Ron Fink's Blog

Sheriff's Candidate: Bill Brown

2006-09-04T11:52:00.000-07:00

Crime is up and arrests are down in Lompoc. Scores of officers have left the Lompoc PD for greener pastures and less than 45 percent of voters in Lompoc supported Brown in the recent primary as his current challenger beat him handily.

His primary corps of support is from outside Santa Barbara County, only 8 deputies in the Deputy Sheriffs Association (300+ members) voted to endorse him and no one currently employed by the sheriffs department has publicly endorsed his candidacy.

So, why should residents on the south coast support Bill Brown for Sheriff? He makes several claims on his web-site that seem to imply that he can manage the Sheriffs Department better than the current Sheriff – but, do facts support his claims?

Bill Brown has a track record in the City of Lompoc that may indicate how affective he might manage the department if elected Sheriff. For example over half of the police department (29 officers) have left during his tenure (there are only 49 sworn officers); he was unable to convince the City Council to provide funding for increased staffing even after they publicly debated and supported staff increases; and, the crime resolution rate in the city has plummeted by 50 percent while he has been police chief.

Recently he was forced to publicly apologize for police department arrests of several high school students during an act of civil disobedience. Even though the ordinance that was the basis for the arrests clearly stated that protests of this type were exempt, police managers proceeded to direct officers to make the arrests anyway. Even though Brown was absent during the arrests, he personally delivered the agreed to apology which was viewed by many as an embarrassment to the City of Lompoc.

Bill Brown has said publicly that "There's been a tunnel vision on building this big North County jail, adding that he would support a jail smaller than the 800- to 1,500-bed building sought by the sheriff.”

This shortsighted approach to the problem of jail overcrowding is a prime example of why Bill Brown is not qualified to be Sheriff. The UCSB economic forecast predicts a dramatic increase in north county population and there is clearly a demonstrated need to house more prisoners. Based on these population growth estimates and the current early prisoner release rates, a jail of the size proposed by the Sheriff will likely become filled with prisoners shortly after it is constructed.

Bill Brown has misrepresented the views of his opponent on the immigration issue. Brown contends that his opponent is intent on rounding up all the illegal aliens in the county. The fact is that only the Lompoc Police department has listed “illegal alien” as an incidental cause for arrest and six of these arrests have occurred since Brown declared he wouldn’t arrest anyone for immigration violations!

Lastly, there is the experience factor. The Sheriffs Department is a very large organization when compared to the police agencies Brown has managed. His experience is limited to managing a small university police department and the Lompoc PD. There are about 100 paid and volunteer employees in the Lompoc PD and over 700 in the sheriffs department.

The only similarities between the sheriffs department and the police department are dispatch, patrol and detective functions. Bill Brown has no experience managing functions like rural crime, search and rescue, air operations, corners bureau, mounted units, court services, civil bureau, a 700+ inmate jail facility, inmate transportation or deploying over 150 officers to maintain order in a small community like Isla Vista.

In summary, Bill Brown appears to lack community support, has little to no experience in several important functions of the Sheriffs Department, has overseen a drain of experienced officers in Lompoc and doesn’t have the support of the men and women of the Sheriffs department or their management team.

So, why should the residents of the south coast support Bill Brown when voters in Lompoc, who have seen his management ability up close, don’t?

Bush Lied!

2005-12-04T09:09:00.000-08:00

Some people, mostly Democrats in denial about their own statements and actions prior to the war, claim that “President Bush lied about the reasons to go to war in Iraq.”

Well, what sort of plotting and how long would it take to fabricate a lie big enough to convince the US Congress and the United Nations that war was the only way to resolve the worlds’ dispute with Saddam Hussein?

The idea that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction is cited as the primary “lie,” so I suppose that in the early 1990’s then-citizen Bush would have begun the process of creating circumstances to support it as he tended to his ranch down in Texas.

I can see him now kicking a dried up cow pie around the yard and yelling at his ranch hands to “get me some dirt on ole Saddam, I’ll be president in a few years and I want to spend billions of dollars and get thousands of our soldiers, sailors and airmen killed and injured so I can look tough.”

We’ll need to get the CIA to feed Bill Clinton and the Democrats in Washington a bunch of faulty “intelligence data” so he can build up a case. It’ll make it look better if I can say Bill dropped the ball while he was messing around under his desk with the munchkin.

Maybe I can get Tony Blair to start a phony rumor about Hussein and his stockpile of weapons.

I know that Kofi Annan can hoodwink the United Nations into passing several resolutions requiring Iraq to: “unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision of all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities (the first was on April 3, 1991)."

Then by golly we’ll call Saddam and tell him to ignore the UN, throw their inspectors out of the country, keep saying he has all those nasty weapons and that he’ll use them on his neighbors just as he did on his own people. In the meantime, we’ll have the UN repeat this resolution many times during the Clinton administration so we can build up enthusiasm for a war!

Oh, and put somebody in the Democrat National Committee to tell John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and all the rest of those weak-kneed liberals in Congress that they should come out strong during the campaign and demand that “something be done” about Saddam and his henchmen. They’re easy to fool and they’ll want to look like they really care about “the security of the United States.”

Anyone who believes that “Bush lied” would have to ignore the history of this war and are giving President Bush credit for orchestrating a diabolical plot that would have taken years to hatch! And, you have to discount the statements of many prominent Democrats who supported and contributed to the wording of resolutions in Congress that preceded this war.

The only president that has ever firmly established himself as a liar was Bill Clinton, who was convicted of perjury (lying) and was required to relinquish his license to practice law.

Security risk in the Whitehouse!

2005-10-08T15:45:00.000-07:00

I see that the maverick Bill Clinton is in the news again. This time his former FBI Director, Louis Freeh spills the beans about the security problems created by the randy Mr. Clinton in his book “My FBI, Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton and Fighting the War on Terror”.

You may recall that Mr. Clinton had an insatiable appetite for anything in a skirt. He couldn’t keep his hands off of willing female journalists, unwilling hotel clerks, waitresses, power groupies or his staff members when he was Governor of Arkansas and later as President. In at least one recorded case, his interest was piqued to the point that he resorted to a violent attack (also known as rape) to satisfy his perverted interests in the wife of one of his contributors.

According to the former FBI Director: “The problem was with Bill Clinton -- the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.”

This presented a significant problem for the FBI. How do you preserve the security interests of the United States when the Commander-in-Chief is as easily exploited as Mr. Clinton was? Spies drool when they can get some low level government functionary or military member to sell secrets to protect his/her “dignity”, for money or for sexual favors. But, they didn’t even have to try with the biggest government functionary of them all – the President of the United States.

Mr. Clinton was privy to the deepest and most damaging secrets of the United States. Revealing one of them while frolicking with one of scores of females who had no need to know this information, or the security background checks could have resulted in the destruction of the country he swore to “protect and defend".

To put this issue in perspective 19 Airmen were killed when radicals bombed the Kobar Towers, a military barracks, in Saudi Arabia. The FBI wanted to participate with the Saudi government during the questioning of the suspects in this bombing. The Director asked for Clinton’s help to get the permissions the FBI needed.

But, Mr. Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question the bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody – the only way the bureau could secure the interviews. Freeh writes in the book, “Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis’ reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.” Says Freeh, “That’s a fact that I am reporting.”

Once again, the self-indulgent Clinton defaulted to a destructive personality trait and sought to satisfy his personal ego. Of course, this isn’t the only time that he let the military and his country down in favor of personal interests. He frequently entertained a female staffer under the desk in the oval office as he discussed important matters with members of Congress on the phone.

Mr. Clinton also used the power of his office to reward his conquests with favors only a President or a Governor could offer – pardons for crimes committed against the state. The wife of Mark Rich appeared publicly with Clinton and performed privately for him as well, in exchange for the pardon and return from the self-imposed exile to avoid prosecution of her husband. Mr. Rich was involved in an oil fraud scheme which should surprise Democrats who feel that only Republicans favor oil barons.

Mr. Clinton was a scandalous person who scammed his way into the Whitehouse. Once there he sullied the institution of the Presidency; created a classic “hostile work environment” for female staff members; ignored his duty to the people of the United States in favor of his own personal desires; and, created an aura of abject hostility between the two political parties as one sought to “defend their man” and the other sought to remove a ultra-high level security risk.

Mr. Freeh will appear on “60-mimutes” this Sunday, October 9th.

The Endangered Species Act - a dismal failure!

2005-10-01T09:16:00.000-07:00

Recently Representative Capps, Santa Barbara Democrat, objected to proposed changes to the current Endangered Species Act saying the ESA had been highly successful at protecting and recovering threatened and endangered species.

I don’t know how she quantifies success, but in the United States, the ESA has been a dismal failure!

Currently there are 1,268 species of plants, animals, birds, fish and other critters listed as either threatened or endangered.

Of those a scant 16 have been recovered – this is a recovery rate of 1.26%, which is feeble at best. The same numbers have been removed for “data errors”, meaning they shouldn’t have been listed in the first place because they didn’t meet the criteria; and, another 9 were already extinct.

This means that in the 30+ year history of the program 41 species have been removed from the list, which is a little more than 3% of the total, less than half of which have actually been “saved”.

Thousands of lawyers, biologists, engineers and misguided activists have been enlisted to “save the environment” – few have met with any success other than creating obstacles for landowners. Billions are spent annually to list, study, prepare plans and implement protections for the listed species. Even more billions have been lost because the primary method of “protection” is to deny access to valuable lands and resources.

