefits altogether because they can’t afford to take such a big cut in their paychecks. The District has now given employees the option to opt out of receiving medical and dental benefits that two years ago were free.

The District is chipping away at employee benefits knowing that lower paid employees will give up their benefits even though they don’t want to. Experienced classroom assistants who work with students in the classroom all day and directly educate students are now more likely to quit their jobs. This results in a lower quality of education for students. Turn over in a classroom kills the developing relationships between students and staff that are vital for a student’s progress, especially in special education.

Rising medical costs should not be allowed to be deducted from classified employees’ paychecks. The Santa Barbara School District should allow classified employees to spend their medical benefit on their own medical choice.

-Ruston Slager

Worst of Best of

I am greatly disappointed as to how the piece on S.B.’s best club deejay [Oct. 19] was written and handled. Matty Matt Moore — who was falsely named DJ Moore — deservedly won Best DJ of 2006. However, the blurb made DJ Matty Matt Moore out to be a deejay who is unavailable by choice and nowhere to be found. The reality is DJ Matty Matt Moore is known by his fans as an extremely hardworking, talented, and very available deejay. DJ Matty Matt Moore is practically everywhere in Santa Barbara. He is the resident deejay for O’Malleys; he deejays Wednesday nights at Zodo’s for college night (a k a Wacky Wednesday), Thursday nights at O’Malleys; and on the weekend hops between O’Malleys, Study Hall, Sandbar, the JT Saloon, Level 3 in Hollywood, private parties, and weddings. He works for Clear Channel Santa Barbara, did the mix show for 107.7 KIST FM, and is now on air for 107.7 FM, Santa Barbara’s New Rock Alternative. He has been the deejay for the Black and Blue Ball for the past five years and has done weddings worldwide.

Everyone knows him as DJ Matty Matt and if he had been inquired after correctly, he would have been found without any obstacles. DJ Matty Matt Moore deserves this award hands down, yet more importantly he deserves to be represented properly and at least given the respect of being named correctly.  — Ashley Vandenbroek

•••

Being voted best massage therapist this year (my 13th win!) was an honor and a humbling experience for me. However, I was very upset when I read the blurb under the heading. I was never interviewed by anyone at The Independent other than to ask for my phone number. I want readers, as well as my clients, to know those were not my words. I do not believe my “job is closer to a doctor’s,” nor would I ever claim I could “overcome huge diseases.” I am blessed to be doing a job I love, and I do believe I am able to help people with certain muscle strains, sports injuries, and stress, but I certainly am not a doctor! (Nor can I walk on water.) Again, thanks to all those who voted this year for me and for your continued support.  — Stephen Fountain

Absurd Theater

Bojana Hill’s review of Lit Moon’s King Richard II [“False Power,” Oct. 19] was polite and brief, perhaps because there was so little good to say about this tedious tour of director John Blondell’s theatrical conceits. Even to call it King Richard II is misleading, since only the barest plot elements and a few of the memorable soliloquies were included. These painfully reminded us of the nobility of Shakespeare’s original creation, now relegated to the status of a jury-rigged frame for displaying Blondell’s attempts at Greek tragedy, theater of the absurd, pop art iconography, and occasional frenzied motion. But despite the pretense of sophistication, the self-conscious devices were at best empty of meaning, at worst ludicrous or offensive.

King Richard may have been murdered in mime 10 times over, but the real victim was the audience — especially those who had hoped to experience some of Shakespeare’s most eloquent language and moving character portrayal.   — Rob Brooks

Cloud 89 and 90

On no issue in November are the lines more clear than on Proposition 89, the initiative to curb political corruption and crack down on the stranglehold of HMOs, big insurance, oil and drug companies, and other deep-pocket interests in Sacramento. More than 200 good government and community organizations have endorsed Proposition 89. Among the diverse supporters are the League of Women Voters, Sierra Club, California Nurses Association, United Teachers Los Angeles, Senator Barbara Boxer, California National Organization for Women, Common Cause, Public Citizen, and Greenpeace (see the full list at yeson89.org).

