Page 1 of 1
Posted on August 8 at 1:35 p.m.
My understanding of why they are exempt is because interior sprinklers aren't going to save a house in the event of a wildfire. They are designed for house fires originating indoors. Although sprinklers on the roof or other exterior areas may be a good idea in high fire areas,why add burden to people who are at no greater risk for a house fire than people in moderate fire zones? I don't think there ARE any low fire risk zones anymore.
On Fire Sprinklers Mandated
Posted on July 30 at 1:31 a.m.
This seems to me to be a tragedy between the 4 parties: the dogs and their owners. It sounds like they reached an understanding as neither made a report to Animal control. As we all know, stuff happens, and you can't legislate everything. There are rules in place that protect most of the people and dogs the great majority of the time. I don't see this as a cause for everyone to get all up in arms and come crashing down crying out for beach/leash/dog/owner reform. It was a horrible accident and really nobody's business but the involved parties. It's sad and it's over. It doesn't, in my opinion, involve my (or your) opinion.
On Dog Kills Dog at Hendry's Beach
Posted on January 14 at 7:50 p.m.
Great article! I'm not in complete agreement with Pagurus. Our house burned and we're located WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. We have regular old homowners' insurance. Our house was built in 1979 and was the state of the art for that time which primarily entailed having a metal roof. For financial considerations, we are compelled to rebuild. Not all our neighbors burned and some of their houses will still be at the 1979 state-of-the-art level when ours is much more fire resistant. Their houses then will present a threat to the rest of us. That's just the way it is. Should they be penalized? I don't think FEMA assistance is quite the same as the Wall St bailout. We all pay out to assist those on whom misfortune falls. Should people not live in "Tornado Alley" or New Orleans or even the inner city blighted areas? Why don't we just put a cap on the population so there will be no sprawl at all! Risk is a part of life. I don't think the level of risk we assumed was inordinate, just a quality of life issue. Even given the loss to fire, it's been worth it.
Posted on August 19 at 7:45 p.m.
No, not so easy. In my son's recent Black Studies class @ UCSB he was specifically told to capitalize "Blacks" and not "whites". The reason for this is obscure, to him as well as me. Perhaps only minorities get capitalized? In any event, it was a writing class and, so as not to be penalized, did as he was told. Perhaps Martha Sadler knows why since she made the editorial change. My guess is it's about being PC.
Posted on August 5 at 12:59 p.m.
I, too, would like to see a balanced, unbiased reporting on the political front. Lois Capps' last term? "Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished"!
On The Second Generation of Columnists Take Over
Posted on July 10 at 12:53 a.m.
The majority of gangbangers in Santa Barbara are of Hispanic origin, but that is not necessarily true in LA and other areas. Santa Barbara is just reflecting what's happening everywhere there are new, often illegal, residents flooding the systems. You know, the majority is now the minority thing. Combine that with so many "native" residents on their 2nd, 3rd or no marriages, with blended families, too many kids, with too little time devoted to them, all the stress that entails, a too high cost of living and people aspiring to the American Dream without the means or desire for the work it takes to achieve it and there will be trouble. Gangs are, we know, not a new thing. And remember that gangs are also devoted to other illegal activites, like drug dealing, not all of whose customers are gangbangers.I think it's naive to harken back to the good old days when it was just "us", assimilated immigrants, here. It is equally foolish to just make it all OK to flood our culture with one that doesn't aspire to assimilate, but rather, would like the dominant culture to change to one in which they feel more comfortable. Over time there may be a synthesis of the two. I think it's important to have strong boundaries, both as a country and as citizens. Why is everone so afraid of offending someone by saying 'this far and no farther'? We don't have consensus rule requiring everyone to feel good about enforcing laws we already have. I think gang bangers need to be told, unequivocally, with every means available, that their behavior won't be tolerated here.
On Charges Filed in July 4th Stabbings
Posted on July 9 at 9:12 p.m.
From what I hear, crissyslucky7 is exactly right as to the pressures on Jr highschoolers to "claim" gang affiliation.(Not just boys, either). I don't know about you, but in 5th-8th grades I don't think I had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to a bunch of kids I had to see, live around, walk to school with, etc. daily threatening me. Many kids are "gang affiliated" without being members, per se. When kids are walking around alone, they are often confronted by groups demanding to know "who do you claim?" To which there is no right answer. They get beat up either way, unless they affiliate with the predominant group in their neighborhood. This, I think, is where the parenting/extended family support system comes in (or should come in) to somehow counteract all that pressure & divert behavior into other outlets. Unfortunately, the gang thing is multigenerational & pressure is also put on these kids from relatives in prison. Gang members are the quintessential bullies and cowards, always seeking safety in their group. A kid alone is a target for someone putting in work for the gang, as are the rest of us in the form of random crimes.Answers? I think the gang injunction is a good idea. Criminal street gangs are already illegal and there are tools for enforcement. It's not like inflicting a police state, it's enforcing current law. Enforced curfews would be good too. The Criminal Justice System is slow, often slower the more serious the crime and protracted with multiple defendants/multiple attorneys, each with a different agenda for their client. I'm not sure threat of incarceration is such a deterrent anyway. It gives kids more "street cred". We need to do something to protect the vulnerable kids as we would from any bullies. Continued dialog may generate more ideas as to how.
Posted on July 9 at 8:40 p.m.
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Great discussion! I absolutely agree with previous comments about the Mayor, et al. She seems like a nice person, but how did she get to be Mayor??