Page 2 of 6
Posted on March 2 at 12:10 p.m.
Isn't the whole point of cigarettes (e or otherwise) to deliver nicotine to the body? What's the point of this article? That smokers shouldn't switch to e-cigs? That nicotine is bad for you? That someone in the public health department is concerned about what you do or that you don't know what you're doing? That or what?
I would have been interesting if the writer, given his position of authority in local government and his presumed expertise, could have answered the question - are e-cigs worse than smoking - which is legal and practiced by a large number of people.
On E-Cigarettes: A Smoking Gun?
Posted on February 18 at 10:22 a.m.
Given:a) local political sensibilitiesb) power of incumbencyc) support of public employee unionsd) a gerrymandered district stretching almost from simi valley to monterey which makes personal politicking door-to-door almost impossible
I'm thinking he did very well by losing by only 8000 votes.
Actually, I think Mitchum's counter ad where he demonstrated Capp's bad faith and cheap political tricks actually helped him more that Capp's ad hurt him.
It also revealed/reinforced what decent people are dealing with. So I wouldn't call the campaign a failure. I do think it's not an effective strategy to try to fix political differences through the courts. I'm doubtful he'll have a case and would likely get more political bang for the buck carping/harping on Capp's weakness from the sidelines until he takes another shot.
On Mitchum Sues Capps for Defamation of Character
Posted on February 17 at 10:46 a.m.
Here is the short version of what this is about:
a) Vaccinations protected almost all persons who get them from these deceases.
b) By almost eliminating the incidences of these deceases, even those who don't get the vaccination are benefited by other people getting vaccines
c) Vaccinations harm a very few of those people who receive them.
d) So the "rational" individual response is for one to avoid a vaccination while the rest of the population get's them. When everyone is "rational" - not one gets vaccinated and everyone suffers.
e) So this is one of the few times where it's justified to insist that everyone participate and accept his fair share of risk for the good of society as a whole. Those who fail to accept this responsability/risk while the rest of is to do so are in effect exploiting the civic mindedness of the rest of us.
f) It's not a surprise that the center of rationalization for evasion of civic responsibilities are the rent seeking sector of our society represented locally by our montecito community. What's really pathetic is their baroque rationalizations to dispute well documented scientific, epidemiological research.
On Herd Immunity or Insanity?
Posted on January 15 at 4:12 p.m.
and there's a lot of truth this rant.
On The Virtual College Education
Posted on December 17 at 12:15 p.m.
The 88 year old woman has no trouble showing up for work everyday and being a productive member of society.
And the homeless derelicts on State Street can't do this. What's their problem?
On Profile: Pearl Bloom
Posted on November 13 at 12:44 p.m.
Most of her columns are at least a little bit creepy.
That might be why I like them so much
On Plan B Partners
Posted on November 13 at 12:29 p.m.
The essence of this article is:
"Santa Barbara County’s land use enforcement is complaint driven. The bureaucrats, by policy, respond only to complaints. These complaints can be, and are even encouraged to be, anonymous. The fact that complaints can be anonymous increases the number of these complaints and lowers everyone’s “threshold of annoyance”.
followed by the suggestion that complaints cannot be anonymous. This is a pretty simple idea and to my mind a good one. Actually, I thought that this was the current policy.
Sorry, but the spector of people anonymously denouncing each other to the local authorities IS reminiscent of the communist regimes. Generally in our system someone accused of something is permitted to confront his accuser.
I don't understand where all the comments are coming from - this is a simple idea based on a simple concept. That's all
On Can’t We All Just Get Along?
Posted on August 27 at 9:35 p.m.
just have to say: I love riding my bike in SB and do it almost every day from my home - that's a 10 mile round trip. Funny part is that door to door - it takes about the same amount of time as driving my car, finding parking and walking to the destination.
I'm guessing that the same traffic which makes riding worthwhile also intimidates a lot of people. So it's not impossible that more bike lanes would encourage more people to ride. Better bike racks would help too! I doubt that more bike lanes would make traffic any worse.
On Bikes and Cars
Posted on January 22 at 11:08 a.m.
Doesn't need any new infrastructure. Just ask people who think this is a great idea to just make a donation of 1 % of what they spend every month. If you think it's a good idea - just start doing it!
On One-Percent Homeless Solution
Posted on January 16 at 10:12 a.m.
everyone who lives here, regardless of means, makes a sacrifice to do so. That is one reason we have a population which is likely more civic minded that other places.
Subsidizing housing here won't lead to more affordability except for a select few. To the extent is successful, it just draws more people in and makes the "problem" worse for every one else.
"Commuters do not contribute to the local economy, as the money they earn in the local workplace is spent in the community where they live."
This is actually offensive. Every person voluntarily paid for the services he (or she) renders contributes to the economy by definition.
Promoters of public housing complain about the difficulty of competing with buyers with actual money. The recent 54 unit complex of small apartments at Bath an Haley cost $13M which works out to be $225,000 (not including the land) for each small studio apartment! The promoters of public housing, though well intentioned, serve neither the taxpayer nor society in general.
I've avoided mentioning the recurrent scandals in this area in the interest of brevity.
On Affordable Housing's Prospects