Page 1 of 1
Posted on September 24 at 9:56 p.m.
I sure loved that majestic tree. I will miss it. Torrey Pines are lovely too and I hope it lives many hundred years.
On Century-Old Canary Island Pine Axed
Posted on August 20 at 9:55 p.m.
dadof3, I think Mr. Banuelos is talking about taking the non-native animals off the island. I also think the idea of inter-disciplinary study is closer to the ways of the first peoples who did not separate science from religion, environment from politics.
On Research Facility Unveiled at Santa Rosa Island
Posted on April 23 at 3:52 p.m.
Botany, I’m merely pointing out that Mr. Smallwood is discussing a very specific piece of property with important historic considerations, which he has been investigating. You are trying to take my point and insist that I apply it all over. Please share your own opinions. My point is the hypocrisy of people outlawing theft when it underlies the presence of any non-native person here.
On Whose Gaviota Is It?
Posted on April 23 at 12:41 p.m.
Mr. Smallwood, thanks for your thoughts and line of inquiry. The fact of the matter is, yes, this land was stolen. Then the thieves elected people who wrote laws forbidding theft. It’s hypocritical and the (shaky) foundation for this society. Mr. Dorfy, Let’s say I stole your bike and went and sold it, pocketing the money. If you saw that person riding your bike, you’d want it back. There are laws about possession of stolen goods. The idea of law is to protect the rightful owner. Now, if the person that bought the bike gave it as a gift to a friend and you saw it, it would be more difficult for law enforcement to track things down and right the wrong. Logically, the person who received the gift and the person that bought the bike and gave it, would think they were in the right and should own the bike. But their reason is specious. On the surface, it seems right, but essentially they are wrong. You are the rightful owner of the bike. That’s how I’d judge it. But, for those who think they own the bike (the land), it’s an inconvenient truth that they’d rather not deal with, and in this case the law supports them. They don’t have to deal with the fundamental truth. The very basis of this society is built on theft. Any attempts to do what is right, without attending to this original issue, will manifest in rickety situations. I understand the urge to avoid such a monumental issue. But don’t discount those who are interested in exploring the truth as specious. Mr. Smallwood is talking about a specific place, not all of SB county.
Posted on September 6 at 7:27 p.m.
Correction: The reservations in California were made by Executive Order, and not through treaties. Treaties were signed between leaders of California tribes and representatives of the Federal Government, but these representatives were followed back to DC by businessmen who successfully lobbied for the treaties to NOT be ratified. A 50 year seal was placed on the documents and these are known as "The 18 Lost Treaties of California." More information can be read here: http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_...
Lone Ranger, you could use a dose of book learnin’. Why don’t you invest in inquiry more and read, ask questions and learn something. Your bigotry and hatred has no place in educated debate. Come correct.
On Chumash Reach Out to County Planning
Posted on August 30 at 11:09 a.m.
Hemroid, the idea of "ethnic purity" which underlies most of your posts is ugly. You’re a narcissist that thinks you know better and can tell everyone how to look at a situation. I know, I’ve read your hateful posts. Personally, I don’t consider blood quantum to define Chumash people. Mixing occurred before the coming of the Spanish, and the Spanish weren’t really Spanish now, were they? At the time Columbus set sail, they were a newly created nation-state after being conquered by the "Moors" for 750 years. Spanish contains a lot of Arabic. The ethnic purity filter you propose everyone see through is antiquated and, in my opinion, employed by you out of a sense of hatred and bigotry. Please give readers a break and/or come with some real opinions on the matter at hand.Fact is, the Chumash people at the Reservation are a separate nation with a government to government relation with your Federal government. The land they’ve purchased and wish to develop should not be subject to local jurisdiction, but federal. There is plenty of precedence for relations between Feds and tribes and land put into trust. If the county is going to lose some revenue, big deal.... they have plenty. "Your daddy’s rich and your ma is good lookin, so hush little baby, go ahead and cry." The Chumash should be able to thrive.