Page 1 of 2
Posted on December 8 at 3:24 a.m.
This is public sour grapes name-calling, pure and simple, by a supervisor who was unable to convert fellow board members to his point of view. I don't begrudge him using all available avenues of persuasion but I find this tantrum unbecoming of a public official.
On A Dispatch from the Colonies
Posted on November 8 at 7 a.m.
Sweet! Congratulations. Well deserved.
On 2013 EPPY Award
Posted on November 3 at 1:36 a.m.
Tickets are still available so come out to the Page Youth Center for delicious soups and a great time!
On Sixteenth Annual Santa Barbara Empty Bowls Luncheon
Posted on October 20 at 6:32 p.m.
Tieber:You miss my real point that people who believe that the NRA is well-known for fostering responsible gun ownership are living in a bubble, perhaps populated largely by NRA members. For most of the general American populace the NRA is bestl known for its creepy-looking executive, LaPierre, espousing boogy-man big brother conspiracy theories. "The next thing 'ya know, they'll be taking ALL our guns!" Think otherwise? You need to get out more often.
On Santa Barbara Bigwigs Talk Gun Control
Posted on October 20 at 5:47 p.m.
@John Tieber. "the NRA is known and widely-respected for advancing responsible firearm ownership" Sorry, the NRA may indeed do that but what it is well known and widely-despised for is - rather - claiming that even reasonable gun restrictions are unconstitutional and invariably lead to misused registries and wholesale confiscations. These assumptions and claims are only worthy of wacko birthers and death panel alarmists, with which I believe in the NRA there are a fair number of crossover subscribers.
Posted on October 9 at 1:12 a.m.
Unfortunately another case of excessive force. Yes he had a gun IN HIS BACKPACK. Yes there probably were police WEAPONS IN THE SQUAD CAR. Yes he MIGHT have committed a subsequent crime. But NONE of this warranted the officer using his weapon on a fleeing suspect. Neither the officer nor the public were in immediate danger of bodily harm. The officers were at risk of SEVERE EMBARRASSMENT back at the station. "You let him get away? With your vehicle? While he was handcuffed?" Oh crap, we gotta shoot at him.
On Details Released On Officer-Involved Shooting
Posted on December 20 at 7:45 p.m.
This is great news! KCET has not met the recent interests of viewers outside the LA basin and has not met the production standards of PBS affiliates in Boston, New York and Chicago. We have been 26-year financial supporters of KCET [beyond basic membership] but it has been harder and harder each year as the station's horizons have narrowed. KCET's "SoCal" is really "LA" like the LA Times' "California" section is really SOUTHERN California. We're looking forward to KOCE.
On More Changes for PBS in S.B.
Posted on April 30 at 5:33 a.m.
After watching the Capitol Steps last night, I should not have been surprised to learn from the playbill that they began as Congressional staffers decades ago. Their humor manages to stick to the middle road, amusing [or abusing] the audience across the political spectrum. Like a politician pandering to the broadest possible swath of voters, the Steps are equal opportunity offenders but never with much teeth and always in good fun. Not what I had hoped for.
This was political elevator music; sometimes amusing and even catchy, but mostly forgettable. There were grins and chuckles but no LOL. The Steps could take a look at touring musicians for pointers. Watts doesn't do Hip-Hop; Metheny doesn't do Mozart. Musicians [and comedians and actors and satirists] generally do what they do best and let the chips fall. Audiences either like 'em and come or don't and won't. The Steps want everyone to like them and they try to be too even handed. In politics I like my meat red.
American political satire has a great lineage; through Clemens and Rogers and the cutting comedians of the late 20th. But they were strongest [and most memorable] when they staked a claim on a position and explored it with wit and inspiration. The critics be damned. The Capitol Steps seem unwilling to do that. I hope I remember this enough not to go next time they're in town.
On Capitol Steps
Posted on March 28 at 9:57 a.m.
If you take the human appetite for abalone & urchin [luxuries at best] out of the equation, the whole issue of otter migrations and repopulations is a yawn. Maybe the urchin/ab fishers should be reading up on how the whale oil and buggy whip industries retooled.
On Otter Ho!
Posted on October 15 at 9:01 p.m.
I'm voting NO on E. I don't like reducing the number of members.
As for adding non-City residents to ABR, screw 'em. This seems like a pitch to allow much vaunted architects -- who may, indeed, be the designers of many/most of our city buildings/homes but choose to live in the lush 'burbs -- to make their $$ on in-city projects while living out-city. I don't argue that ABR members don't give a lot of time/effort [very valuable at their rates] to serve on the board; they do. BUT... how many new clients do they get as a result of being on the board?
Supposedly as board members they get clients because they "know how to shepherd a project through the Scylla & Charybdis of city requirements." But we all know the real reason is because clients think having a high-profile architect on the board as their advocate will give them an advantage toward approval if their projects contain any rough edges or sticky issues -- and many of them do. I understand members recuse themselves when one of their own projects is being considered but that doesn't diminish the tacit advocacy palpable to remaining members.
Let's make ABR membership more attractive [maybe MORE members -- not fewer -- to spread the work around and lighten everyone's load] to in-city architects and others.
On City Endorsements