More Liberal Observations
Oh, dear. I see that the Journal has published more political emails. I really wish you wouldn’t. They’re mostly pretty stale, even the anti-Trump ones.
Les Conrad reaches almost the same degree of derangement, if in less colorful prose. Right off, he suggests that our least Biblically inspired president (in itself, not a bad thing; President Pence would be a bad thing) denied the essentially unanimous conclusion of our country’s counter-intelligence professionals and embraced Putin because Trump wanted to practice Christian forgiveness for their illegal annexation of Crimea and the equally illegal and ongoing attack on our elections. Christian forgiveness!
He goes on to say the president is under attack for his aim to “make life better for those who make the sacrifices to keep that government in power.” Since the primary beneficiaries of the trillion-dollar deficit-ballooning tax cut are the folks who own, through stock or outright, the companies who saved billions in taxes, I’m not sure what sacrifices he’s talking about.
As to the editor’s note appended, President Trump has indeed made strenuous efforts to fulfill some of his campaign promises. He has given free rein to an expanded armed force free of the Justice Department that has quintupled the deportation of ordinary people, no crimes to their name, living peacefully among us almost as though they were actual Americans. Today’s headline: ICE Arrests Man Driving Pregnant Wife To Deliver Baby, a man never accused or convicted previously [Editor’s note: The man was apparently wanted for murder in Mexico, but hey, that doesn’t fit the “anti-immigrant” narrative so was conveniently left out of most news reports]; his wife left to drive herself to the hospital alone.
Although Trump did promise not to do that, rather to prioritize “criminal” ones, by sleight of hand his attorney general decided that their very presence in the country was a crime and that they thus were criminals and hence prioritized along with armed felons, so I guess he did keep that promise after all.
On cutting the debt (he said it would be gone after his two terms), well, not so much. On protecting people’s healthcare so it would be even better and cheaper (lower deductibles, better coverage) than the failed ObamaCare, not so much there either.
So, since wages haven’t gone up while health care premiums have, as the rich are getting richer (remember his promise to tax carried interest? Oops, broken), his climate policy is going to bring disaster, his foreign policy is written by Putin (destroy NATO, disrupt alliances), and his administration is deeply corrupt (his Secretary of Commerce not disclosing stocks which he then traded on private knowledge), I’m not sure why you all like him so much. Maybe it’s the rich getting richer part, but I couldn’t say. I’d love to know.
God, all I think about is November 6. Listen to my prayer for this suffering country in these troubled times.
Cotty Chubb
Montecito
(Editor’s note: Again, I agree with practically nothing you’ve written, other than wishing too that President Trump would address the deficit. Wasn’t it “the essentially unanimous conclusion of our country’s counter-intelligence professionals” that Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Oh, they were wrong then, but right now? How prescient of you. Your party’s meme about “the rich getting richer” because of the tax cuts has become a boring and tiresome cliché. There could be some truth to that, however, as the market is up substantially since Mr. Trump’s election, and the small companies who can now take advantage of some of the new tax breaks that before were only available to larger – “richer” – companies love it too. As for the upcoming mid-term election, let’s see what happens in November. My guess is Republicans hold the House, though possibly just barely, and add at least two Senate seats. – J.B.)
Picking up the Pieces
I’m trying to wrap my head around the notion that anyone would be upset enough to write “our cars are suffering from potholes, and trenches,” referring to the ‘disgraceful’ conditions at the bottom of Olive Mill at Coast Village Road (“The Olive Mill Mess,” MJ #24/33). My heart still aches for those who lost their lives, their loved ones, and their homes. I am grateful that we were not seriously impacted. Planning, rebuilding, and restoration after such a massive fire and mudflow is a slow, lengthy and complex process.
Let’s support the surviving victims with our patience and tolerance for any inconveniences while they slowly pick up the pieces and move forward. Filling potholes can come later.
