Thoughtful Analysis Preferred

Saturday, August 2, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Our Board of Supervisors seems to be swayed by emotion, not thoughtful analysis. Allowing Measure P on the ballot because folks signed petitions based on emotional tag words and a lack of science is how politics are unfortunately played out in 2014. Supervisors, put away your heart strings and focus on what havoc your political actions bestow upon the electorate. Represent the people of Santa Barbara County, not your personal feelings. Wasting time and money by allowing an expensive and questionable ballot measure that jeopardizes jobs and private property plus allows lawsuits is not commendable.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

so the will of the people is not commendable? Thoughtful analysis? The oil companies won't let anybody analyze what chemicals are in the concoction they poison the earth with. Let's analyze that. You are shilling for the industry.

spacey (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Check the science of There is consensus of something like 97% of scientists who say more fossil fuel extraction and use will send us into the next extinction period. So I say to you TP, are you a greedy profiteer of oil who cares nothing for our future? A lizard alien who will benefit from the warming of our planet? Just watch too much Fox noise? Only conjure the word 'science' when it suits your agenda? You seem to not understand the process of politics, petitions, voting. By putting it on the ballot, the board was representing the will of the people. At the very least, you are a shill for the oil industry TP.

spacey (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who exactly are these "scientists" everyone keeps referring to and what scientific method did they rely on to reach this far-reaching conclusion? Urban Myth is a good place to start looking.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, let's hear the thoughtful analysis.

Let's have zero non-disclosure agreements, full disclosure and transparency, full compliance with the Clean Water and Clean Air acts - and full reporting on a single website of all mishaps and accidents with fracking.

"Secondly, the fracking process is exempt from the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and a few other key environmental safety mechanisms so federal agencies are not monitoring it as much as they should be. And lastly, Non-Disclosure Agreements are a legal way for the industry to get people to shut up. Many neighbors of drilling operations or those with wells/facilities on their land have signed on to an agreement like this. The industry offers to pay to replace the water that has been contaminated by their operations, or gives a sizable check. In return, the signee can never discuss the terms of the agreement or the operations they concern."

... and ...

"Railroads Wrangle With States to Keep Oil Shipments Secret"
Last month, the Department of Transportation ordered railroads to start giving state emergency response teams basic information about trains hauling crude oil through their cities and towns. The idea is that if state emergency teams are armed with at least some details on these shipments—when they’re arriving, how much oil they’re hauling—they can be better prepared in case something happens. Such as a train derails. Or a giant, fireball-inducing explosion erupts.

But railroads aren’t so keen on making that information public. As the Associated Press has reported, companies such as BNSF (BRK.B), CSX (CSX), and Union Pacific (UNP) are asking states to sign strict non-disclosure agreements promising not to make the information public. Some states are complying. Others aren’t.

What have they to hide? Are they terrified of citizens learning the truth? Hiding is emotional and deceitful, not thoughtful, especially where the well-being of others is concerned.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jarvis doesn't need science or factual accounts to form his opinions on P.
If he had an ounce of curiosity in him, he would research what is going on with extraction in Alberta and elsewhere that high energy extraction is in process.

geeber (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe you missed where curiosity to research links posted by helium or nitorgen or whatever that poster's name is were 100% bogus - led to links about some lake in Canada used as proof that had nothing whatsoever to do with the point he/she was making. Some opinion piece posted as a research study that admitted in the body of the document there was no study. Zero supporting facts, presented as factual support. Curiosity that leads to dead ends kills the deal to keep looking. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I got fooled twice on this topic by posters here and lost all appetite to explore any further.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

agree completely spacey, geeber, tabatha... An e.g. is that this site, Jarvis, works fine:
Quit your whining and present some links to support your views. You also give false data on teacher salaries on other threads. We're dealing with JarvisFOOFIGHTERJarvis, the leopard he don't change his spots.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 10:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan: All 2013 salaries for the Santa Barbara Unified School District as presented by the school district itself to Transparent California:

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 3, 2014 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

More about the website Transparent California and the source of their total public employee compensation data.

Only Santa Barbara County has presented their 2013 employee compensation data. Thank you County of Santa Barbara.

SBCC and the City of Santa Barbara have refused to present their 2013 data, so their mandated publlic disclosures of total employee compensation is now out of date and out of compliance.

SBCC and City of Santa Barbara, please bring your total employee compensation figures up to date to include 2013. Particularly SBCC since SBCC is asking for more money from us we want to know how SBCC is spending the money they already have.

UCSB data is combined with all other UC campuses making it difficult to pull out just the UCSB figures unless you search by an individual's name or title.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 3, 2014 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JarvisJarvis: Spacey is right. At least 97 percent of scientists funded to verify global warming. . . verify global warming. More like 100 percent.

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 8, 2014 at 2:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: