Comments by Giggles
Page 1 of 1
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on September 13 at 10:24 a.m.
Devon, your note at the end of the piece seems to have the aim (pardon me if I'm wrong) of debunking claims made by speakers at the rally. I think it is entirely irrelevant to the core of the issue.
First, not all families are two-parent families. Many teens only have one parent or legal guardian.
Even if consent is required for only one parent in two-parent families, teens may not feel safe speaking to either of their parents about a pregnancy, let alone both. Several of the speakers alluded to this fact by mentioning that teens talk to other relatives (aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc.) --whether notification is made to one or both parents makes absolutely no difference in this case.
The bottom line, as several of the speakers pointed out, is that family communication cannot be mandated by law. To focus on comments about "both parents" is to miss the point.
Posted on July 15 at 2:24 p.m.
"If they don't like the job or pay then they should leave..." Sometimes I sure wish they would, so people like you would get a clue of what it's like to have to mow your own lawn, grow and cook your own food, and clean your own workplace for poverty wages and still endure the disdain of those who are better off. That type of attitude is why an ever-increasing number of hard-working people live in poverty all over this country, why inequality has reached levels not seen since the 1920's, and ultimately why we are plunging into an economic crisis the worst of which is yet to come. But you can go ahead and hold on to your elitism for all that it's worth.
RForsyth, the strike is not illegal. The contract expired, negotiations are at an impasse, and the workers overwhelmingly voted to strike. You're entitled to make whatever inflammatory or inconsiderate remarks you want to make, but for your own credibility you should at least try to ensure that they are accurate.
Posted on June 6 at 12:48 p.m.
As a former UCSB student it makes me sad to recognize that for the most part young people in I.V. don't gather unless they're drinking themselves to oblivion. Yay, now they can do it at an event designated to raise funds for some cause they will never again give a crap about affecting some unfortunate people halfway across the globe. Does that mean the conversations there are going to be any more substantial, or will it be the usual raging and sloppy hooking up (as people call guys sleazing their way into girls' pants nowadays)?
But yeah, if ever a keg was tapped for a good reason this was it for sure.
Posted on June 6 at 12:34 p.m.
Does this--or, for that matter, several other "Eye on I.V." pieces--have anything to do with Isla Vista? Is there really not enough of substance in I.V. writing about that the sole column in the Independent dedicated to our little community is so often about topics that are not only inane, but unrelated to Isla Vista?
I sincerely hope next year will bring a better columnist. At least we've had The Senior File this year to show that some students are capable of consistently writing about important issues in an intelligent, engaging way.
Posted on August 25 at 1:38 p.m.
FirstDistrictStreetfighter, not only does your comment exhibit utter disdain for Isla Vista voters; it also shows extreme ignorance. UCSB's students are an extraordinarily active electorate. On-campus voter registration efforts consistently register thousands more students to vote than any other UC campus, and Isla Vista has played a critical role in determining the outcome of many elections--including, most recently, Bill Brown's victory against incumbent sheriff Jim Anderson. Brown received a higher percentage of votes in I.V. than anywhere else in the county, demonstrating that I.V. voters are more than able to mobilize en masse for the right candidates.
As for Firestone, his contempt for I.V. residents is even greater. He has a track record of dissing every possible I.V. constituency, with actions from last year's ridiculous couch burning ordinance to his lack of support for Measure D to his complete apathy in the face of the Cedarwood tenants' evictions. Now, in the face of far more serious infrastructural and safety issues, he is pushing for things like stiffer penalties for urination in public--this, coming from a man who peddled his alcoholic products to I.V. residents in exchange for votes.
Mollie, I appreciate your outrage and your conciliatory tone towards the County in the face of this latest crackdown on I.V. residents, but I hope that you and your fellow journalists won't forget any of this come next spring. The Independent and others' endorsement of Arnold last year was bad enough.
Page 1 of 1
Previous Month
Posted on October 6 at 11:52 a.m.
It is stunning to see a brand of conservatism so radical that it opposes even maintaining already existing funding for basic infrastructure. Measure A will not increase taxes in the least, and its funds will go towards projects that it is difficult to argue against--since when does keeping roads from falling into disrepair, expanding highways to alleviate congestion, and supporting public transportation count as "out of control government?"
As for "illegal aliens" taking advantage of "our tax dollars," let's remember that undocumented immigrants, whose labor is essential to the everyday functioning of our state economy, are taxpayers and workers just as much as anybody else. When you go to the store and buy something that you pay sales taxes on, the clerk doesn't ask to see your papers before deciding whether you should pay them or not.
At a time when the most basic public services that our community relies on are in serious jeopardy, it is amazing to see that there are those who lead the charge against their funding with such reckless enthusiasm. Let's hope the majority of voters in our County--at least 2/3, to be precise--will have better sense and vote YES on Measure A this fall.
On Measure A: Out-of-Control Government Business as Usual