Marcia Orland
Carpinteria
Intelligent Wastewater Recycling
Bob Hazard, per usual, has given us a thoughtful overview of our water situation (On The Water Front, MJ #24/33). In recycled, we are playing with a number of unknowns. He suggests intelligent recycling of wastewater. I agree that this needs to be intelligently discussed as a prerequisite.
Thus a series of questions. Bob mentions an unknown number of wells are now drafting from our basins, let alone how much they are extracting and the impact on the basin. It is possible to replace some of that withdrawn water with recycled, but to do safely must rely on now absent systems and non-existent, highly trained technical staff. As previously noted by the state’s expert panel on the use of recycled water, this also assumes the interaction of a highly coordinated and interactive multi-jurisdictional system including various arms of the public health agencies. Such a system does not now exist. When will it?
Although the drilling of a well requires County Environmental Health (EHS) approval, does EHS have any overall tracking of wells sufficiently to estimate how much water is extracted in the various portions of the aquifers and is that information (if it even exists) shared with the MWD (Montecito Water District?) Is this an unknown? In an analysis thus far undertaken, the systems that would be necessary, if they exist, are incrementally disjointed such that there are many unknowns; hence the increased chance for error. Who is studying the unknowns?
Since we may be looking at taking waste and playing Rumplestilskin to spin straw into gold, it is more than magic upon which we must rely. There are provisions in law regulating water quality that make no sense from a pragmatic perspective when considering the use of recycled water or how the current quality standards may affect the reality of health impacts, thus what is safe versus legal? Another unknown.
Our own Floyd Wicks gave us a concise overview of the California Supreme Court case known as Hartwell (Hartwell Corp. v Superior Court , 27 Cal.4th 256 [2002]). How does this fit in? Wicks notes that “numerical standards for levels of contaminants are in fact what the agencies must use, not qualitative standards, in determining whether or not water is contaminated.” But, where are the numeric standards and what do they cover (more unknowns)? If the water may impact public health, what are the remedies (unknowns again)?
Also, the public’s challenges to the adequacy of the standards were barred following Hartwell. What does that mean for the customers? Another unknown? Then we have the judge excusing momentary exceedences of contaminants that enter the system. But it takes only an instant and minuscule amount of pathogen-laden water to contaminate a system, and this can then be sustained by typical biofilms found in water systems (more unknowns?). How do these unknown aspects fit into a risk assessment equation, assuming that one is done? Are we discussing a low-probability but high-consequence issue of something else? Is the Montecito Association involving itself in this – and if so, where and how?
Dr. Edo McGowan
Montecito
The “immoral” Opposition
This guy (Leoncio Martins) gives us a perfect example as to why there isn’t, or can’t be, a constructive political conversation across the political divide (“Liberal and Proud,” MJ #24/32).
He sets up his case for every political position by declaring those who oppose him are doing so for immoral, unjust, unethical reasons. He begins his screed by saying “history has been proven that honesty, respect, and love to another human being are the most important facts in our civilization.” This juxtaposes everybody who opposes his politics as dishonest, disrespecting, unloving, and acting in defiance of the basic building blocks of civilization.
All Donald Trump has done for Mr. Martins since going to Washington, D.C., is force him to double-down on his political beliefs. No second thoughts, moments of reflection, or introspection for Leoncio. No, sirree Bob. He’s prouder than punch, and even more eager, to put his entire worldview through the fairness and equality litmus test, declare all his adversaries evil, circle the wagons, and haul out the Gatling guns.
I challenge Leoncio Martins to compose a missive as long as the one Montecito Journal printed of his last week, and tell us what he likes, admires, respects, and loves about the America of history, the country either of his birth, or the one he chose to live in. All I hear is “hate” from him. Yet, I don’t sense any effort to move some place else. Why is he still here in southern California, if the U.S. is such a terrible place, inhabited by unreconstructed nativists who are out to oppress and suppress everybody?
Does he wish to “reform” a broken nation, or is he still here with the intention of subverting America, taking it completely over and punishing the evil ones who are morally incapable of seeing things as he does?
“Reformers” must first love the nation they wish to “reform.” “Revolutionaries” only wish to destroy and take down that which they say is beyond the pale, and unworthy of saving.
