Page 3 of 67
Posted on April 15 at 6:15 p.m.
JarvisJarvis has trouble with the whole truth, as his silence on the huge costs of military pensions have underscored.
School districts containing lots of property, whether homes (Montecito) or oil refining plants (Vista del Mar) get lots more money to spend on schools, independent of how many students go to those schools.
Isla Vista property is actually more valuable per acre than Montecito, and very few elementary school students live in Isla Vista. But all the IV property tax gets shared out into Goleta, which is part of the reason Goleta Union is nearly $10,000 per student, rather than $8,000 per student.
Isla Vista would do well to severe from the Goleta Union School District.
Seems to me California's education system is ranked #27:http://www.alec.org/publications/repo...
Seems to me teachers have to deal with the children of the undocumented, but JarvisJarvis won't ever acknowledge that the children of the undocumented drag test scores down.
Look at places like Lowell High School in SF and you see the high end of the California public schools is quite excellent.
As for pay, California is not a cheap place. Of course Alabama has lower salaries. What matters is compensation relative to cost of living. Whoops JarvisJarvis, your pants are on fire again. But you have nothing to burn down there, so no big deal.
On School Basics
Posted on April 13 at 11:46 a.m.
JarvisJarvis, your pension data is remarkable propaganda.
Not a single mention of double-dippers where one dip comes from the **US Military Pensions**. I guess double-dipping is fine as long as the first dip comes from the very expensive pay-as-you-go (with no accounting or computation of debt or any invested pension fund) US Military Pensions, where you can retire at age 37 with full benefits.
The `CalWatchDog' is sleeping on that segment of the pension crisis. Not to mention Tricare. And the fact that all the public pensions and healthcare got out of hand because they based themselves on US Military Pensions and healthcare.
In any case, Mrs. Capps receives no pension from CalPERS, the only system in California that is truly `state-backed'. CalPERS dictates to the State its yearly contributions.
CalSTRS does not have that power, and is in crisis right now. The Legislature and Governor could refuse to cover the CalSTRS deficit if they want.
UCRP already has been told multiple times by the Legislature and the Governor that the UCRP deficit will *not* be covered by the State. In fact the State stopped contributing altogether to UCRP in 1991... a fact CalWatchDog fell asleep on. Recently the State has contributed a little to the UCRP, but there is absolutely no guarantee or agreement to cover UCRP's deficit.
In the end, way too generous pensions where guaranteed throughout California's public sector. But I can't say CalWatchDog was accurate in its listed or portrayal... a hatchet job.
On Capps Announces She Won't Seek Reelection
Posted on April 7 at 7:40 p.m.
blah etc, but you are overlooking something... if the Sheriff makes a unilateral decision without any consultation with the CHP and UCSB Chief, and within a clear area of CHP and UCSB expertise, why should the CHP and UCSB Chief continue to contribute resources to the Foot Patrol? Put another way, if the Sheriff want to unilaterally call the shots, Santa Barbara County should pay completely for the cost of the CHP and UCSB officers; the CHP and UCSB should not have to contribute a dime of the cost.
Remember, a year ago at this time, the Sheriff was in an election battle. I don't defend the idiotic behavior at last year's Deltopia, but I also don't think clearing the streets was a decision that was intelligent. And it certainly appeared to me that the Sheriff was playing for votes in the rest of the County by deciding to clear the streets... if he had at least sought opinions from the CHP and the UCSB Police, the appearance of using IV for votes would be much reduced.
As more and more information has emerged in the Desmond Edwards trial, the `clear the streets' decision looks worse and worse. In fact there is no eyewitness nor one video from the many video cameras that backs the Sheriff's story about Edwards. Edwards may well be guilty but the lack of evidence allows quite reasonable doubt.
Chris Newfield wrote some good columns on last year's Deltopia:http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2014...http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2014...http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2014...
On Deltopia Not a Disaster
Posted on April 6 at 6:53 p.m.
Who is lucas?
Posted on April 6 at 6:14 p.m.