The opposition is equally revealing, a veritable corporate Who’s Who. Major opposition donors include Chevron, the big drug company lobbying arm, Southern California Edison, Occidental Petroleum, Blue Cross, Chamber of Commerce, and 23 insurance companies, including State Farm, Safeco, Zenith, Travelers, and Mercury. What unites these high rollers is a desire to protect their disproportionate influence over public policy and elections at the expense of the rest of us. The result? Politicians unable or unwilling to solve critical problems — from pollution to our healthcare crisis to inadequate funding for our schools — for fear of offending the big campaign contributors. Proposition 89 would overhaul this corrupted system. It restricts contributions to candidates, bans contributions from lobbyists, and limits corporate contributions to $10,000 to initiatives (at a time when Chevron alone has spent $28 million on one campaign). It provides limited public funding for candidates to run for office and win, without being wealthy or beholden to the biggest interests.

At a time when Californians are increasingly fed up and disenchanted with our democracy, and voter participation in elections is plummeting, Proposition 89 will provide hope that we really can change the system and bring our government back to the people. Vote yes on Proposition 89.  — Deborah Burger, RN, president, California Nurses Association

•••

Let’s pass Proposition 90 and get the government’s attention. Government agencies never follow the law. The law requires these agencies to provide the high est level and standard of care to the property owners being condemned, yet none of them ever do. Instead of providing the property owner with the highest standard of care and protection like the free legal defense they provide the developers, governments all make the property owner into a legal adversary, both in spirit and fact. Property owners are taken advantage of; they are legally hassled, tormented, often spoken to arrogantly with the intent to intimidate, and financially pressed into submission through the immensely unfair advantage of public wealth denying justice to the landowner. Shamelessly, the law doesn’t require that the property owner be paid the higher of the new use or current use.

Whatever the developers are willing to pay becomes the fair market value in a process that has become a bloated, corrupt industry with specialists at every level serving governments and none working at the government’s expense for the benefit of property owners. Please join me in voting yes on Proposition 90.  — Johanna Olsen

Arnold Shock

I’m writing to express my shock regarding your endorsement of Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor [Oct. 19]. Your explanation appears defensive, halfhearted, and somewhat feeble. I completely agree with all of the points made by writer Dorothy McNeil [“Gassy Governator,” Oct. 19], who challenged this endorsement, and want to add another couple of reasons to give Schwarzenegger a hearty heave-ho on November 7.

First and foremost, he prefers floating tens of billions of dollars in bonds (that’s “long-term debt”) to fund current and near-term expenditures, which will burden us and the next generation with about double the face value of the bonds in principal and interest payoffs. This is fiscal insanity. A pay-as-you-go approach, like our own Measure D, is much wiser. If he’s reelected, Schwarzenegger’s knee-jerk rejection of any and all tax increases would doom California to another four years of this madness. Second, in last year’s special election, he went tooth-and-nail after the pensions earned — that’s earned — by public employees from police and firefighters, to teachers and nurses, to planners and clerk-typists. This is something that we’ll never forget nor forgive. Please vote for Phil Angelides for governor on November 7.   — Greg Mohr

•••

Your endorsement of Schwarzenegger was a tremendous disappointment; it was very discouraging and frightening. I am no expert on state politics or all of the actions of either Schwarzenegger or Angelides. However, my impression is that Angelides is very strong on most issues that matter to me: labor, corporate responsibility, health care, distribution of wealth, and education. Schwarzenegger just vetoed the health care bill, attacked unions, cost loads of money for his special election, and is such a chameleon and media spin artist that his position on any issue is questionable.

To get my bearings, I looked up the San Francisco Bay Guardian’s endorsement for Angelides, and was pleased to see that their assessment jibed with mine. Beyond the issue of who is the better choice, I found your dismissal of Angelides without any real analysis to be shocking. Angelides is not as photogenic or charming as the governator, but how can you brush off his years of public service and his admirable performance as treasurer of the state? I have also heard from friends about hateful phone messages being issued by the Schwarzenegger campaign. Coverage would be welcome.

I urge your readers to look beyond The Independent's endorsement.