If Mr. Martins is a “reformer” type…
…I want to hear what he likes, admires, respects, and loves about the country he wishes to “reform.”
And not a Utopian Straw-Man version of America, either; the America of real Americans, who’ve come here from all ends of the earth to inhabit a new land and utilize its wide-open opportunities to make a better life for themselves; the America that has been the attraction of a great majority of all the political and economic migrants, immigrants, and refugees in the whole world over the past two centuries.
Can all these millions of people be wrong, and the handful of dissidents like Leoncio Martins be the only ones who are right?
David McCalmont
Santa Barbara
(Editor’s note: Mr. Martins is totally convinced that he is on the enlightened side of history and the rest of us are not, so as you suggest, there probably isn’t a conversation worth having there, as you’ll see from his follow-up letter. – J.B.)
Leoncio’s Lament
I was surprise that you have the courage to print my letter “Liberal and Proud,” but I was disappointed to hear your baseless comments (in the editor’s note) about how the Democratic Party did “perpetuated the prevalent racism in the past.”
When accusations of racism enter into any political debate, conservatives invariably regurgitate those previously mentioned bullet points from the recurring, well-rehearsed Republican comedy routine.
What you fail to mention, however, is that the party to which you refer to no longer exists. The only thing that remains of the original Republican Party is the name. And how the Grand Ole Party transformed itself from the party of Lincoln into the current version: a white, Southern party rife with racial resentment. It has become a forgotten tale that takes advantage of America’s lack of historical knowledge and abundance of short-term memory when it comes to race.
In 1963, John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, federalize de Alabama National Guard and force the desegregation at the University of Alabama.
Then came the breaking point that would basically change the party affiliation of Southern voters. Shortly before the election of 1964, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.
Republicans would like you to believe that Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Democrats opposed it, which is not true. To understand the change in both parties’ ideology, all one has to do is count the votes.
There were 94 Southern Democrats in the House of Representatives; 7 voted for the bill.
There were 10 Southern Republicans in the House of Representatives; zero voted for the bill.
Northern house democrats voted in favor of the bill 145-9.
Northern House Republicans favored the bill 138-24.
Of the 21 Southern Senators (Democrat or Republican), only one voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act (a Texas Democrat).
As you can see, it wasn’t the Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Republicans who favored it. Everyone supported the Civil Rights Act except the South. It was Southern politicians from both parties who voted against the legislation. The reason Republicans say they supported the bill is that there weren’t many Southern Republicans in Congress in 1964.
The Civil Rights Act was signed on July 2, 1964. In the presidential elections that year, 94 percent of non-white voters voted for Johnson, boosting him to a win over Barry Goldwater.
But Goldwater, a Republican, managed to win five Southern states in that election, which was unheard of for a Republican. How did Goldwater do that? He won those states by opposing the Civil Rights Act.
The Republican Party has become the party of small government and conservatism. In 2016, 73 percent of white voters in the South voted Republican.
It is now the party of the alt-right. It is the party of the Willie Horton and birtherism. It is the party of Donald Trump, the “Muslin ban,” the border wall, David Duke, and all the other white supremacists running for election on the Republican ticket in the midterm elections.
Republican leaders appeal to Islamophobia and its anti-immigrant base by repeating rhetoric that has no basis in fact. They rally right-wing support under the guise of “patriotism” and “American values.”
That is how the Republican Party became the party of racism.
Leoncio Martins
Santa Barbara
(Editor’s note: Wow. How do you manage to share all that love? – J.B.)
Trump U. Grad
I have to admit I found President Trumps campaign interesting. He said that he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it on a number of occasions. The wall would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $26 billion. You, me, and Joe the taxpayer are now expected to pay if the wall is to be built.
I know I am not Mexico (although I went there once on vacation). Maybe he meant they would pay us back. If that is the case, then that would explain going bankrupt six times. And if you thought Mexico was going to pay for the wall, you are probably a graduate of Trump University.
Steve Marko
Santa Barbara