In Fiscal year 2003 the US Fish and Wildlife Service reported: “Total Expenditures reported were $1,201,165,885, of which $785,589,376 was reported as expenditures for specific individual species, including $100,760,067 for land acquisition; and $415,576,509 was reported as ‘Other ESA Expenses’ (not identified to species), of which $30,918,891 was for land acquisition.” This was about $48-million more than FY 2002 and has been fairly consistent for at least a decade.

The ESA needs a total overhaul, not just some cosmetic “improvements”. The current methods of listing, planning and protecting nature simply have not worked. One suggestion has been to address ecosystems, rather than specific habitats – but that requires significantly more effort and transcends political borders, so even though it makes sense scientifically, it probably wouldn’t work politically.

The current plan is to compensate landowners for the loss of their property. This just increases the overall costs to us taxpayers. The end result will be the same – few species will actually be saved by the process.

There are other more pressing needs for these huge sums of money – education, rebuilding the Gulf Coast, disaster planning, protecting our borders, improving medical care, etc.

Maybe in Congressperson Capps world the ESA constitutes a success – in mine, it constitutes an enormous waste of our time, energy, skills and tax money!

Which American President told the biggest lie to start a war?

2005-09-24T17:46:00.000-07:00

War is on everyone’s mind lately. Some say we shouldn’t have wars, others say President Bush lied about the events that lead up to the current war in Iraq and others want us to retreat from the battlefield.

I contend that every American President that has ever led us into war, with the exception of the war with the Revolutionary War and Japan, has adapted the facts to suit the situation he wanted to create to support the need to engage the “enemy” in combat.

The United States was born from the War of Independence which began in 1775. The premise of this war was that the colonists wanted to free themselves from the British who were taxing them and not allowing fair representation, almost like the situation we find ourselves in today with tax and spend politicians who rarely listen to us commoners who fork over large portions of our paychecks.

President James Madison (Jeffersonian, Party) led us into this war because the United States had been irritated since the American Revolution in 1783 by the failure of the British to withdraw from American territory along the Great Lakes; their backing of the Indians on America's frontiers; and their unwillingness to sign commercial agreements favorable to the United States.

This was the first of many wars that were fought essentially to preserve the United States trade interests help business interests survive in the “New World”.

President James Polk (Democrat) led us into the Mexican-American War in 1846. It was the first major conflict driven by the idea of "Manifest Destiny"; the belief that America had a God-given right, or destiny, to expand the country's borders from “sea to shining sea”.

Disputes over the border lines between Texas and Mexico sparked military confrontation, helped by the fact that President Polk eagerly sought a war in order to seize large tracts of land from Mexico.

President Abraham Lincoln (Republican) led us into the Civil War in 1861. It began after the union between the states was dissolved over the issue of slavery. Once again, the issue was primarily about business interests in the Southern states who chose to use slaves to reduce the costs of producing goods.

President Lincoln and the northern states justifiably objected to this practice and thus the Civil War proved necessary to resolve the issue. Many thousands were killed on both sides before the issue was resolved.

There were scores of “Indian Wars”, fought by several Presidents, which were intended to expel the first Americans from their native lands so that farmers, ranchers and businessmen could capitalize on their rich lands. The Indians were mistreated, whole camps were slaughtered and the stragglers rounded up and herded onto “reservations” where they tried to eke out an existence.

Indians have recently begun to exert their rights, given to them in exchange for their land, loved ones and dignity hundreds of years ago by politicians of the era. Today the “concerned citizens” of Santa Ynez are attempting to deny the Chumash Tribe the sovereign rights they have to annex property, obtained by purchase not war.

President Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) led us into World War I in 1914. This was supposed to be the “war to end all wars”, but history has proven otherwise. WW1 proved to be the decisive break with the old world order, marking the final demise of absolutist monarchy in Europe. Entry of the United States into the conflict was circuitous since the combatants did not threaten our territory.

First “volunteers” served with French and British units and later under our flag. This may have been one of the first times in modern history that “Presidential lies” were overtly used to justify our involvement. It was at this time that our Congress advocated isolationism as a national policy, so President Wilson was forced to make a series of elaborate speeches to convince the Congress, and the people, that entering this war was in our best interests.

WWI would prove the catalyst for the Russian Revolution, which would inspire later revolutions in countries as diverse as China and Cuba, and would lay the basis for the Cold War confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Then President Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat) led us into World War II. This war was fought on two fronts by millions of American soldiers, sailors and marines. The Germans did not attack the United States; however, our support for our European allies and failure to properly mitigate grievances of WWI was ample justification to enter this war.

It started with supply missions to the British, where ships crossing the Atlantic were sunk by German submarines. This constituted an act of war, and we reacted accordingly.

The Japanese actually attacked the United States, so a second front was fought in the Pacific – basically two full fledged wars at the same time! I feel confidant that this is the reason that we maintain an ability to fight two simultaneous wars today.

President Harry Truman (Democrat) led us into the Korean Conflict in 1950 following an attack on South Korea by the north. The Chinese were a very large part of this “conflict” and poured thousands of troops into the battle. Relying on “intelligence data” President Truman sent a weakened army to assist South Korea. Thousands were killed in the “conflict” and the dispute was never really resolved and tensions remain today with North Korea and the Chinese.

The Viet Nam Conflict also began in the 1950’s when President Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) sent a small contingent of “military advisors” to help South Viet Nam when the French retreated after many years of tremendous losses. The involvement of American forces escalated during the President John Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson administrations based on “intelligence data” that later proved misleading at best.

President Richard Nixon (Republican) finally ordered a retreat after decades of politically controlled battlefield strategies failed to produce anything other than dead and maimed American service men and women. North Viet Nam justifiably declared “victory” and began a process of cleansing and occupying the south.

President George H.W. Bush (Republican) sent troops to aid in the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. Although the dispute between these neighboring countries did not involve us directly, we came to the aid of a Middle Eastern ally arguably to support our economic and political interests.

President Bill Clinton (Democrat) engaged in several limited conflicts around the globe. Faulty “intelligence data” subverted these efforts and resulted in embarrassment and the loss of hundreds of brave American service members without achieving the desired outcome. Mogadishu and Haiti are two examples of these failures.

Many claim that President George W. Bush (Republican) lied to obtain United Nations and the Congress’ support for the current war in Iraq. Once again, faulty “intelligence data” seems to be the culprit.

I would submit that Presidents have stretched the facts and/or blatantly lied for centuries to support their desire to exert the power of the United States through warfare. This is nothing new – all of them claimed to have some form of “intelligence data” to support the need for a war. All of the wars were arguably fought to reserve business or political interests. Some were won and some were lost.

When we elect a President there is a whole host of supporting and unelected, people who make up the “administration”. Some are better at it than others are, but the bottom line is that America has been periodically at war since our founding and despite the best efforts of anti-war constituencies, the trend will probably continue.

This is not a partisan issue – both parties, and some that don’t exist anymore have botched wars and stretched the truth to support their efforts.

So, what’s next in New Orleans?

2005-09-17T19:36:00.000-07:00

Some of the politicians involved, namely and almost exclusively President Bush, have admitted that serious errors were made. The President sensing that his former field commanders let him down seems to have taken a keen personal interest in the recovery and is personally monitoring the progress by placing his boots on the ground.

The head of FEMA was justifiably replaced by the President with a person who actually has experience in responding to large disasters and barge loads of tax dollars are on the way.

Democrats, who originally wanted to investigate (that would be: “make political hay”), now find out that Democrats screwed up just as bad as Republicans, so they don’t want anything to do with it, claiming it would be a partisan exercise. Well, what did they have planned, a "well done"?

If Mayor Nagin’s constituents ever return to the Big Easy, they should recall him and name someone who is competent to lead the city into a new era. Clearly, this is the single individual who could have altered the outcome of this catastrophe by simply paying attention to his past experience in these matters and using those hundreds of school and city transportation buses that are still sitting useless in their parking stalls to move people before the storm struck.

Governor Blanco should resign her position. Her miscues made a bad problem worse because of her failure to understand the protocols that were necessary to acquire federal assistance.

Both she and the mayor ignored lessons that were learned from past hurricane responses and both failed to address issues that directly impacted the health and safety of the people they served; people who had been raised by the government to believe that only the government, their local government, could take care of their every need.

The management of the levees around New Orleans should be centralized. There are scores of public and private “levee authorities”, who each have their own little fiefdom. No one coordinates the “big picture” and no one has the authority to prioritize projects to assure that the city is safe from flooding.

So, now there will be billions sent to the region to rebuild what Katrina and the subsequent flooding destroyed. The press has noted that thankfully the Mardi Gras floats were not destroyed, so maybe they can be used to dispense cash to greedy contractors, the professional poor, corrupt politicians, levee commissioners and the ever present lawyers.

One thing you can count on, for every dollar directed at “recovery”, several will disappear into the hands of corrupt politicians and the buzzards that always circle following disasters of this magnitude.

The gouging has already started – fuel prices are up, developers in California are already complaining that the cost of building materials are increasing and New Orleans realtors are plotting to scoop up flooded out properties at bargain basement prices, speculating that huge profits can be made.

Hopefully the lessons learned by decades of the welfare state won’t be repeated. President Bush has outlined a new plan to address decades of poverty and political racism in New Orleans. Unlike racism of the past, these are black politicians who are keeping poor black people beholden to the Democrat party by handing out crumbs instead of education, jobs, homes and a quality of life equal to theirs.

Many Democrats have some good ideas about how to solve the poverty/racism issue in Louisiana, but will their party allow them to join Republicans to solve the issue? I doubt it, the Carville/Clinton era of divisive, political combat has placed a huge barrier between those of each party who tend to be centrists and problem solving has taken a back seat to “gotcha politics”.

Representative Lois Capps weighs in on Katrina - Bush responsible!

