Comments by scapegoatsrevenge

Page 1 of 1

Posted on December 10 at 11:40 p.m.

Would be nice to find a site with less recreational conflicts. I personally think the firing range is very useful and important to have available... and still find it quite a distraction at Lizard's Mouth. I guess here is where it would be appropriate for me to suggest a better site, which I can't think of at the moment... oh, well.

On Winchester Gun Club Seeks Permit Reissue

Posted on December 10 at 10:37 p.m.

This looks like a case where more education and prior proper enforcement of rules would have helped to avoid such a situation.
Hard to legally place the blame for the extent of the fire on the starters, despite their obvious role. As (as was ruled in the Zaca Fire case) there are many other factors which limit the strategies for stopping the fire, including that the fire suppression cannot begin on a fire when it is on forest service land until it is a certain size. Yes, there were terrible results, but pretending that a couple weed-eater-yielding bikers can pay everyone restitution is a reach. Sometimes accountability is not equal to culpability.

"In explanations and predictions of human action and inaction culpability is a measure of the degree to which an agent, such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible. Culpability marks the dividing line between moral evil, like murder, for which someone may be held responsible and natural evil, like earthquakes, for which no one can be held responsible."

I think in cases like these the culpability for starting a fire (could be called a 'moral evil' I guess, I would call it a stupid accident) and the extent to which a fire spreads on the landscape (which depends on weather patterns, landscape, and the resources and strategic decisions of those involved in suppression--a 'natural evil') is murky to say the least.

On Trail Gnomes Charged in Jesusita Fire

Posted on November 19 at 9:05 p.m.

Moonrunner, I know there were at least two supervising adults on the day in question, making at most a 5:1 ratio. I think you'll be hard pressed to find that ratio at any day care, summer camp (other than Wilderness Youth Project), or K-6 outing (the "climbers" in question were school-aged).
There was no accident involved in this situation, and therefore any discussion of negligence is simply speculative. There are multiple playgrounds in the Cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara offering kids far more opportunities to injure and kill themselves than scrambling up the hill involved for these kids. When day care children are hurt on a playground, who is the big bad wolf then?

On Teacher in Trouble

Posted on November 18 at 9:15 p.m.

Well, a lot to say but I'm wondering if Humphery has tried scrambling up the hill in question. One would have a seriously hard time falling more than a yard or two on that trial--given the slope (a person can sit or stand the whole way up) and the amount of foot and hand holds along the way. The lifegaurd merely showed the kids where the million dollar staircase (which is actually steeper than the trail in question in many places) leading down to the restaurant. The point is, the DSS brought zero expert witnesses in to justify the "danger" of the hillside because they have no clue how to assess such activities. This is why they truly had no jurisdiction over the activity in the first place. It would benefit us all if they would spend their time researching the needs our children have for a healthy happy future of this society and planet, and working toward making such values more prevalent in the programs available to our youth--not trying to scare people like Mrs.Grippo out of providing programs that are already doing that work.

On Teacher in Trouble

Posted on October 9 at 8:14 p.m.

Has anyone asked the sand why it finds other beaches more attractive? This might be helpful.

On Running Out of Sand

Posted on October 2 at 12:48 a.m.

Nice work on the self-fulfilling scapegoatenous prophecating pseudoscientific selfcontradictrific overdramatizationally fear-mongering article.
Scientifically biased journalism at it best.
let me list a few quotes:
" ..we haven't yet done a lot of studies on its ecological impact."
"there is a fear that..."
"what had been feared..."
"The waters... are under attack and, according to the experts, the war may already be lost."
"An aggressive, nonnative... from Asia that has wreaked havoc"
"It is too early to know... but it is probably impossible to stop"
"confirmed nonnative species... has indeed invaded the Channel Islands, creating a potentially perilous impact on the underwater ecosystem."
"The seaweed itself is a benign algae but, when taken in the context of a native ecosystem, there is a fear that the aggressive, fast-reproducing species will outcompete and supplant native kelps."

Before rushing to judge such situations out of our own fear, guilt, and ignorance of both historical ecosystemic balance shifts in maintaining health and the scientifically supported impact of the observer's mindset on a situation---let us remember that a plant or animal expected to become monoculturous, aggressive, invasive, unnourishing, and so forth, will become one, and that how we report such situations can feed public fear of both impending doom and an underlying distrust for Nature as something inherently evil and out to get us.

If you want to quote people who are willing to make such comments to support their own versions of reality--fine, but how this topic is presented is as if we need to load up the bus for Iraq.

Hope you enjoyed this comment.

On Underwater Invasion

Page 1 of 1

event calendar sponsored by: