Comments by Native1
Page 1 of 8 | Next
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 14 at 5:12 p.m.
I agree LegendaryYeti (what a great name, btw) but sadly there's money to be made from all sorts of "overreactions" and they're hoping to appeal to the side of the guilty that wants to deny any wrongdoing and get away with it.
Now, having said that, mistakes do happen. But the vast, vast majority of arrests and tickets are valid.
Plenty of us managed to get through our twenties without being hauled off to jail or ticketed for alcohol offenses. It doesn't mean we sat around having tea parties, it just means we weren't jerks.
I just can't feel sorry for those who abuse it to the point of arrest, and then have some smarmy lawyer there to help them shirk their own responsibility.
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 14 at 5:04 p.m.
Reality Church or no.....I gotta say this. I don't get the big deal over their cupcakes. I ate some when they first opened and they tasted very much like they were from a mix. I gave them another shot when they relaunched and same deal. Hasn't anyone ever eaten REAL cupcakes?!?
Posted on November 4 at 8:45 p.m.
Well from what I understand, the vaccine is made in the same way that the regular seasonal flu is made. The same process, and really that shot is seen to be safer by people, for some reason.
I do believe that some people WILL have rare reactions to vaccines of ANY kind. It happens. To suggest otherwise is just as "delusional" as thinking that all medicine is poison. The truth is that for some people, for unknown reasons, the vaccine won't be safe. It certainly doesn't help those individuals who have reactions or side effects to say that the vaccine is safe for the vast majority.
But let's put this into perspective. For most of us, if we had the swine flu shot, it's certainly safer than say, our drive to the doctor's office to get the shot. Statistically, there are probably half a dozen behaviors we engage in every day which are riskier to our health or even our lives than getting this shot.
Side effects and reactions happen. And the companies that provide the vaccines and meds certainly aren't going to be very helpful in establishing links.
Now, if you're talking about side effects down the line, I'd be more inclined to think that's a possibility. Who knows how ANY flu shot or vaccine could effect us in the future. The theory that engineered crap in our bodies can cause cellular damage later on is a good one. But natural or organic things can do the same; shingles, a very painful and dangerous virus is actually a result of the chicken pox virus which remains dormant but retained in the bodies of those of us who have had it. What causes the virus to come out of dormancy and give people shingles some thirty or forty years after contracting the original virus is not even known, yet.
So really, we could say it's all dangerous. And that it's all potentially harmful, even those things which are out of our control.
I think the bigger issue than the vaccine is that their is evidence that the vast majority of cases of H1N1 are either mild or highly survivable for the majority of people. It's been published that anywhere from 1.8 million to 2.5 million people in the US were infected with H1N1 during a specific period over summertime. And of those numbers, approx 850 people died. That's actually a lower rate than similar rates of infection of seasonal flu.
The media loves to scare us. I'm definitely washing my hands and avoiding crowds; I don't want H1N1. But I don't think it's any more necessary to get a flu shot this year than it ever is for those who aren't in a very high risk group.
Posted on November 4 at 2:56 p.m.
Is there any middle ground here?
I don't think it's loopy to at least question whether or not something that someone is gaining from financially is safe or not.
Things HAVE happened in the past and drug companies have profited while hiding serious defects or health risks.
Our government isn't really set up to properly intervene when a product such as food is dangerous; look at the recall of e coli tainted beef just this week. Apparently, if raw beef tests positive in USDA testing, it can still be sold as long as it's been cooked. Is that safe? Probably, but who really knows....but the law has been set up not to protect the consumer but to save the companies involved from monetary loss. There is no law saying that the raw e coli status needs to be disclosed once it is sold as fully cooked.
So, if you extrapolate that to an even larger and more powerful industry like the pharma, you can only imagine what goes on.
Now, HAVING SAID THAT......the fact that thousands are getting these shots right now and NOT having awful side effects would sort of show that the probability of being seriously ill or killed by the shot might be very, very miniscule at this point.
I don't think it's fair to automatically think someone who is skeptical is loony. But there's also room for common sense when questioning vaccines.
Posted on November 4 at 2:49 p.m.
Maximum, ever consider it's not about learning how to protest as much as getting involved and working together to solve problems?
Being a community doesn't involve "warning shots over the bow".....this is the entire problem.
Posted on November 1 at 5:50 a.m.
EastBeach, you're spot on there about the truth in advertising, or lack of it. There was an excellent editorial in the LA Times (which of course doesn't seem to have a working link online) about Meg Whitman's radio ads. Seems they contain egregious mistruths. Why is it okay for candidates to either twist the truth to their benefit or outright lie to get into office? Isn't there a watchdog group that could try to regulate this sort of thing?
But you're right; it isn't the large amount of money, it's what the money has paid for that's at issue here.
5 of 5 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 1 at 5:42 a.m.
Bill Clausen, you say Schadenfreude, I say come-uppance.
But I think Joe Hill hit the nail on the head. Armstrong's vitriol and venom played smokescreen to his shocking mediocrity as a writer and serious shortcomings as a local citizen.
I think it's sad that there were still people in town who were fooled, likely by virtue of having a similar agenda, into thinking that he ever really had anything intelligent to offer.
In a larger town, he'd never have had the chance to write more than one or two of his "articles" before being run out on principle....pick ANY principle. That he was able to last so long here says a lot about the SBNP, McCaw and even those among us who still supported this mess of a paper.
It is happy news he's leaving. Watch out Palm Springs!
Posted on October 30 at 5:10 p.m.
Jcrdan, How on earth do you justify the "libs" label? Perhaps you have a little thing going on called jumping to conclusions?
Anyway, regarding the SBNP vs NYT comparison. I have no idea. I don't read the NYT. I read the LA Times. It's not a perfect paper, but I never see an editorialized headline outside of the editorial section.
That's what I was saying about the SBNP, that it is inappropriately editorial and impolitic. Seems like you have your own agenda, here. That's fine, just don't use my comment to try and support it. You have no idea what my politics are.
Posted on October 29 at 1:40 p.m.
I disagree, Daniel. It's easy to dismiss opinions as being slanted towards one candidate or another, but this is a different issue. It's about the process of election and candidacy in SB, not as much about one candidate or another.
Fair enough if you have a differing opinion, but don't be so quick to dismiss others' opinions as something they are not.
Page 1 of 8 | Next
Previous Month
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 16 at 12:32 p.m.
It's expensive savings dogs, actually. I think that $400 is a bit much, but considering that many rescues charge about $200 for dogs from the same sourcing as these rescues, this isn't too, too horrible. I'm really glad they are finally helping instead of adding to the problem.
The real challenge becomes changing the customer's mind. As long as people still think it's a good idea to go spend $1500 on a "designer" dog, the rescues will be overlooked at any price.
But this is a HUGE step in the right direction. Yahoooo!!!
On Montecito Pet Shop to Sell Only Rescued Dogs