2005-09-11T16:22:00.000-07:00

I see that Lois Capps, local Congressperson from Santa Barbara has weighed in on “What went wrong in the wake of Gulf Coast Disaster?” Note the clever play on words in the title.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Ms. Capps, she is the darling of the wine and cheese liberals of southern SB County. Her district, like all the rest in California has been gerrymandered so that her stay in office is dictated by her allegiance to the Democrat party machine, not her fitness for office.

Her most notable contributions to date have been a failed attempt to federalize the entire coastline of her district (the Gaviota National Seashore) and a tattoo removal program.

It is no surprise that her commentary follows the DNC script (fire the FEMA head and George Bush is totally responsible for all the misery in New Orleans). You would think that a person of her stature would at least acknowledge that hundreds of towns were destroyed and thousands were injured and killed.

You’d also think that she would acknowledge the contributions of the thousands of emergency workers from all over the United States that have descended on the area, but that wasn’t in the script she was handed.

Capps says: “Many years of short-funding New Orleans' flood control projects, combined with the degradation of local wetlands, left the city highly vulnerable.” This statement is in conflict with itself. Flood control projects are to blame for the degradation of the wetlands; so, if you solve the flooding problem you wind up destroying more of the wetlands.

She continues: “FEMA, once renowned for its expertise on preventing and responding to disasters, has become an international embarrassment.”

New Orleans had an evacuation plan, but local officials, not FEMA, failed to follow it. "The city of New Orleans will utilize all available resources to quickly and safely evacuate threatened areas." The city had enough school and transit buses to evacuate 12,000 citizens per fleet run, but Mayor Nagin left them neatly parked in their yards to be destroyed.

An Amtrack train sat empty at the depot the night before Katrina hit while Amtrack officials asked the Mayors office if they wanted to fill it with evacuees – there was no response from the Mayor, so the last train out of New Orleans left empty.

The sad fact is that local officials had the experience and resources necessary to move large numbers of people to a safe haven and they didn’t do it. This created a complicated rescue situation for FEMA.

Another sad fact is that Ms. Capps, along with all her colleges supported the merging of FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security, which seems have diminished its ability to get things done quickly. Of course, she didn’t suggest removing FEMA from DHS, but that would have required an original thought that was not in the DNC script.

At least Ms. Capps could have been a little more statesmanlike, but since she is beholden to the hardcore liberals in SB, she must by default parrot their hatred for the Bush team at every opportunity instead of offering constructive suggestions, even in the “wake of Gulf Coast Disaster” as she puts it.

Congressperson Capps, criticize and investigate if you must, but how about proposing tangible solutions for all those problems you have identified instead of just pointing fingers? If you feel strongly about these issues, demonstrate some leadership qualities and propose legislation that will solve them.

One mans plan for resolving the "Katrina problem".

2005-09-10T10:00:00.000-07:00

OK, for the sake of argument let’s assume that all levels of government from President Bush to Mayor Nagin dropped the ball in response to the flooding of New Orleans. I am a solution oriented type of person, so how do we solve the bigger issues associated with evacuating a large metropolitan area, and what would perpetuate the need to do so?

The US Congress may soon take up the issue, but you can bet that the politics of the issue will trump any serious technical solutions. So, I’ll try and avoid politics in this blog.

First – why would we have to consider evacuating hundreds of thousands of people? What set of circumstances could cause mass evacuation?

In Santa Barbara in 1990, the Paint Fire tore through the heart of the western boundary of the city and caused hundreds of people to seek shelter. Hundreds of homes were destroyed, but his was a much smaller scale than Katrina.

Many other large fires in the western United States have caused the same sort of exodus, and on a smaller scale, they don’t go much better than the attempt to evacuate New Orleans did. While the majority heeds the call to leave, others recklessly chose to stay and defend their property, thinking they can do better at it than the experts can.

But, fires generally don’t cause massive evacuations like the current situation in New Orleans.

A chemical, biological or radiological attack – so called weapons of mass destruction – on a large metropolitan area could require a mass evacuation, but how would you protect both the rescuers and the rescued from exposure to the agent?

Typically, with a CBR attack the best choice is to shelter in place and wait for the agent to dissipate. Moving people through clouds of toxic substances creates more problems than it solves, so staying put and closing the windows is usually the wisest choice. So, a CBR attack probably wouldn’t cause a massive evacuation either.

Earthquakes can impact major west coast population centers like Los Angeles or San Francisco. Once again, the evacuation of large numbers of people is not the chosen method of protecting them. Providing food, shelter and medical help at several locations throughout the damaged area usually works best. I can recall that in 1971 the City of Los Angeles set up porta-potties and trucked in tanker loads of fresh water and food following an earthquake in the San Fernando Valley.

So, an earthquake probably wouldn’t cause a massive evacuation either.

Large explosions and aircraft crashing into buildings affect relatively small numbers of people when compared to Katrina. Even the Twin Towers disaster didn’t cause the total evacuation of New York City. So, they wouldn’t trigger large evacuations either.

That leaves massive floods, tornados and hurricanes like Katrina, there have been many in the past and there will be many in the future. So, let’s focus on how best to handle this type of evacuation.

A flood caused by dams or levees breaking, extremely heavy rain or rapid snow melt can occur with little notice. When the Van Norman Dam failed in Los Angeles following the 1971 earthquake, thousands had to be evacuated from homes and businesses below the dam. This was added to the chaotic scenes in the rest of the San Fernando Valley.

A hurricane or tornado is a little more predictable. We have all seen reports on various media outlets, including the Weather Channel that warns us for days concerning the path of these storms. Frequently it is the rain and flooding that produce the need to leave, not the winds. Most of the damage from Katrina was caused by either the “storm surge (tidal wave)” or failure of the levee system.

So, how do we move all those people? Hurricanes can impact anywhere from Brownsville, Texas to Long Island, New York; tornadoes usually hit the central and eastern portion of the nation – so, any plan would have to address moving people out of these areas to safety. But how, if they don’t have to move and the government doesn’t seem to have the authority to forcibly remove people from their property, then the term “mandatory evacuation” seems useless.

How about a plan that makes the means of evacuation possible? For example, if the next hurricane is aimed at Galveston Bay, Texas and there is say a 40+ hour warning period, then all of the area busses and trains should be used to pick up anyone with no transportation and move them. The priority would be all hospitals, nursing homes and board and care facilities. Those with their own means of transportation can move themselves.

Next, a shelter plan for Galveston should stipulate that San Antonio and Austin would be the designated evacuation points for those who could not find shelter of their own.

As the evacuation proceeded, the designated shelters (generally large public assembly areas) would be prepared by either FEMA or the National Guard to receive evacuees. Food and water can be stockpiled at armories, military field hospitals can be mobilized and even the evacuees themselves can employ their skills at the evacuation centers.

All plans should include long term sheltering plans, the Katrina catastrophe will take many months to resolve and all those people need to be absorbed into other communities until they can safely return to all those cities and towns that were destroyed.

The plans should include ways to utilize the evacuees. Whole cities were moved, the people in them had many skills including teachers, utility workers, health care professionals, druggists, repair technicians and on and on. Register them as they arrive and plan to use them effectively as an integral part of the overall long term evacuation plan.

Next, we have to deal with those people who figure they are able to cope with the ravages of a storm on their own – write them off. Make it clear to anyone who will listen that when a “mandatory evacuation order” is given and you don’t leave, then you are responsible for the consequences. When the storm has passed rescuers may come and get you, but don’t complain because they are “too slow” or “too late”, because you had the warning and opportunity to leave and didn’t.

Plans like this should be prepared for every area that could be impacted by a hurricane, flood or tornado. The government (NOAA) maintains meticulous records of where storms have historically struck, so as a minimum the planning should start in these areas. FEMA has the charter to aid with these plans and it should become a national priority to create and test each one of these plans.

So, if you are reading this, you may have a better idea, so get elected and solve the problem!

Katrina’s aftermath, should we spend billions to rebuild New Orleans?

2005-09-05T17:42:00.000-07:00

During the coming months taxpayers will spend billions to replace the property that was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. We won’t even get to vote on the matter, our elected representatives will vote for us.

In a Bill Moyers PBS special concerning the loss of Mississippi Delta marshlands, Mark Twain is said to have “remarked on the seeming futility of controlling the Mississippi in 1883. That was just a few years after Congress established the Mississippi River Commission to combat flooding.”

The current levee system stretches nearly 2,200 miles in an effort to contain the mighty Mississippi River. There have been many remarkable failures with severe flooding and whole communities being wiped out since that first attempt to control it in 1883, and there will be many more. Each time we grit our teeth and rebuild – why?

I am not an environmental alarmist, but sometimes you just have to wonder “why did they do that?”

The Moyers report continues: “Louisiana accounts for 80 percent of the nation's coastal land loss, with rates ranging between 25 and 35 square miles per year.” These same statistics have been reported in other mediums, so we can stipulate that these figures are fairly accurate. That fact by itself wouldn’t seem significant except that all that coastal marshland protects towns like New Orleans from the full fury of hurricanes like Katrina.

So, if we are to rebuild New Orleans shouldn’t we at least consider the impact that the levee system has on the survivability of the city and its people? Doesn’t it seem plausible that the very measure (levee) that is designed to “protect” the people actually subjects them to a much greater danger?

Moyers goes on: “According to the Louisiana Department of Resources Office of Coastal Restoration and Management, if the current land loss rates continue unabated, by the year 2050, Louisiana will have lost more than 527,000 acres of coastal wetlands. That means that the Gulf of Mexico will move inland more than 30 miles, and New Orleans and other coastal cities will be open to the full force of Gulf weather.”