-Susannah Roff

•••

Your attempt to justify your endorsement of Mr. Schwarzenegger was clearly halfhearted, and it was evident that you could not come up with any actual qualifications that make him a strong candidate. In fact, the reason you gave for endorsement—i.e., that he could work well with the legislature to move them forward—was not even based on an accurate assessment of recent events. First, Arnold’s proposition fiasco was an attempt to take power away from the legislature so that he would not have to work with them at all. Second, Arnold recently vetoed a well-crafted and very significant bill that was passed by the legislature after considerable bipartisan discussion and cooperative effort.

When you did mention specific issues, you at least admitted that Arnold had let down the state with several of his decisions. But then you went on with a mean-spirited comment about Angelides which was in no way informative or helpful to voters. Maybe you could not go into details about Angelides’s qualifications for governor because he actually is highly qualified in areas of finance and budget, community planning, environmental protection (specifically the coastal areas), innovative and responsible plans to fund education, etc.

I wonder why you did not just present facts about each candidate and thus give the voters meaningful information to make their own decision. That would have been more honorable and more honest.

--Sarah Hearon

Bhakti Backlash Continues

I’m writing to inform you of an unfortunate situation occurring at UCSB. The Bhakti Yoga Club has been providing a place for members to meet and share in a meal for many years. I have been a member of this club for at least five years. It has become quite a community in fact. Recently, the university forced the club to end its meetings and meals. While I can’t speak to the legal rights to meet and share/sell food, I can imagine that one of the motivations for this shutdown is that someone is worried about the bottom line of food establishments located throughout campus. It would be very sad if students, faculty, and staff were prohibited from sharing in their weekly ritual of meeting and eating with one another for the sake of Wendy’s or Panda Express’s profits.

As the fall quarter began, and the colleagues that I usually go to lunch with realized that our normal ritual would not resume on Thursday afternoons, we walked to the UCEN (with our home-packed lunches). As we passed by the graduate student lounge, the usual place for Thursday meetings, we discussed the possibility that our healthy lunches were being withheld in an effort to funnel us to the fast food options in the UCEN. Looking to our left we noticed a lunch being served right below the graduate student lounge out of the multicultural center. The situation seemed thick with irony.

-Greg Husak

•••

Yoga lunch, as it’s known by its many fans here at UCSB, was a sumptuous vegetarian meal offered each Wednesday and Thursday by the campus Bhakti Yoga Group. About two months ago, the university ended this lunch. Giving their official position for this action is unnecessary; we know why the university intervened: yoga lunch was too successful. Their large following meant food vendors in the UCEN and other campus buildings, who were paying higher fees than the yoga lunch people, were getting passed over (for good reason), and since the university could not find a way to get more money from yoga lunch, they simply shut it down.

Worse still, the university offers nothing that comes close to the rich experience of yoga lunch. On the contrary, on campus one finds mostly unimaginative, unhealthy fast foods, items high in fats and sugars. There is nothing like Indian stew, spinach salad with homemade almond dressing, halava dessert, or the fruit drink the yoga folks offered.

Nor does the university provide opportunities for fellowship the way yoga lunch did, where staff, students, and faculty could mingle and discuss anything from education to vegetarianism. If that wasn’t enough, the yoga folks gathered at their apartment once a month, offering free dinners and lively discussions on ethics, culture, and spiritual matters.

Not all of us can afford the faculty club. Yoga lunch boasted all you can eat for five bucks. If the university is so against people saving money, making friends, and eating healthy, delicious food, maybe they should turn private; then they could own and control everything in their sphere. There’s probably loads of Republican money for such a venture. Just don’t look for the yoga people at that university; they’ll be fasting.

-Greg Sinicrope

•••

As I reflect fondly upon my studious years as a devoted Gaucho, four items come to mind, though only one is worth recalling. You can probably guess which: 1) Parking was expensive and nearly impossible; 2) The views surrounding the campus were beautiful; the architecture suffocating (or nauseating, revolting); 3) The bike path was designed by a chimpanzee with a drinking problem; 4) The Bhakti Yoga lunches.

Recently, I found out that the Bhakti-Yoga lunches were forcibly canceled with threats of police intervention. It seems that the lifelong bureaucrats of UCSB’s Office of Student Life (OSL) wish to remain obstinate, based on an erroneous reading of the letter of the law that does not actually apply to the Bhakti-Yoga Club (BYC). These uncaring administrators insist on lumping the BYC in with campus food vendors (when they clearly aren’t) and thus have stopped the club meetings.

