Page 1 of 10
Posted on January 24 at 11:01 a.m.
Sorting through the posted comments, it's difficult to refrain from trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, chaff being those which tend to the hysterical and indulge more in name calling than in rational dialogue. As "lucas" says, "ad hominem attacks" don't help to advance the conversation; polarization is never useful if one would like to have a civil society. "lucas" is also right in taking the long view in the immigration conversation: Anglos were non-existent here when Spanish and Portuguese became the original invaders displacing the "original" peoples (and who might they have displaced?) and ultimately the region's majorities, in language at least - until displaced by "whiter" Europeans. Now the tide is turning once again, and those in position of becoming "displaced" don't like it - and some, like some of the NP Plaza demonstrators, are reacting fearfully and not very kindly. What gets lost in this dust-up is the crux of the matter - ALL countries have the right to protect their borders and their internal interests for the benefit of their citizens. America, a country built on and by immigrants, has this right no less than any other. Surely those advocating for immigrant rights would agree with this - as would those on the other side of the yellow tape. The objections of immigrant advocates seem to revolve over the use of the word "illegal" as being too strong or insulting to those here without official sanction or permission. But it's not an incorrect word. Should "documented" Americans care about the sensitivities of "undocumented" - and vice-versa? Since we're all living together, one way or another, I think the answer is 'yes' - for both. To the News Press and its defenders, why inflame a situation when a little compassion would go a long way? To the immigrant advocates, why confuse an already complicated situation over a semantic problem? Why should it be so difficult for both sides to agree that being here without sanction is, at its heart, "illegal." Once we can agree on that, then let's move forward with the next question: how do we resolve this compassionately and humanely?
On No Love Lost over 'Illegal' Headlines
Posted on December 19 at 11:32 a.m.
Her Honor received such a stern rebuke, not just from her enemies but from some of her best friends, as well, that an appropriate, principled response from her would either include resignation from her office, or a sincere apology and mea culpa in proving that she's heard the public's voice and will cease and desist from doing anything that would undermine or stall the widening project. If Sara Miller McCune speaks in public against you, you sure as hell better listen... (By the way, I think freeway widening is an antiquated "solution" to too many cars, but what you gonna do?)
On The Shunning of Helene Schneider
Posted on December 8 at 4:18 p.m.
Great choice of an interview subject. The qualities she values in friends - honesty, loyalty, warmth, honesty - describe her to a tee. She comes from great California stock and didn't fall far from the tree. Miss you, Ellen!
On The S.B. Questionnaire: Ellen Easton
Posted on November 12 at 11:27 a.m.
Calling all climate change deniers! How you explain this, Kemo Sabe?
On VIDEO: Rare Hammerhead Shark Sighting off Anacapa Island
Posted on October 24 at 11:54 a.m.
I didn't read the one factor that could justify this residential development project: need. In short, there is no need for a housing project for members of the Chumash tribe. With monthly income of $20,000/member from casino earnings, each member could afford luxury housing anywhere in the valley. With the casino, they are no longer an impoverished people in need of special projects like this one.
On Chumash Camp 4 Approval Edges Closer
Posted on September 16 at 11:15 a.m.
Really? "Environmental scientists" are protesting the removal of these introduced species? if true, they should have their credentials inspected for subsequent removal from employment. In their salaried places, I nominate Tabitha who combines solid information with good sense - qualities lacking among those aforementioned "scientists."
On Trees Being Cut Down at UCSB
Posted on July 30 at 9:03 a.m.
Really? Penn State Univ had to make the determination that pesticides killed bees in S.B.? UCSB isn't interested in what's happening in its own watershed? Shameful.
On The Fight for the Bees
Posted on July 30 at 8:46 a.m.
why would anyone oppose elections by district? Anglos will be begging for districts when Latinos become the majority in SB and occupy ALL the Council seats...
On Voting Discrimination Lawsuit Filed
Posted on July 24 at 8:42 a.m.
as someone who was fairly frequently interviewed by John, 10 - 20 years ago, I can attest to what a genuinely nice guy he is. On another frame the always immaculate suit and image would come off as prissy or phony - but not with John. Somehow, John developed a magic sauce that earned his interviewees' trust and confidence that makes them open up. Although John never confused his professional and personal lives, it was impossible not to think of him as a friend. Simply put, John P. is that increasingly rare species: a good man.
On John Palminteri
Posted on May 13 at 8:25 a.m.
Unintended consequences, anyone? What is to prevent 'haphazard use' of nano products anymore than the wanton use of pesticides or hormone-altering chemicals in our pharmaceuticals? This just adds to the witch's brew of products humans are releasing onto an unsuspecting and unprepared ecosystem. Whatever happened to testing before approval of use? Oh, that's right - corporations say that interferes with their right to do business.
On The Blessings and Curses of Nanotechnology