Posted on July 3 at 3:51 p.m.

Well, geez, after complimenting the Indy twice in this issue for objectivity, I find this statement in the Living section: "...MoveOn.org, that bastion of political sanity.." Completely disregarding the fact that I consider MoveOn to be the worst example of irresponsible political polemic since the 60's, this statement is an OPINION and belong on the OpEd page, not in a news article.

On MoveOn Bake Sale Peeps

Posted on July 3 at 3:45 p.m.

Wow! Another even-handed report on another contentious topic. You must be trying to show up the NP (not hard to do) in the objectivity department. Many have already made up their minds regarding Montecito cityhood without knowing the facts (like financial data, which is not yet available). Kudos to you for reporting that there are issues and answers yet to be found, rather than repeating uninformed and inflammatory rhetoric!

On Montecity?

Posted on July 3 at 3:41 p.m.

Thanks, Nick, for an uncharacteristically even-handed report on a very contentious topic.

On Let the Dog Days Begin

Posted on June 30 at 7:25 a.m.

And some people think this is a free speech issue? Free speech is not an absolute. This is really an IQ issue. Ya don't threaten the police chief, dummy!

On Man Arrested on Charges of Threatening Police Chief

Posted on June 30 at 7:22 a.m.

Or start a competing paper. So far we've got the Sound and the Noozhawk...

On Wendy McCaw: Knight of the First Amendment

Posted on June 29 at 5:17 p.m.

McCaw has gone so far overboard with this that she's probably beyond redemption. And Armstrong shows the true nature of what the NewsPress has become - find a cause, editorialize it relentlessly, and never, NEVER print an opposing opinion.

Want to save the NewsPress? Quit trying to tell McCaw how to run her privately-owned paper. Get a group of high-integrity citizens who understand fact-based reporting and basic fair play together, and buy the damn thing. Install fair and responsible editorial and reporting staff who understand that they are employees, not owners, and have a responsibility to the unvarnished, non-opinionated, truth. Keep opinion out of news stories, both in word and tone - period - under pain of termination.

On Wendy McCaw: Knight of the First Amendment

Posted on June 25 at 4:44 p.m.

Sorry, it wasn't clear to me that the issue was that the patient wouldn't be allowed to refuse a procedure. I thought the issue was that the patient wanted VBAC while the M.D. thought it ill-advised. The patient is always free to find an agreeable M.D., no? And to your point, as one coming from a family of M.D.'s, I believe medicine should be practiced on the basis of what is best for patients, acting with informed consent after consultation with their doctors. But one cannot deny the risk environment, the facts that the medical community, and especially insurance companies, are typically seen as deep-pocketed, that juries are notoriously generous with awards in medical suits, and that hospitals must be keenly aware of malpractice risk (not only risk to their financial situation but even more importantly to their reputation). Yes, the malpractice climate must be changed. But in the meanwhile remember two important words: "litigious society". Hence, my original question - if the patient wants to countervene her doctor's recommendation, should she not indemnify the doctor (or find another)?

On Families Protest Outside Cottage Hospital

Posted on June 25 at 4:07 p.m.

So you're saying the patient, not the doctor, is the expert on medical procedure risk? And if the doctor believes that a VBAC is ill-advised, and the patient insists on it anyway, and the doctor agrees against his/her better judgement, then if something goes wrong all of those who pay already ridiculously high malpractice premiums are penalized? C'mon.

On Families Protest Outside Cottage Hospital

Posted on June 25 at 8:16 a.m.

so will a doctor who agrees to VBAC be indemnified by the patient?

On Families Protest Outside Cottage Hospital

Posted on June 23 at 9:02 p.m.

Actually, statisticians still argue about whether the doublenickel lowered fatalities or whether it was seat belts or other safety features in cars (multivariate analysis is required, but beyond the IQ of the sound bite and the typical political platform). 55 does save gas, but costs time (ever drive through Utah or Nevada or Kansas at 55mph?). What's the tradeoff?
Easy, but not productive, to poke at Big Oil. They make a lot of money in absolute terms, but not as a % of sales - soda pop is a more profitable business - ever calc how much you pay for a gallon of Coke and how much profit Coca Cola Corp gets from it? Or latte and Starbucks? Where's the outrage? The answer is not simple and not one-dimensional. More drilling, more wind farms (if u can stand the concomitant execution of birds), more nuclear plants, more clean coal plants are all required. This is not a simple black and white issue, although many politicians and narrow-focus special interest groups would like to portray it that way.

On Capps Blasts McCain and Bush