With the loss of all this marshland also comes the inevitable change to the environment. As I said I am not an environmental activist, but this appears to be one of those cataclysmic tragedies that environmentalists claim will occur with every project that they oppose. In this case, there appears to be sufficient scientific evidence to cease creating these works of man and revert to the works of nature.

So, should we spend billions to rebuild New Orleans? Maybe, but only if it includes a significant reduction of the levee system and a return of the more than 1,000 square miles of Louisiana that have crumbled and turned to open water since 1955.

Katrina – the blame game begins.

2005-09-04T09:40:00.000-07:00

Many newspaper and media commentators are editorializing concerning the response to Hurricane Katrina. Their criticism is being focused on the Bush Administration – but, what about the efforts of state and local government officials before the catastrophe? Of course, media criticism couldn’t be politically motivated – or, could it?

This is petty politics at its worst. To capitalize on the misery of people who lost everything for a political opportunity is disgraceful, but the left wing media will take any opportunity to attack President Bush and Republicans in general.

The timelines of Katrina are important to keep in perspective. The storm made landfall on Monday morning and the levees broke late Tuesday. On Saturday, a full two days before the storm struck the Mayor of New Orleans declared a state of emergency. People were simply “urged to leave”, most did, however some 50,000+ stayed behind.

Widely published photos show acres of school and public buses parked in their yards in neat rows, so there was a means available to evacuate people who had no transportation and local government had the authority to use them, but didn’t.

Certainly, the Mayor and the Governor of Louisiana knew of the dangers posed by the levee system – why didn’t they take preventive action instead of sheltering people in place and why aren’t they being criticized by editorialists – could it be because they are Democrats?

This storm impacted 90,000 square miles (Utah is about 85,000) and over 1,000,000 people. Scores of communities were totally destroyed, houses torn from their roots and scattered across three states, the transportation infrastructure is destroyed and families ripped apart by death and evacuations. All 1-million of the evacuees needed to be cared for – the task is enormous, but the editorial focus was on the Big Easy and the Bush Administration.

Less than 72-hours after the levees broke some 50,000 people had been removed from New Orleans. It may have seemed slow, but the runways of all local airports were underwater, planes had been evacuated to safe havens and most area roads were impassible.

The Red Cross reports that they are operating shelters in 16 states! Just trying to account for everyone is a daunting task. Thousands are dead, thousands more injured and they are scattered across the entire southeastern United States. Simply finding these people and connecting them with their families may take weeks.

Maybe pundits and Monday morning quarterbacks could have done better, but I doubt it. If the response by the federal government to Katrina is being so soundly criticized, then the absence of preparation by local officials deserves equal treatment.

Hurricane Katrina: Our Worst Nightmare

2005-09-02T19:59:00.000-07:00

The scope of the devastation created by Hurricane Katrina is catastrophic. The media seems to be focusing on the “Big Easy”, probably because it was known as a party destination and it had the Mardi Gras and Bourbon Street.

Not only the “Big Easy” but also scores of other big and small towns in all directions are completely destroyed. The runways at nearby Kessler Air Force Base were six-feet under water. Life in this area may never return to “normal” again and certainly not for many months.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown reported that: "Response operations are being conducted over a disaster area of nearly 90,000 square miles — the biggest single disaster response in our nation's history.” To put this in perspective the state of Utah has an area of 84,904 square miles.

Some are claiming that the Bush administration has been slow to respond, but was that the case? On August 29th, the day the hurricane hit land, FEMA reported that: “Thirty-one teams from the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) have been deployed to staging areas in Anniston, Ala., Memphis, Tenn., Houston, Dallas, and New Orleans, including 23 Disaster Medical Assistance Teams. The teams bring truckloads of medical equipment and supplies with them and are trained to handle trauma, pediatrics, surgery and mental health problems.”

In addition: “FEMA has 500 trucks of ice, 500 trucks of water and 350 trucks of meals ready to eat (MREs) available for distribution over the next 10 days. Nine Urban Search and Rescue task forces and incident support teams have been deployed. The task forces are from Florida, Virginia, Maryland, Texas, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri.”

So, resources were clearly on the move even before the storm had passed. But, who could envision a disaster of this magnitude? Not the Governors of the states that were impacted and so how any government official at any level could have prepared for this is anyone’s guess.

The Air Force Times reported that on September 2: “Louisiana National Guardsmen yesterday established a security perimeter around the back entrance to a shopping mall attached to the Superdome here as other guardsmen began herding thousands of evacuees from the arena and onto hundreds of buses bound for the Houston Astrodome.”

The AF Times also reported: “Specialist Todd Lobell, who is in the LNG 769th’s C Company, said that, unlike Afghans, he wonders if New Orleans residents want to help themselves. He said that some looting may be excusable as people need to feed their families. But Lobell said in an air of disbelief that during an earlier security mission he entered a grocery store that had been looted. The alcohol and tobacco aisles were empty, but the canned foods were nearly untouched.”

Other victims were seen to throw the MRE’s away claiming that “I don’t eat this kind of stuff”. Now if I had not eaten for several days, anything would taste good, but apparently, some people are a lot pickier than I would be. Others who were safely staged in an open field complained that they didn’t want the water and food that had been brought to their location, just a bath.

Some say that early planning was inadequate at the federal level, but did local officials do enough to assure the safety of the people they served? One picture of a New Orleans school bus storage yard showed hundreds of empty school buses parked – couldn’t these have been used by local officials to move the poor out of harms way?

The destruction and misery are beyond comprehension. Despite the few who are looting, shooting and complaining, these people are in misery. I can’t even imagine how I would feel if I were in the same situation.

The Congress is granting the Presidents request to place $10-billion at the disposal of emergency management officials to start the recovery process.

On a smaller scale, you and I can help too. Many community and faith based organizations began providing aid to the victims of this disaster immediately. They will need reinforcements to sustain this effort during the next several months.

What can we do? How about donating the cash equivalent of what you would spend on a dinner out, a six-pack of your favorite beverage, or carton of smokes to your favorite charity. Maybe emptying that change jar or piggy bank right now wouldn’t be a bad idea. There are several local charities and churches that are accepting cash donations, check major and local media websites for a listing of legitimate charities. Or, simply give at your church.

Every penny we can scrounge up will help – no amount is insignificant. Please help – these are our neighbors and they REALLY need our help.

How much does it cost to “save the environment”?

2005-08-28T15:44:00.000-07:00

We may never know the complete answer to that question, but here are some facts that may raise your eyebrows.

The Government Accountability Office reports that in fiscal year 2002 the Environmental Protection Agency awarded a total $4.2 billion in grant funding to “save the environment”. Now that’s a lot of money and apparently this is represents a consistent cash flow!

The GAO has faulted the EPA for persistent problems in overseeing these grants, no surprise here since the majority goes to non-profits who receive little attention from the EPA.

We commonly think of “non-profits” as shoestring operations that apply the bulk of the money received to the problem at hand, but that is not always the way it works. You see the dirty little secret is that the salary received by workers is not “profit”. Therefore, employees of the non-profit organization can receive the bulk of the money as “salary”.

The GAO reported that: “EPA’s oversight of nonprofit grantees’ costs did not ensure that grant funds were used for costs allowed under guidance published by the Office of Management and Budget”. In other words, environmental activists ripped off the taxpayers!

But you say, surely the EPA is using our money responsibly. Well, not all the time. GAO: “EPA awarded some grants before considering how the results of the grantees’ work would contribute to achieving environmental results”. In other words, they were buying a pig-in-a-poke.

The environmental community is a tight nit little group consisting of people, both in the government and the private sector who have been led to believe that they are going to “save the earth” from destruction by mankind. They also believe that it is the duty of us taxpayers to fund their follies.

For example we have spent about $3.3-billion since 1982 to try and save twelve different Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead populations. The GAO reports that at least 65 groups, such as committees and task forces, have been formed to coordinate recovery efforts between the federal agencies, as well as with states, tribes, local governments, and other interested entities.

So, you would think that with that many environmental activists and government functionaries involved that we would be seeing great success in the effort. You would be wrong.

The GAO said in reference to the Columbia River Basin: “Federal agencies have undertaken many types of recovery actions and, although these actions are generally viewed as resulting in higher numbers of returning adult salmon and steelhead, there is little conclusive evidence to quantify the extent of their effects on returning fish populations.”

Excuses are abundant, with the most prevalent being: “The data to quantify the effects of these actions on fish populations are generally not available because of a number of factors, including large yearly natural fluctuations in returning adult salmon and steelhead, changing weather and ocean conditions, and the length of time it takes for project benefits to materialize.”

So, nature is responsible for fish population fluctuations, not the actions of man. And, it only took $3.3-billion to come to this conclusion!

If “saving the environment” were a business it would have failed in the first 5-years, but it’s not and our elected leaders keep pumping billions of our tax dollars into a failing effort. There appears to be no measurable outcome for any of the “recovery” efforts, no accountability among participants and an endless stream of science projects.

Isn’t it time to re-evaluate our investment? The Endangered Species Act has existed for 30-plus years and all we seem to be able to do is add more species to the list, establish more restrictions on landowners and continue to throw tax money away.

Imagine what this money could do for the education of our children or feeding of the poor in the United States. When will this waste stop?

Cindy Sheehan: Pawn Of The Left

2005-08-26T19:15:00.000-07:00

A lot of attention is being paid to Cindy Sheehan; self proclaimed “war protestor”, down in Crawford, Texas. How did she get to Texas anyway, and who is helping shape her message?