``Perhaps because those streets are squarely in the Sheriff's jurisdiction, not the CHP and most definitely not the UCSB State Police. Get a clue.'' -cartoonz
From the SBSO web page on the Isla Vista Foot Patrol:
``The Isla Vista Foot Patrol station covers the area of Isla Vista surrounding UCSB. This substation utilizes bike patrol and officers from the CHP and UCSB Police to provide safety and enforcement for the community of Isla Vista.''
Whoops, cartoonz, looks like you are the clueless one.
Posted on April 6 at 3:30 p.m.
Typically snarky back-handed reporting of IV by the Indy. The Daily Nexus got it a lot better, see:
A huge wave of volunteerism to clean up after Deltopia... nothing like that after Fiesta or July 4 downtown. Naturally, the Indy says nothing at all about the good works done in IV, just leading with snarky nastiness, like, a rehash of last year's woes.
And even Brugger's reporting of last year is hugely biased... why did 10 or 20 (not hundreds) of rioters throw bricks and bottles? Well, because the Sheriff (with no consultation with either the UCSB police or the CHP, a fact the reporters omit or have been ignorant of) decided to declare an unlawful assembly and clear the streets, and started firing rubber bullets & tear gas **FIRST**.
And why did the Sheriff do that? Turns out no-one knows. Desmond Edwards did not have a `backpack full of bottles' as the Sheriff said. He had just one bottle, and not a single eyewitness nor one of a bank of cameras aimed at Del Playa verified the Sheriff's story that Edwards assaulted a police officer. Edwards' trial has been delayed and strung out. And the backpack was not even Edwards, it belonged to a Marine!! Who knows what really happened.
If Edwards actually did what the Sheriff said, throw the book at Edwards. But guess what.. the evidence against Edwards is very weak... not one eyewitness and also clear evidence (with the bottles) of exaggeration by the Sheriff.
Posted on March 27 at 11:31 p.m.
Hey, we didn't need Time Warner's out-of-water thingee to ever hang out. The Stearn's wharf pilings (and Goleta, and Gaviota) are just fine as they are.
On Spilling the Beans on Ty Warner’s Toys and Troubles
Posted on March 27 at 2:37 p.m.
I can't agree with Mr. Bissonnette that Mr. Warner's Swiss bank actions are something that aren't so bad because `at the time a lot of people were doing it.'
Lots of street gangs in LA commit drive-by shootings. Does that mean drive-by shootings aren't bad, for goodness sakes?
Warner opened Swiss Bank accounts under a fabricated name (The Molani Foundation, which he based in Lichtenstein) and Warner transferred over $93 million dollars to those Swiss Bank accounts. Warner then failed to report the income on his 1040, for goodness sakes! I'm careful to report the $3 in interest I get from my old SBBT (now Union Bank) account.
Except Warner forgot to report at least $24 million in interest, and there are a number of years where records of his income are `lost'.
I can't blame all that on some Swiss bankers; filling out your taxes is your responsibility, not that of some Swiss guys. And as for Bissonnette's statement...
`Then finally the U.S. government catches on to UBS, and to avoid being fined, UBS hands over the names of all the clients it promised confidentiality to. The real bad guys here are UBS, I think.'
That is all so wrong, as if an illegal promise of confidentiality means anything. 100% of the blame rests on Ty Warner's shoulders for ever imagining that confidentiality could protect his illegal failure to report $24 million in income.
Posted on March 27 at 2:12 p.m.
A fact has hard evidence to back it up, Botany. You have no evidence whatsoever, and moreover, the girlfriend in this case broke up with the perp and also testified against him. That is hardly `loyal no matter what'.
On Alleged Girlfriend and Puppy Abuser in Court
Posted on March 27 at 11:25 a.m.
``Many of these Asian girls are loyal no matter what. She's an extreme case.''
Perhaps linking published studies that show loyalty is more frequent among `Asian girls' (whatever that means... does it include Israelis? Saudis? those countries are in West Asia) would make this comment more than just the racist screed it appears to be.
Seems to me that the girlfriend is now the ex-girlfriend, according to the article, and seems to me that she testified against Chen.
How is that an extreme case of loyalty no matter what?
Given Chen's history, seems to me she is in quite a bit of danger of retribution by Chen.
Bullying of and violence against women by men is frequent across all the globe's races, creeds, nationalities, and income levels. Ask Phil Spector.