Page 1 of 1
Posted on September 11 at 2:44 p.m.
What terrible reporting!
Could anyone but a specialist follow this convoluted, obscure article? Amidst the contending claims and complex language, what does anyone learn? The author should not rest content with letting the two sides make their claims -- she needs to arbitrate and clarify. I'd be interested in knowing if anyone but partisan expert actually read past paragraph 2.
On Measure P: Who’s Scaring Whom?
Posted on January 23 at 9:44 a.m.
Long may distant corporatoins rule! Fearing for their profits, they must control any local expression. If only the Tea Party would wise up and attack the real threat to freedom. Peets pretends to be the anti-starbucks but fails.-Coffee addict
On Peet's Removes Local Art Following Complaint
Posted on September 17 at 10:28 a.m.
What a great bookstore. I foresee with my farseeing eye: old town goleta at the center of a lively bohemian cultural explosion. All power to Left Coast Books!
On Left Coast Books
Posted on January 18 at 8:20 a.m.
Which came first: the desire for a hole in your nose or the desire to write a column about putting a hole in your nose?
On My New Stud
Posted on November 24 at 10:25 a.m.
Judith Orias and Sheila Lodge clearly demonstrate the power of statistics to manipulate and deceive. They assert that their so-called survey shows that "Santa Barbarans want to preserve the small-town feel and the aesthetic qualities of the city. They are concerned about growth and : and want to restrict it." In other words, Santa Barbarans are anti-growth and say to heck with its working population that certainly can't afford a home in this crazy market. Supposedly we support no-growth regulations that severely limit the building of higher density, affordable green homes. However, the survey actually demonstrates only one thing: if you pick a small unrepresentative group, you can get your survey to say anything you want. First, the authors conveniently fail to mention the impressively small number of people actually participating in their straw poll. A summary of the survey posted on the city' planning website suggests the number was about 120. Further inspection reveals that the self-selected group participating in the poll in no ways reflects the general make up of the city's population. The vast majority (93%) were homeowners and elderly. So Lodge's and Orias assertion that their poll represents the general desires of our community is a straight-forward twisting of the truth. Interestingly enough, the group's survey that was posted on the city's site offers a much more intelligent conclusion; this straw poll demonstrates the need for a more systematic scientific survey of the city's population to ascertain its desire for future growth.Web address for the survey: http://www.youplansb.org/docManager/1...
Posted on October 28 at 12:07 p.m.
The SB Independent's Best Of series really displays SB at its worst. Chain store after chain stores grabs the prize for "best haircut" and "best lube job." Could the town and paper be any more boring or corrupt? The whole issue is a monument to the incestuous relationship of press and advertising -- prizes handed out to stores that vie in getting votes and placing their ads in the padded pages of the newspaper. The darn paper is just a lifestyle supplement for goods-engorged consumers. We want our press back now! Angry Poodle needs to poke around his own doghouse for a change.
On Santa Barbara's Best of Readers' Poll 2007
Posted on October 28 at 11:56 a.m.
Ditto these arguments supporting Measure A. The Independent displayed impressively weak reasoning in opposing this measure What's up with that?
Posted on October 20 at 2:53 p.m.
A good article:http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-...