ABC7 in San Francisco took a look and found this: “The camp at Crawford is full of Cindy Sheehan supporters, people from all walks of life, but off to the side are a small group of professionals skilled in politics and public relations who are marketing Cindy Sheehan's message.

Leading the group is Fenton Communications employee, Michele Mulkey, based in San Francisco. Fenton specializes in public relations for liberal non-profits. Their bills are being paid for by True Majority, a non-profit set up by Ben Cohen -- of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream fame. Cohen's group has teamed up with Berkeley based MoveOn.org, an anti-Bush group co-founded by Joan Blades.”

In a sad and unsavory effort to co-opt the Gold Star Mothers, Incorporated, a group formed after years of planning on June 4, 1928 by twenty-five mothers to establish a national organization to honor their sons who were killed in battle, Ms. Sheehans’ handlers named her effort “Gold Star Families for Peace”.

The Gold Star Mothers, Inc felt it necessary to inform their members that: “Cindy Sheehan is currently in the news. She and her organization have no connection whatever with American Gold Star Mothers, Inc.”

The Washington Post reports: “Joe Trippi, the political consultant behind former Vermont governor Howard Dean's early success in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary race, hosted a conference with Sheehan for liberal Internet bloggers, hoping their online dispatches will draw even wider attention.”

The online version of the American Spectator reports: “What the media are interested in is Sheehan's politics, and the window of that interest will close for good once the public learns of her ambitiously radical views -- that Bush should be impeached as a war criminal, that America is an abomination not worth defending against terrorists, and so forth.”

Apparently, Ms. Sheehan has had a change of heart since her meeting with President Bush as he honored the death of her son. After the meeting, she was quoted by the on-line newspaper in her hometown of Vacaville, Calif., as saying: “I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.”

Her husband, Pat, said following the meeting: “We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us".

Now she says that Bush treated her callously during the meeting.

So how was the Sheehan family treated? I can’t imagine any President of the United States, no matter the political party, treating any grieving mother “callously” following the death of a military member.

I have no doubt that Ms. Sheehan feels deep sadness at the loss of her son. I also have no doubt that she is being manipulated by the hard left of the Democrat party who has only their own political interests at heart. I don’t see hundreds of other mothers who have lost their sons standing with her, only the media, some burned out sixties rock and rollers and Howard Deans “army”.

Basic Training: An Adventure To Remember

2005-08-24T16:48:00.000-07:00

I was watching the "History" channel a few months ago and was entertained by a feature known as "Basic Training." The premise of this series is that six young Americans are followed through several weeks of US Army basic military training, or as I knew it, BASIC.

I don't recall getting the same treatment that these young men and women were getting! What follows is the story of how I remember BASIC. Photo: USAF

What Do I Do Now?

I was almost 18 years old, I didn't have a job, I didn't know how to get one and I was very naive concerning the ways of the world. I thought that I would be a firefighter, so I started trying to get hired. It was 1960 and I wanted to leave home and make my own way in life.

There were several options. The US Forest Service was hiring summer crewmembers; I applied and didn't hear anything from them for several weeks. I was too young for the Los Angeles City or County Fire Department and so all that left was the military. The draft was in full force with many of my classmates being called to serve in the Army.

I was young, but I had a high school diploma and the military wanted "a few good men." I was smart enough to know that I didn't feel like "camping out" with the Army for a couple of years, wading in the mud with the Marines or bouncing around on a boat with the Navy so I headed to the local recruiting office to see what they had to offer.

The US Air Force Wins!

There were two military recruiters in our town, the Navy and the Air Force. The day I went into the office the Navy man was out of the area on business. So, by default, I chose to speak with the Air Force sergeant on duty and a twenty-year career was born. He was a good salesman and I was a willing buyer of all he had to offer. Good pay, interesting job, world travel and life time medical benefits! I didn't realize that he might be stretching the truth until many years later.

First, I was subjected to a series of physical and mental tests, which I passed easily. These consisted of a series of mental exercises of simple math, simpler English and some interpretive tests. The physical evaluation determined whether I had all of my fingers, toes, arms, legs, etc. Guess they wanted an inventory so they would know which parts of me they lost in the process of serving my country.

Then there was the paper work; large piles of paper with no definable purpose. There were forms for everything under the sun. Where were you born, where did you go to school, are you an American, do you wet the bed? This was the first few pounds of what would seem like tons of paper before I was to end my stay with the Air Force.

I told my parents that I was leaving home the night before I was due at the recruiting depot in Los Angeles. I had just turned 18 and didn't need their permission to join. My first act of defiance was to do what parents and judges threatened teens with--joining the military services. This was 1960 and they were quite surprised! I collected my most valuable possessions and climbed aboard the bus. As I would later find out, I really didn't need anything since all of it was eventually taken away.

The Recruiting Depot

The recruiting station in downtown Los Angeles was another adventure. When I arrived, it was very crowded with young men and women and there were some nice military people in crisply starched uniforms to greet us. At this point I was still Mr. Fink and had not taken the oath. I was given instructions to be at the main depot early the next day, given some meal tickets and a room in a cheap, but clean hotel. The night in the hotel was exciting for an 18-year old on his first night away from home!

There were almost 100 recruits in the hotel and almost none of them had ever been away from home before. Some were "worldly" and wanted to "show their pals the ropes" in the big city. Los Angeles is a big noisy place full of all the excitement a person could stand. As I said, I was young, but not foolish and I didn't look for trouble, just stayed in my room and tried to get some rest.

I was also scared, although I wouldn't admit it. There was a lot of yelling in the hallways and some of the military police came up to calm everyone down. Most of the noise was party type noises, I guess those unsmiling military police didn't appreciate happy people.

The next morning it was obvious that some of the young men had gotten very drunk. Some didn't feel to well at all! Our first task was the physical. We were stripped to our shorts, inspected, poked, prodded and basically made to feel inferior to other humans in the building. The medics drew blood, checked for bugs, made noises in my ears, showed me a chart full of unpronounceable words, took another inventory of my parts and pronounced me in good health.

As we completed our physicals, several of the guys were sitting around and a couple of the women recruits were talking about "failing the physical", it seems they had a some sort of social disease! As they left to return to wherever they came from I heard an "oh man" in the background. So maybe all that yelling was the party with the girls who didn't make the train to boot camp. Take two aspirin and call me in the morning, or is it an antibiotic?

Later in the day, we were "sworn in" by a very stern Major who proclaimed himself "commander" of something and all hell broke loose! Those "nice military people" from the day before were suddenly now yelling orders at us and trying to make us get into some sort of orderly rows! We were given "serial numbers" and ordered to memorize them before we arrived at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. We were given more paper to carry. It seems the military has a need to account for your every movement and they provided us with our "orders" to move from California to Texas.

One young man with some college time was put in charge of the group and off we went to the train depot near Korea Town. I was excited about the trip, but mindful of the authority that seemed to have taken hold of our group. At the train station, we were not allowed to mingle with "civilians" and were required to remain in one semi-orderly group while we waited for the train. In what was to become "typical" military fashion the wait was longer than planned and several of us got restless. Some of the bolder men began looking for adult beverages, but all I wanted to do was find the men's room!

The train trip was the last taste of relative freedom that I would have for several weeks. Meals were accomplished by a meal ticket provided to the dining car steward. You had no choice about what you ate, just give the guy a ticket and eat what was put in front of you. Of course, they knew there would be no tips and they treated us politely, but didn't give us any extra service. Oh, the club car was "off limits."

The trip lasted two days and nights and the track from LA to San Antonio passes through some very small towns. One thing you quickly noticed was the openness of the great American west and the difference in the type of cars people drive. In LA, they had lots of chrome, are slick, low slung and clean. In Texas, they have mud flaps, animal skins hanging from their antennas and the paint is covered with mud or red dust!

(The next installment will be the highlights of my stay at Lackland.)

President Ronald Reagan: Peacemaker

2005-08-21T09:27:00.000-07:00

President Ronald Reagan may be the greatest President in modern history. It was he who, without a shot, defeated an enemy that had plagued the United States for 40-years.

President Ronald Reagan first came to Santa Barbara County in the 1930s to enjoy short breaks from his acting career. Later, while he was Governor of California he attended local Fiesta celebrations and in 1973, with his wife Nancy bought Rancho del Cielo – "Ranch of the Sky", comprised of 688 acres atop the Santa Ynez Mountains overlooking the Pacific Coast and the Santa Ynez Valley.

President Ronald Reagan invested his life to serving his country, first as an entertainer where he made us laugh or cry with words written by others; and, later as a public speaker, he made difficult subjects easier for the common man to understand. As President of the United States, he inspired respect from world leaders past and present.

He used the strength of his leadership to resolve issues that plagued generations before him and baffled lesser men. Though others will try, few will match his statesmanship, none will clone his mannerisms and all will try to match his accomplishment. President Reagan established a core value system early in his life that withstood the test of nearly a century.

In the high stakes world of international politics he used the might of the American free economy system to create the military strength necessary to persuade our enemies that it was in their best interest to simply retire from the battle before bullets, bombs and the attendant casualties of war were necessary. He was a peacemaker whose persuasive powers were amplified by a national resolve to employ military force as a last resort.

He never wavered from the course he plotted as a youth and never deviated from the path he chose while convincing millions of people to follow his leadership. His leadership traits are an icon for America’s youth and a metric by which we will measure future leaders’ accomplishments.

Few men, past and present will equal the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan the man and President Reagan, the leader of the free world.

Global warming - what global warming?

2005-08-18T18:49:00.000-07:00

Why don’t noisy, misinformed politicians from the lower 48 stick to things they know something about like lying and cheating?

