Page 2 of 64
Posted on February 27 at 4:40 p.m.
The bumbling by the water agencies is enough to make one drown in a bucket of Guinness. I wonder if they will learn. We need a citizen group to educate, advocate and change the way things are done with respect to water use. Maybe the horror at the history of errors and how we are dependent on those errors, will hopefully motivate to be less dependent upon that bumbling.
Ag and municipal water use requires a revolution. Local centers of food production would be a good thing - with less dependence on pesticides.
Lawns and water-thirsty eucs have to go.
On Every Dog Has Its Day
Posted on February 26 at 8:21 p.m.
Wonderful, empathetic, wise writing.
On How My Grandma Looks
Posted on February 25 at 1:26 p.m.
--Why dont women ever think about the sacrifices men make?? Being a housewife was a luxury!! to be able to be at home with the kids and take care of them..and then people make that sound like its slavery!!..Yes, for some being a stay-at-home was a luxury for those who were lucky enough to be able to do that. But you are arguing both for it and against it. Women should stay at home and enjoy the luxury while men do all the work, but boo hoo men do all the work, therefore that system (hardly found today) is bad.
--the real slave is the guy that goes to work every day with no thank you at all.. working hard so he pays more tax to the govt..only to have it redistributed to women that want to have children by themselves..priceless!!..No woman can have a child by herself naturally - they find themselves in that situation because of men who don't want to stick around. And since the workforce is approximately 50% men and 50% women, women are also paying for those who need support. And how about the case of the stay-at-home-mom with large families? They get tax deductions for each of the children, when responsible adults who have no children or few children have to subsidize large families where both parents profit because of deductions paid by others.
Everyday, I thank my lucky stars that I can go to work where I feel I make the best use of my abilities, and then after work I am free to do whatever I wish paid for by my own work, and nobody else's. That is, I would hate to live in any country where women have no rights, and there are many of them.
On Women's Issues Are <em>Still</em> an Issue
Posted on February 25 at 1:22 p.m.
Generalizing about anything is scientifically inaccurate, and very biased.
--What would women do if men just quit?..Firstly, why are there so many single-parent homes headed by females? Because the partners quit in the sense that they were unwilling to support the family. Dead-beat dads is the term. Secondly, many women had to go to work because there was not enough money from one paycheck. The number of working men and women is roughly equal. Lastly, that question could only be directed at women who are not working and expect to be supported. For those women, who do work, it is a meaningless question.
-- Since men are the backbone of society.. we work more,..Women are the backbone of society as well. Many studies have shown that working women work much harder, not only because they have a day job, but they do most of the work at home. So that supposition is only true when women are stay at home, otherwise it is patently false.
- die early, work longer and harder than women until we retire and die....For the most part, men do not look after themselves as well as women do. They drink more and smoke more, and do more risky things. As more and more women smoked the difference in death ages grew smaller. So I would claim it is an issue of personal responsibility - do not look after your health, and expect to die earlier.
- then our wives live off the money we made. ..If a wife dies earlier, then a husband lives off any money she made. I have also encountered many marriages where the woman makes more than the husband, and in some cases supports the husband. So generalizations are incorrect.
--So we should have a day when all men just dont go to work.. call it a "day without men" and lets watch it all screech a stop.. no plumbers, no welders, no trash pickup, no building, no cops, etc etc.. ..So we should have a day when all women don't work --- watch homes screech to a halt. No breakfast, lunch, dinner - nobody to take kids to and from school, nobody to look after kids when they are home, put them to bed, do their washing, etc, etc. No teachers, nurses, secretaries, etc. And many women do "men's" jobs, too.
Posted on February 24 at 5:17 a.m.
"most relaxed and grounded people I’ve ever meet " should be "ever met".
On The S.B. Questionnaire: Geoff Green
Posted on February 23 at 12:58 p.m.
How on earth is one supposed to go to college if one is living on the street? Where are the clothes? the water for showering? the money for classes and books? the address for registering? If he/she was employed up until 2010, and writes as well as shown above, it appears that the skills for a job may be there - but not the job.
And from the content of the post it appears that he/she has been trying and not just sitting around doing nothing. As for Detroit, how can one get a house without a job. Those jobs have been shipped overseas by the money-grubbers that want more profit. Nothing American or patriotic about that.
Not one realistic suggestion other than to rake the person over the coals.
On Homeless Czar Outlines Action Plan to Get People off Streets
Posted on February 23 at 6:44 a.m.
Btw, scare/intimidation tactics have been used by one side repeatedly going back to Lee Atwater (note his deathbed confessions, apologies). There are too many instances to name, but they continued right up to the Birth Certificate and Kenyan muslim nonsense. It is a frequently exercised tactic, and will be on display again in 2016. It works because plenty of people fall for it. Note the Willie Horton ad.
On County Workers Union Granted New Contract
Posted on February 23 at 5:34 a.m.
See what the Tennessean has to say about it. I think intimidate is a synonym for scare.
“Although there aren’t many precedents where a party other than the employer attempts to intimidate the employees before an election, the purpose of NLRB elections under federal law is to get the employees’ free and informed decision about whether they want to be represented by the union,” Dau-Schmidt said.
Liberal labor economist Larry Mishel, president of the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute, said Corker, a conservative free-market advocate, is being “hugely hypocritical” by meddling in the plant’s affairs, especially when the company is open to the idea of union workers.
Posted on February 22 at 4:34 p.m.
"The workers at the VW plant there just told the UAW to pack up and go back to Detroit."
No, they did not. They were scared by threats from people who cry free-market, but do not follow their repeated libertarian chants. It is offensive to threaten others to do as a handful of politicians want, rather than what the workers want. And it is the height of hypocrisy. The vote would have had more credibility if there were no threats.
Btw, here is a cut-and-paste about Germany. They are not free-market fundamentalists, with better success.
"Germany is growing much faster than the United States. Its unemployment rate is now only 6.1 percent (we're now at 9.1 percent).
What's Germany's secret? In sharp contrast to the decades of stagnant wages in America, real average hourly pay has risen almost 30 percent there since 1985. Germany has been investing substantially in education and infrastructure.
How did German workers do it? A big part of the story is German labor unions are still powerful enough to insist that German workers get their fair share of the economy's gains.
That's why pay at the top in Germany hasn't risen any faster than pay in the middle. As David Leonhardt reported in the New York Times recently, the top 1 percent of German households earns about 11 percent of all income - a percent that hasn't changed in four decades.
Contrast this with the United States, where the top 1 percent went from getting 9 percent of total income in the late 1970s to more than 20 percent today."
Posted on February 22 at 4:17 p.m.
"Since the 1990s, sea-level rise has clocked in at about three millimeters, or one-tenth of an inch, per year but is projected to reach 15 millimeters per year by 2100, said Dave Revell, a geomorphologist who helped conduct the assessment for the committee."
One poster read up to the third comma. Another poster read after the third comma. Here is the whole sentence, succinctly.
Current rate: 3 millimeters per yearBy 2100: 15 millimeters per year
On Goleta's Slough of Problems
Santa Barbara Maritime Museum will celebrates its 11th annual benefit. ... Read More
Previous Month | Next Month