Comments by doublecheck
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on July 9 at 9:29 a.m.
I always wonder why so many vocal children harbor so much venom for their fathers. So little understanding or empathy they have for their fathers. And most often it is a false and skewed memory related little to reality of the father they denigrate. Our family also has a child who blames his troubles on an uncaring and emotionless father. The memory of this child is not the experience or recollection of the rest of the family or friends of our father. Too often children manufacturer images of their fathers to conceal their own failures. It is amazing how long these people continue to moan and whine about some perceived slight instead of focusing on their own actions. And then to they grasp at some other cause and again fail to consider that their actions and misguided feelings serve only to be hurtful and disgraceful to most real military families. They fail to recognize or appreciate that for most they are turning their families sacrifice in to a mockery. A sideways look at this so-called memorial is more than it deserves. Peace is only brought to us through strength and bravery, not hollow meaningless displays of emotion.
Posted on July 1 at 9:59 a.m.
It is always interesting to see shark attack risk downplayed. Nature is powerful, cruel and unforgiving of man and animal alike. People will say sharks are not so dangerous. That attacks are few. This is just wrong and dishonest.
Total shark kill numbers might be low but the real risk is extremely high. It is a matter of exposure to risk. People are daily exposed to the risk of car accidents. Not so common is daily ocean exposure and the associated risk of shark attack. Shark attacks are much more common than what people want to believe.
You never see honest risk numbers using an apple to apple comparison when it comes to shark attacks. If the risk was assessed as to shark attacks per 100,000 people exposed sharks in the ocean as compared to car accidents per 100,000 actually exposed to this risk (or other lethal risks) it would a fearful number.
If you are in the water enough you will have an encounter with a shark. Be careful out there out there.
On Shark Tales
Posted on February 22 at 10:04 a.m.
So $300,000 was spent unsuccessfully by the council fighting to keep the initiative off the ballot.
Sounds like the few vocal opponents of drilling and progress are frightened of allowing the people to vote and be heard.
Most regular working want to see this project go forward and obviously the extremists want to shut down the democratic process because they know they can't win fair and square.
Drill baby Drill!
Posted on January 25 at 8:38 a.m.
By the way Janet Leigh is another example of an identical letter sent out to many publications. Probably the same person bolstering and supporting the their first letter.
Kind of cool to see to 2 astroturf letters together. It would be fun to see the Independent track the IP numbers and investigate the locations. Many of the other websites are tracking these type of letters down and exposing the fakes.
Posted on January 25 at 8:26 a.m.
Mark Spivey is a liar. He pretends to be from multiple places to enhance his credibility. In fact, he is from one location — and he is trying to pretend he is an individual from all over America. But he isn’t. A Facebook group is even formed for this fake: “Who is Mark Spivey?”
The same anti-Republican pro-Obama letters are showing up worldwide. This is an official communications from the White House and should be labeled as such. Guess the Democrat Party doesn’t have enough real supporters so they are mass mailing the same letter and fooling the papers and some of the public.
Go find some Astroturfing yourself. Just take phrases from suspicious-looking Obama letters and put the phrases into Google and see what you find.
Astroturfing is phony “grassroots” activity. The term refers to opinions that seem to be genuine — but, in reality, are directed by a Central Planner. Almost exclusively a Democrat Party activity.
Posted on December 26 at 11:52 a.m.
I hope that this Superman is not as anti-israel as the group he works for is. Their reputation is less than stellar. Even the founder had to quit in disgust because of their bias against the Jewish people. Building a better world for tomorrow and working for diversity at UCSB needs to be inclusive of ALL people including those of the Jewish faith.
Posted on July 31 at 11:33 a.m.
Sounds like several of the commenters are insiders...Ed, Nancy, Bob...is that you? Boredstein, Bela, sblover2???
Deflecting from any specific questions regarding mismanagement and ethics?
Posted on July 5 at 1:53 p.m.