It seems like Senators McCain, Clinton, Collins and Graham visited Barrow, Alaska and proclaimed that: “We are convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicated that climate change is taking place and human activities play a very large role.”

They were concerned about the impact that “greenhouse gasses” are having on our neighbors to the north. Relying on local residents, they claim that recent temperature rises were responsible for melting permafrost and coastal erosion.

Well I don’t know which “scientists” that this foursome was relying on for their information, but the Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Fairbanks reported that: “Barrow was cooler and drier than normal this July with an average temperature of 39.0°F and total precipitation of 0.80 inch. The average temperature was 1.4°F below normal and precipitation was 80% of the normal total for July. On the 14th the high of 58°F was reported and on the first three days of the month, the low of 30°F occurred. Snow was reported on 3 days during the month, but only trace events. Heavy fog with visibility less than 1/4 mile occurred on 5 days.”

Historically the temperature has been considerably higher than the temperatures experienced this year. The Climate Research Center reports that in June 1974 it was 72F, in July 1969 it was 79F and in August 1956 it was 76F. These temperatures being significantly higher than those that were recorded this year.

A lot is being made of global warming by hardcore environmentalists. They seem to ignore the history of the earth in their quest to impress us with their version of how we are killing our earth.

Consider this when you hear environmental activists speak of ozone depletion and the impact of man on the environment: “About 1 million years ago, snow and ice accumulated, forming glaciers at the higher alpine meadows that moved down the river valleys. Ice thickness in Yosemite Valley may have reached 4,000 feet during the early glacial episode.” This occurred long before man had any influence at all on the environment and there are no glaciers there now and haven’t been for over a million years.

Remember, not all scientists are created equal – some actually know what they are talking about and none of them are politicians.

Another William J. Clarke Misque?

2005-08-14T17:51:00.000-07:00

A contributor to these pages recently took me to task for an opinion I expressed concerning the suitability of Judge John Roberts to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. I think it is important to expand on the remarks I made in that opinion, so I will.

I said: “Senator Ted Kennedy, of Chappaquiddick fame where one of secretaries mysteriously drowned in the car he was driving, was quick to question the morale fiber of the candidate.” Why is this important?

Senator Kennedy has expressed concerns during interviews about the morale character of Judge Roberts. It would seem to me that no one who left a young secretary to drown in a ditch full of murky water after a night of partying would have the necessary attributes to judge another mans character or ability as a Supreme Court Justice.

I also said: “Senator Kerry said: ‘We cannot do our duty if either Judge Roberts or the Bush administration hides elements of his professional record.’ You’ll recall Kerry avoided releasing his own military records because they exposed his fraudulent claim of injuries so he could get 3 Purple Hearts and leave combat earlier than his shipmates could.”

The Kerry Viet Nam awards fraud was exposed by internet blogger's after weeks of questioning by his opponents. The Kerry version of the events that transpired during his abbreviated Viet Nam service was not supported by the records that were eventually discovered.

Senator Kerry did not release any of these records willingly; they were obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and published to set the record strait concerning his claims about his tour of duty in Viet Nam. Once they were exposed, it was found that his records had been altered and service time adjusted after-the-fact to “improve” his service record.

The Chicago Sun Times reported that there was considerable confusion and some significant misrepresentation by the Kerry campaign concerning the actual events that supported many of Kerry’s decorations. Their article seems to imply that he actually embellished the record after the fact to make himself look better!

So, for Senator Kerry to demand that anyone release records seems rather odd, since he refused to release his own military service records that were the core of his campaign!

I also said: “Roe v Wade seems to be the barometer by which Democrats and the media measure the suitability of each conservative nominee. This was the case that allowed mothers to murder their unborn babies as matter of personal ‘choice’.”

What would you call an out of the womb act that crushes the skull of an infant with a pair of pliers, dismembers their tiny bodies and then discards them like yesterdays trash? I call it murder; liberals call it a woman’s “choice” as long as it occurs in the womb. Thousands of these babies are murdered like this each year after ultrasound would have revealed tiny infants wiggling around and making facial expressions.

Abortion, simply for the purposes eliminating an unwanted child, is a grotesque tribute to barbarism that is strongly supported by liberals. I feel strongly that the only justification for abortion is when the health of the mother is in question or to eliminate an illegitimate conception by rape. There are other less invasive methods of controlling unwanted births; among them are abstinence, contraception and the “pill”.

Finally, Mr. Clarke is entitled to his opinion. But, when he claims that President Bush was AWOL – this is factually inaccurate and he should just get over it. The allegations used to support this claim were proven to be fraudulent within hours after they were “discovered” and reported by a major network news organization.

Who Is Responsible For The Highest Gas Prices In The State?

2005-08-12T08:41:00.000-07:00

Well, you can thank Democrats, environmentalists and all of those anti-oil people who just can't get it through their heads that this isn’t the 1940's and the oil industry doesn’t just dump thousands of gallons of oil on the ground--they collect and sell it! And, if they spill it, they clean it up and leave the area cleaner than they found it.

Many Line Up Against Oil

The anti-oil forces on the Central Coast are as thick as oil derricks once were. They are supported by Democrat politicians such as Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Representative Lois Capps and state Assemblyman Pedro Nava. Each of these people takes campaign contributions from and actively supports environmental extremists, while ignoring the other 95 percent of their constituents.

The Environmental Defense Center represents the Natural Resources Defense Council, League for Coastal Protection, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, The Otter Project, Surfrider Foundation, Environment California, Get Oil Out!, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, and Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara County. These organizations all oppose any oil exploration.

The EDC is the legal arm of the environmental movement and their lawsuits have cost taxpayers millions of dollars, denied private landowners the use of their property and obstructed recreational uses of public lands. Their strategy is to make wild allegations that are supported by flimsy information and then litigate the US Government and/or private property owners into submission.

Much of their funding comes from the instant rich (film, television and music personalities) of Montecito and the Santa Barbara foothills. They seem to think that by funding these groups they are somehow "making a difference."

The politics of this situation are mind boggling. Democrat politicians claim that they support working people and that Republicans support big business. I would argue that without "big business" there wouldn't be any working people to vote Democrat!

Besides, the theory that Democrats support working people is flawed on its face. Working people have to toil many hours to earn enough money to feed their kids and put a roof over their heads.

Gasoline to get you to work is a necessity. Democrats and their environmentalist supporters have created a situation that has doubled the cost of the precious commodity and may soon triple it. When is the last time that your pay was doubled?

Why Does Gasoline Cost More in Santa Barbara County?

The cost of fuel in Santa Barbara County is 7-10 cents higher than the rest of California--why? Could it be because the EDC and all those environmental activists have made it nearly impossible for oil companies to operate in our county? Liberals like to point to the European Union and say "well the French already pay more than we do per gallon (so what’s the problem?)." The difference is that there aren't any great oil deposits in the EU and there are in the United States.

Could it be that the former ultra-liberal Board of Supervisors and their appointees made life miserable for oil companies and created regulations that had no scientific or technical basis, but made them feel good? Could it be because Santa Barbara County has the toughest environmental regulations in the United States?

Their overzealous air pollution regulations ignore the fact that the Santa Barbara Channel has a long history of oil seeps that eclipse anything that man could have done. UCSB concluded in 1999 that "reductions in natural hydrocarbon seepage can be attributed to offshore production at Platform Holly reducing reservoir pressure." So, pumping oil from the off shore oil deposits is actually GOOD for the environment!

Increasing Fuel Costs Raise Food Prices

Food is a necessity; however, the higher cost of fuel is driving the cost of all food items out of sight. It is not uncommon to spend over $100 a trip just to buy food to feed your family. Most cities on the Central Coast depend on trucks to deliver over 90 percent of all the goods sold. We tend to import far more than we export, so the cost of fuel is critical to what we pay for the things we use.

A home is a necessity; however, the cost of construction and the existing housing stock has risen beyond the capabilities of the average working family. Every phase of construction requires fuel to deliver materials and get the workers to the job site.

So, when Democrats say that they support working people it makes me believe that they soaked up too much of the adult beverages at their last fund raiser.

Call Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Representative Lois Capps or state Assemblyman Pedro Nava, and ask them to explain why they support higher fuel prices.

Surf Beach: Fuzzy Science Denies Kids Their Beach

2005-08-10T16:42:00.000-07:00

Why does Surf Beach have only limited access to a half-mile of sand from March to September each year? Two reasons: the actions of environmentalists who wish to deny citizens the use of the beach; and the tenacious efforts of the Surf/Ocean Beach Commission who are just as determined to keep the beach open.

Surf Beach and nearby Ocean Beach County Park have been used as a recreation area by locals for over 100 years. Prior to the construction of Bradbury Dam (Lake Cachuma), the estuary was used for water skiing and boating.

A small race track once graced a plot where the parking is located at Ocean Park. Around 1900 a small town sprang up (Bridgeport) to support railroad workers while they crossed the Santa Ynez.

Audubon Society Wanted To Protect Plover

On March 24, 1988, the US Fish and Wildlife Service received a petition from Dr. J.P. Myers of the National Audubon Society to list the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover (WSP) as a "distinct population segment" and a threatened species.

The "science" used to support this listing was rather skimpy and consisted of limited observations, some inconclusive banding reports and a lot of conjecture by the proponents of the listing (Dr. Meyers and Mr. Gary Paige of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory.)

The WSP was finally listed on April 5, 1993 as "threatened."

US West Coast Declared "Critical Habitat"

Shortly after the threatened listing appeared, the USFWS declared “critical habitat” status for 28 beach areas in California, Oregon and Washington on December 7, 1993. Since the Department of Defense has an agreement with the USFWS to enforce all Endangered Species Act actions, VAFB officials were obligated to protect nesting sites.

