3 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on November 19 at 12:55 p.m.

A few points in support of Starshine and her article:

1. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all. Prop 8 should a will be overturned because it singles out a single class, people of the same gender, and denies them equal rights enjoyed by married people, such as being able to file a joint income tax return, inherit each others property absent a will, gain custody of each other's children in the case of death and absent a written agreement, make medical decisions for the other absent a written agreement, and many many more.

2. The majority vote cannot always rule. Here's what Jefferson wrote: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

3. "Activist Judges" is just a phrase the right uses when then don't like a ruling. This phrase was NOT used when the U.S. Supreme Court took the Florida election decision OUT of the Florida Supreme Court's hands and gave the first election to Bush. Judges are there to interpret the law when it is not absolutely clear. Interpretation is their very business.

4. Starshine usually writes in a light, breezy and comedic way. But Prop 8 is so serious that for her to ignore it or make light of it would be inappropriate. We should thank and congratulate her for her thoughtfulness.

On Dear Prop. 8 Supporters

2 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.

Posted on November 10 at 8:07 a.m.

I can understand someone wanting to express their displeasure with the performance of an elected official or his/her stand on issues.

However, it adds NOTHING to public discourse to engage in name calling. In fact, name calling simply reflects on the emptiness of the writer's arguments and generally acts as a barrier to an intelligent exchange of ideas.

I won't repeat the offensive language, but merely suggest that the writers need to curb their enthusiasm.

On UPDATED: Latest on Jackson-Strickland

Posted on October 22 at 8:34 a.m.

For those who want to resist the influence of money and dirty tricks, we need to show they can be overcome with ballots. Vote for Connell and Easton and next time maybe the Goleta Chamber and developers will get the message.

On Phantom PAC Materializes

Posted on January 21 at 11:57 a.m.

rec251 might want to reconsider some rather baseless and loose allegations.

Goletans opposed another large, regional big box (not specifically a Target) for many good reasons. Traffic is one. Goleta is already home to 3 rather large and contiguous shopping centers - K-Mart, Costco and Albertsons. There is no evidence that poor people lack shopping choices or that Goletans want to deny them any. However with these shopping centers and the nearby, burgeoning University, there is plenty of traffic on the only 3 (count them) routes through Goleta, Cathedral Oaks, 101 and Hollister. Do we really need another Big Box more than we need relief from traffic?

And yes, we already have a jobs housing imbalance. Do we need more low paying jobs so even more people will need to commute from afar, again, adding to the traffic nightmare?

And yes, Goletans would like to use more public transit, if the buses ran more frequently and on time. MTD did not follow through on the shuttles from Costco to UCSB and Old town Goleta that were promised. Is it fair to blame Goletans for not wanting to ride an expensive, inconvenient bus system.

Let's get real, Goletans almost unanimously opposed General Plan amendments that will allow another regions Big Box, and the pennies shoppers save will be be small compared with the millions that will be needed widen our roads and make up for time wasted in traffic.

On General Plan Culling Begins