FIREWORK SAFETY, I say, do it yourself. Just be smart about it. "View the professional public fireworks displays and leave it to the trained professionals" is one of those lifesucking statements that everyone should mostly ignore. Independence Day night should be celebrated with incendiary stuff going off in every direction. Keep the dogs and pets inside and let it rip.
There's a big difference between setting off your own fireworks and sitting passively while others do it for you.
The difference is like the difference between having sex and watching porn.
And, in both cases, the presence of a degree of risk is part of the difference.
What is with the kneejerk opposition to firework? Rarely are there any real problems. None of the serious wildfires had anything to do with fireworks.
Fireworks can be dangerous and technically are illegal in most of the County. Just like lots of things that are dangerous or made illegal because of silly laws we should look carefully before complying with laws that everyone ignores anyway in favor of liberty and freedom.
Some danger is part of life as is learning how to handle dangerous things without being hurt or harming others. It is an important lesson to pass on to your children.
If you celebrate the Fourth with fireworks, I hope you do so safely and with lots of smoke, fire and loud and big explosions.
Posted on June 30 at 12:12 p.m.
Great response TelscopicFuturist.
Can anyone publish a name list of the complete Board of Trustees?
This list seems well hidden and not part of the of the Fife Symington's claims of ":full transparency".
We obviously know the position of the Board Chair. The other Board member's position's are not so clear. It is likely some are supportive of cleaning house and they should be supported and asked to support new board members who have the Garden's best interests at heart and not a personal agenda.
Despite the Garden management's successful efforts to keep the Board in the dark by not holding monthly meetings and not bringing on new members to the required 15 members, it is likely that some of the Board members are open to and possibly supportive of eliminating the Garden's top management. These Board members have to be identified and fully supported.
I believe the efforts to reform the Garden must come from major donors and qualified individuals willing to actively participate as Board Trustees (in most cases one and the same).
I don't believe all current Board members are willing to face civil and criminal liability should wrong doing eventually come to light. Of course, Fife, the Board Chair, is a convicted felon and has an edge in dealing with challenges both civil or criminally, but at some point even he is not going to risk his neck for Ed Schneider, President and CEO, Director or whatever title he has designated for himself.
This does not mean that some Board members will not support new progressive board members looking to do the right thing. If the minutes and reports are forced to become available instead of locked away hidden from view this will make it easier. Supportive board members must be identified and joined by like minded new Board members so the renewal of the Garden can move forward.
Also, don't be deluded by the 4 stars on Charity Navigator. It is very easy to manipulate budgets and allot time to "programs" instead of overhead/salaries. It's clear that is what the garden has done since it's prior measly rating of 1.5 stars.
On None
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on September 18 at 9:19 a.m.
What race is Muslim exactly Haaris? Just because you can only see the issue as black and white doesn't make the other side racist or bigoted. While the Muslim religion is well known for its intolerance, opposition to women's rights, gay rights and other differing religious beliefs, the limitation of membership to a certain race is generally not one of its characteristics.
To oppose any difference in opinion as racist is a very poor argument. The pinprick of even the discussion of the burning of the Qur’an by a small time pastor in Florida is indicative of the very real problem of a not insignificant minority of Muslims bent on violence. How many outraged Muslims overseas killed each other in their over reaction? Many more than this non-incident deserved.
It is up to the peaceful majority of Muslims to reign in and speak up against the atrocities of Muslim extremists. It is a stain on the whole of their religion and should strongly voiced and opposed by all peaceful Muslims. At the very least he should understand that a supermajority including many Muslims recognize a Victory Mosque at Ground Zero while legal is a deliberate provocation that is highly offensive to most and doesn’t even fit the definition of racism or bigotry.
There are reasonable arguments for and against a Ground Zero Mosque but Haaris only is interested only in name-calling instead of a reasoned response.
Haaris needs to be as tolerant and open minded as to different opinions as he is of the protest burning of the American flag at public events.
On Muslim Like Me