At Surf and Ocean Beaches, the biologists at Vandenberg AFB (who owns the beach west of the railroad tracks) decided to try some voluntary "linear" closures. However, there was very little effort to educate the beach going public. Finally, VAFB decided to try and enforce the closure with beach patrols, but the horses and motorized ATV's they used damaged several nests and the practice was stopped.

Next, with several environmental activists threatening court action, VAFB developed several options, one of which was the total closure of 12 miles of beach for 7-months a year. That’s when the Surf/Ocean Beach Commission (SOBC) was born.

Supervisor Identifies Role

During a public meeting to discuss their proposals, Santa Barbara County Supervisor Joni Gray determined that the beach going public needed to make organized input into management plans for the WSP habitat. Supervisor Gray enlisted the assistance of Mrs. Alice Milligan, who had demonstrated outstanding organizational skills, to attract interested citizens to evaluate VAFB proposals and provide a focused response. The best the SOBC could hope for was to keep part of the beach open during the nesting season.

The SOBC attempted to work with Representative Lois Capps; however, she was strongly supported by the Environmental Defense Center who were advocating total closure.

Although Representative Capps' representative attended many of the SOBC meetings, she claimed that she could not identify a role for her in this issue even though coordination with several US government agencies was involved! The SOBC gathered more than 6,000 signatures from citizens in the Lompoc Valley who were dissatisfied with this approach and supported the work of the SOBC to keep the beach open.

Plan Opens Beach

After many public hearings, VAFB officials offered a plan to grant access to a half mile of Surf Beach during daylight hours, 7-days a week and close Ocean Beach. Their plan allowed 25 violations of closure rules before the beach would be closed for the remainder of the season. This action took affect in spring of 2000.

Although the plan called for the beach to be open all week, the best VAFB could do was open it for four days a week from 8 am to 6 pm.

The SOBC formed a corps of volunteer docents whose job it would be to greet visitors and help them understand the boundaries of the open beach so that there would be few, if any, violations of beach rules. This program was very successful and the docents greeted over 30,000 visitors each year.

The SOBC also carefully evaluated all of the public domain information that was available concerning the WSP. Our year-long research indicated that the bird was not "distinct" and really not threatened at all, but was actually plentiful throughout the western United States and in Mexico!

Study: Bird Populations Not Distinct

We stumbled across a Masters Degree thesis prepared by Leah R. Gorman using a grant from the US Geological Survey. This 3-year study used DNA techniques to establish the population differences between various populations of the WSP. Ms. Gorman’s conclusion was that there was no genetic difference between any of the many "distinct population segments" that were used by environmental activists to close beaches.

After the SOBC discovered this important information--the USGS demanded an immediate return of the report and the USGS sponsor of Ms. Gorman’s work began backpedaling and claiming that it was "an unpublished" paper. The 46 page report is still listed as a valid reference on the USGS website.

Once the WSP was listed, an intense monitoring effort was begun at nesting sites and other inland and beach project areas. Banding efforts firmly established that the birds routinely travel from beach to inland breeding sites, which contradicted the information supplied by Dr. Meyers and Mr. Paige. As an example, hundreds of birds were observed at the Salton Sea and a Mono Lake dust abatement project that were banded at coastal breeding areas.

Citizens Prompt 'Endangered Plover' Delisting

After reviewing all of the information we could find, it was our opinion that the listing of the WSP wasn't warranted. We began communicating with other beach access groups who had an interest in keeping their beaches open. Finally, we connected with the Pacific Legal Foundation a public advocate for private landowners.

The PLF looked at our presentation and recommended that we initiate a delisting petition for the WSP and we submitted it in August 2002. The USFWS agreed with our position stating: "We find that the petition presents substantial information that delisting the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover may be warranted and are initiating a status review."

We expect an answer before the 2006 nesting season.

Our hope is that the beaches will be reopened with no restrictions. Hundreds of millions of our tax dollars have been spent to support unnecessary restrictions, monitoring and research based on the faulty claims of environmental activists and the inability of government biologists to evaluate readily available valid scientific evidence and make responsible decisions.

Measure E - Lompoc needs a new Hospital!

2005-08-06T10:01:00.000-07:00

Soon you will be receiving a ballot for Measure E which is designed to provide a new critical care facility for the people of the Lompoc Valley.

Newsstand Greg recently commented on a Rotary Club meeting saying: “Everyone present agreed the measure not only should pass, but would pass if the voters filled out the mail-in ballot as soon as they receive it.”

This is a new “tax”, however to ignore this critical component of our public safety infrastructure would be irresponsible! The existing facility on Hickory Street has been there for over 50-years and has seen a series of additions and modernizations throughout its years. Following a very objective inspection of the buildings and equipment, building inspectors have determined that the facility would not survive an earthquake.

Recently the Ad Hoc Public Safety Forum assessed the public safety infrastructure in Lompoc. One element of this system is the Lompoc Hospital District. That’s were 2,000 patients are transported yearly from emergency medical calls in the City for treatment.

Although the committee did not specifically evaluate the hospital, it would appear that the building and equipment may not be adequate to support the community if there is a major earthquake. A quick look at the Lompoc Hospital Districts assessment will open your eyes to the magnitude of this issue.

Earthquakes are a fact of life in California. A fault line passes through the southern portion of Lompoc at the base of hills. In 1923, a magnitude 7.3 earthquake occurred off of Point Sal, so it is not inconceivable that a serious shake could occur in the future. In December of 2003, a magnitude 6.5 occurred at San Simeon and the surrounding area, including Paso Robles, was devastated.

Scores of minor and some major earthquakes occur in California every day. I can’t imagine how the people of Lompoc could cope with the injuries from a 7.3 shaker without an intact hospital.

But, earthquake survivability is not the only reason to build a new hospital. The current facility is hard pressed to serve our growing community on a normal day. We need a modern new emergency room to handle the volume of patients that are admitted each day. Diagnostic equipment, communication lines and electrical/mechanical system upgrades are a must to accommodate today’s’ medical emergencies.

Access to the current hospital is limited to a small drive way and there are only 4 emergency room beds. If a mass casualty event were to occur it would be difficult to move critical patients into the emergency room expeditiously. There are no accommodations for a helicopter landing pad at the hospital, so transfer of critically ill patients is delayed as they are transported to or from the nearest landing site by ground ambulance.

Simply “repairing” the existing building would not only create a serious disruption of service, but it could easily cost as much or more than a totally new hospital.

All this takes money – lots of money. The bond issue will provide the needed funds. If we don’t support this measure, the existing hospital could be closed by the state for safety reasons and we will have to travel long distances for medical treatment.

The almost $75-million for a new building is well out of range of the existing district budget, so we need to dig into our pockets and support Measure E.

Exaggerations Diminish The Impact Of An Opinion!

2005-08-02T16:51:00.000-07:00

Opinions are opinions, but when someone uses exaggerations as a basis for their “opinion” then I think someone should point out their errors.

Mr. Bill Clarke grossly misrepresented the number of “seriously wounded” and civilian deaths in his opinion: “Iraq War, Presidential Lies, and Extraordinary Debt” that was posted on this site to support his anti-war opinion. He is entitled to this opinion and has every right to disagree with the policies of any President, but let's examine his "facts".

Mr. Clarke says that 14,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen were “seriously wounded”. According to a website that tabulates these things daily there have been a little over 13,000 US Military wounded, however more than 7,000 were returned to duty in less than 72-hours.

It would seem to me that in order for a wound to be considered serious it would take more than 72-hours to heal, thus the number of “seriously” wounded is actually around 6,000.

Concerning the number of Iraqi civilians killed, there are conflicting reports. A leading anti-war site reports that a minimum of 23,140 and maximum of 26,189 Iraqi civilians have been killed, not the 100,000 claimed by Mr. Clarke.

Another website “The Slate” reports that there is a 95% probability that anywhere from 8,000 to 100,000 were killed. This is a very large range.

If Mr. Clarke grossly misrepresented these facts, how many other misrepresentations are there in this opinion?

Something Old, Something New:Old Town Lompoc Is Waking Up!

2005-07-31T09:20:00.000-07:00

Take a quiet stroll down "South H Street" and you’ll take a wonderful step back in time. The two and three-story buildings in the first block of “south H” once housed the central business and entertainment district of Lompoc and it may soon again be the thriving "center of town."

The street is getting a much-needed facelift and much like an aging ballerina, she will soon take center stage again as "downtown."

The building on the corner of Ocean and "H" was once home to Miller's Pharmacy, George Miller later sold it to Carl Braun and it became Braun’s Drug Store. You can almost feel the aura of the family-run drug store. Can you smell the sweet odor of lotions and perfumes wafting through the air? Or hear the clatter of the soda fountain and smell the "full service" grill?

Notions of every kind and the friendly clerks waiting eagerly to help you chose a card or small gift for your mom or sweat heart, along with the throaty ringing sound of the cash resister still echo down the street.

The Rudolph Building, a large art deco structure with white walls and black trim was built in 1890 for Arthur and Lucy Rudolph. Later it was remodeled in the 1930’s. It once housed a fine clothier and its squeaky wooden floors recall a time when buying a new suit included tailoring and a hat was a must. For the ladies corsets, slips, lace and button-up high-heeled shoes went with the elegant full hoop dresses’ and broad brimmed hats of the day.

This building now houses a friendly coffee shop and bookstore. Here a person can sit and sip their favorite flavor of coffee while reading the paper or book they just purchased. Political gossip and friendly discussions are heard at every table. This is a good spot to just sit and watch the street life on busy South H.