These aforementioned club meetings consisted of sumptuous vegetarian meals cooked with love and devotion, following the ancient yogic practice of prasad-seva (sharing sacred foods, an integral component of Bhakti-Yoga practice). The loss is to the many faculty, staff, and students from nearly every department, who have enjoyed for the last eight-and-a-half years the selfless nurturing and affectionate care that they were dispensed.

Ultimately, the greatest loss will be felt by the UCSB administration as they become even more unpopular due to a well earned reputation of biased and unfair ractices and policies. f the administration lacks the common sense needed to stop this travesty of justice, perhaps they could consult the chimp. If he has stopped drinking and isn’t busy cutting ancient trees and covering green areas with concrete by designing housing and parking garages for the already over-developed campus, I’m sure his vision couldn’t be as obtuse as that of the lemmings running the show.

-Olivia Gleser

•••

By not allowing the Bhatki Yoga Club to meet, UCSB is taking away options its students enjoy. It is acting in the best interest of private corporations, not in the best interest of its students. As a student, that hurts.

-Scott Johnston

Fatal Excess

I was at the screening of Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers at the Marjorie Luke Theater on Saturday night, and although it is no cinematic classic, I firmly believe all self-respecting taxpayers should see it. What KBR and Halliburton are doing is nothing short of treason. The excessive over-billing of the U.S. government and its citizens is ludicrous to the extreme. The waste, expense, and obscene extravagance exhibited by Halliburton management would make Imelda Marcos blush.

They are supposedly in charge of the water supply for U.S. soldiers, yet 63 of 67 water treatment systems were supplying contaminated water. They subject our troops to agonizing waits in the desert for over an hour at each meal, in full view of insurgent terrorists. And as if all that isn’t enough, Halliburton insists on risking the lives of civilian truck drivers by having them drive around in empty trucks purely to run up the mileage. They sent civilian truckers down roads that were off limits due to ongoing enemy gunfire. Four of the drivers were needlessly killed, their bodies dragged around like rag dolls by the insurgents.

This has nothing to do with patriotism. I wholly support our troops even though I am not an American citizen. I pay taxes and love this country as if it is my own, as in fact it is. This is to do with corporate greed, excess, and our government’s stupidity. Some examples: $7,000 a month to lease a Ford explorer; $45 for a case of diet Coke; $99 to wash a small bag of laundry. I find it embarrassing and frightening. How does Halliburton receive government contracts with no competing bids? How do they continually operate with little or no oversight? How do they enjoy the same prosecution immunity that the military benefits from? If heads of public companies can be held accountable, then so should government contractors.

We need to ask more questions. And no, I am not a bleeding heart liberal; I just think that people should be held accountable. Check out http://www.halliburtonwatch.org.

-Ross Cathie

Intoxicatingly Awful

I can’t help but be astonished that The Independent, a supposedly progressive newspaper, would publish a positive review of prosecutor Joyce Dudley’s self-published novel Intoxicating Agent. In your review [ArtsLife, Mar. 30], you provide “five reasons to read the book.” Let me give your readers five reasons not to: (1) the reinforcement of racist stereotypes; (2) the repeated use of clichés (e.g., the fictional prosecutor has “the poise and sexiness of a dancer, the brains of a scholar, and the protective passion of a mother”; I can’t even type that without giggling); (3) ongoing grammar and stylistic errors; (4) the shameless self-promotion by the author, resulting in a possible tainting of the Santa Barbara jury pool; (5) last, but not least, the dehumanization of the “defendant,” who is described as “a heartless bastard,” a “pig,” and “felony ugly.”

I know the casualties in Iraq concern your paper more than this “small issue,” but what you fail to realize is that by promoting this book, you are advocating the same ideology that makes war possible: the black-and-white thinking that dehumanizes the “other.” We’ve lost the Santa Barbara News-Press, which now includes nauseating columns by Dr. Laura Schlessinger. What’s next for this paper — a column by right-wing “news analyst” Nancy Grace?   — Sandy Starkey

Comments

Discussion Guidelines

Currently:
Clear Sky
Temperature:
62.1°
Wind:
8 SE