As we pass the alley on the southwest side of the street I am reminded of an evening many years ago that I witnessed a car firmly lodged in the front of the store on the south side of the alley. When the police arrived the car was running, brick and plaster dust was still in the air and the driver had disappeared. Many of us standing on the sidewalk at the watering hole across the street suggested that the car "must have driven itself into the store," but the patrolman wasn’t convinced as he looked for the registration.

Jasper's Saloon on the north side of the street has served libations to the community for many decades. It seems to have survived where many others have failed. This district was once the entertainment center of nighttime Lompoc however many of Jasper's competitors including Martin's and the Kuala Club, two country-western dance clubs, closed their doors years ago, besides many of today's meeting places are alcohol free and conversation is the entertainment.

Centennial Park can be found at the northeast corner of Cypress and H. This park was built with volunteer funding and labor hailing from nearby Vandenberg AFB and several city service clubs. Alice Milligan, a longtime organizer of community events coordinated the decoration of this park and the trees in the median with Christmas lights. The kiosk is used for caroling each Christmas season, which caps off a very successful summer of the Old Town Market.

The Friday evening Old Town Market features many fine food booths and a potpourri of arts and craft's each Friday evening during the summer. It is a pleasant place to bring the family and taste the foods offered by several restaurants and to shop for trinkets. A band is usually playing as people stroll casually from booth to booth.

The City began revitalizing this area of town a couple of years ago starting with the area around the 100 block of South H. New sidewalks, curbs, planters and accessories were added to improve the ambiance the area already enjoys. This long awaited and worthwhile project has attracted new development to join those who have occupied the area for many years.

The City Council was criticized by short sighted people who claimed that the project was a "waste of money." One developer, who soon will spend over $1 million to build a new venue, said that these improvements convinced him that the City was serious about downtown improvements and he wanted to be a part of it.

Soon a new project will be proposed for the northeast corner of "Ocean and H" where a small "park" now exists. This isn't really a park; the City opted to put the plantings and decorations on the site of a former gas station to remove the aura of abandonment that a vacant lot in the center of town brings.

A non-profit group has big plans for this property and the old Lompoc Theater, which has been empty for many years. Perhaps the old town area of Lompoc is destined for revival.

Come on "downtown," it's worth a visit.

Oak Trees Again. They make good firewood.

2005-07-30T08:33:00.000-07:00

Oak trees again, when will someone wake up and realize that Santa Barbara County's Oak trees are not in any danger of disappearing?

Lately politicians have been touting the notion the “democracy” should prevail and that the “will of the people” cannot be ignored. Well, the people of this county twice defeated ballot measures aimed at protecting Oak trees, but that didn’t deter radical environmentalists.

The former Board of Supervisors crafted an emotion based response to a minority of citizen environmental activists groups’ baseless complaints that the trees were somehow threatened by ranching and vineyard activities.

Not once during the multi-year process of developing the unnecessary “Oak Tree Ordinance” did any of the environmental groups establish that any species of Oak tree in this region was in danger of extinction. The claim by environmental activists was that the “were disappearing” and yet no one could say how many trees or even how many acres of trees existed before this process was started. They used broad generalities to support their cause such as “20% of the habitat has disappeared”.

I guess they really didn’t have to try and substantiate their claim since environmentalists previously “owned” three votes on the Board of Supervisors. Now that clear-minded adults are in charge it is a different story and any protections will have to be supported with some factual representations that there is a problem.

The only Oak tree in North America that has US Fish and Wildlife Service protection is The Hinckley Oak, which was first listed on August 26, 1988. It is currently designated as threatened in Texas.

Clean air activists should be demanding that all oaks be removed, much as they demand the cessation of the use of pesticides, to “save our children”.

According to the California Air Resources Control Board and a study by Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, coast live oaks, California scrub oaks, canyon live oaks and California black oaks are all high -- greater than 10 microgram total emissions -- emitters of ozone, which is formed when reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides react in the presence of sunlight. In this case, the rotting leaves under the trees create the ozone.

During the blooming season they also produce a substantial amount of particulate matter (PM10) which when released would probably exceed Air Pollution Control District standards. Oak trees also contribute to allergic reactions due to their airborne pollen or a chemical that they extrude onto the bark or leaves. Oak trees are also characterized as “poisonous”, since a substance is produced by the tree that can cause injury, illness or death.

The only reason that south coast environmental groups support this ordinance is in response to a national campaign to thwart the wine industry and development in general. In the early 80’s environmental groups were trying to figure out how to stop development in the western United States. They found that there was a fondness for the aesthetic appeal of oak trees and then they began there incremental attack on development.

They chose a “friendly” county and obtained severe restrictions based on their claim that the environment would somehow be harmed by the removal of oaks. The liberal dominated local Board of Supervisors readily supported their request and the first oak tree ordinance was born. Several others followed as the proponents pointed to other jurisdictions as justification for their claim of an endangered status.

Eventually they prevailed upon some Assemblyman to propose an assembly bill to “protect” the mighty oak. This one slipped in below the radar and millions of our tax dollars were allocated annually to study and protect the oaks. After several years of study, we are no closer to understanding why they need protection, but many biologists who eagerly support the notion that humans must be denied access to nature are employed.

The USFWS has a process that must be met in order to qualify a species as either endangered or threatened. The proponents of the Oak tree protection program didn’t even try to obtain federal protections, probably because they couldn’t establish that they were in any trouble.

The county staff should review this ordinance and identify a specific scientific need to protect Oak trees. In the absence of evidence meeting the test of the Endangered Species Act, the ordinance should be immediately rescinded.

Unnecessary government regulation diminishes the purpose of government and detracts from the important role that government plays in protecting its citizens.

Politically Motivated War Protesters Only Weaken America

2005-07-25T16:49:00.000-07:00

Why are so many misinformed people yelling from their soapbox to protest the Iraq War? Is it because of the number of deaths, because it hasn't been successful; or, is it just plain partisan politics? Are we really in a quagmire as they now claim?

Many complain that "the war wasn't justified" because "weapons of mass destruction" haven't been found. Recent news reports stated: "The Iraq Survey Group has confirmed (May 17, 2004) that a 155 (mm) artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) that was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."

Since no one only manufacturers one artillery round, General Kimmitt explained, "It is a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time, and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED ... when it exploded it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it."

Many young men and women have been killed on the streets and in the deserts of Iraq so far and more will likely be killed as time goes on. I feel humbled that these young people voluntarily left the comfort of their MTV lifestyle to help fight terrorists in a far away place to ensure my safety.

I work with many of the young men and women who have made more than one trip to the war zone. Not one of them, either privately or publicly, has ever complained or whimpered about their assignments. All of them support the goals of our President.

If war protesters think, the loss of life is a justification for their decidedly anti-American actions they should wake up and smell the coffee. There have been 15,000-18,000 murders and 43,000 traffic deaths (2,600 of those while people are using the cell phone) in the U.S. each year. More than 650 gang-related murders occurred in Los Angeles last year!

An American death toll every 12 months (60,000), that includes women, children and men, that is higher than the total number killed in the decade long Vietnam War should raise some eyebrows.

Do they protest because the Iraq War has not been successful? I guess it depends on how you measure success. The anti-war media elite have been moaning about the fact that we seem to have attracted every despot in the Middle East to the fight.

If that's the case, then success can be measured in the number of suicide bombers, America haters and other enemies that have been eliminated. I think it is far better to fight these people halfway around the world than in New York, Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo or Lompoc.

If success was removing Saddam, we did that. If it was to stop terrorism in the United States, there hasn't been any since we started. Providing a democracy in Iraq may take a little longer, but the Iraqis are doing that too.

That only leaves partisan politics. The people who are protesting this war are the same people who were silent as the previous Democrat administration launched wars in Yugoslavia, Somalia and Haiti that left untold thousands of people dead or maimed. These wars had similar goals (throw out the despot and initiate democracy), but had far different outcomes.

During the Clinton years, there was nary a peep from the unkempt, sign carrying protesters of everything. Where were the almighty "main stream media" and the Women in Black then? They were probably huddled around some fax machine waiting for their opinion to be spewed from Democrat National Headquarters.

Lately the focus has been on claiming that the war in Iraq is a “quagmire”. A quagmire is defined as a “difficult, precarious or entrapping position”. The media and other protestors have it partially right.

Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan face difficult and precarious situations each time they launch a patrol. But, we are not entrapped by the enemy though, only by the constant yammering from liberal editorial writers who sit safely in their cubicles echoing the thoughts of the Democrat spin machine and plotting the overthrow of President Bush.

We are fighting a war that will eventually result in a safer world. To walk away from this fight, as the liberal press and Democrats would like, would signal weakness to our enemies. Weakness and concessions to our enemies seem to be the mainstay of the Democrats defense strategy and both are staunchly supported by the press.

Frankly, I am getting tired of these transparent protests. If you have a legitimate concern about the loss of American lives, start at home. Campaign to clean up the inner cities, pay more attention to maintaining your vehicles, ban abortion and stop killing babies, hang up the cell phone and don't drive after a few "social drinks."

But partisan, politically motivated protesting weakens our nation in the eyes of our enemies and dishonors the men and women who so bravely serve and die for our country.

Nature Is A Wonderful And Forgiving Gift To Mankind

2005-07-24T08:35:00.000-07:00

Environmental activists frequently cite the oil spill off of Santa Barbara in 1969 as proof positive that ANY oil drilling will thoroughly destroy shoreline life. Lately they have been playing this worn out song once again to justify their angst over the existence of oil platforms and oil production facilities off of our coast.

I challenge anyone who thinks that a single oil spill can “destroy the environment” to go to the beach along Cabrillo Blvd. It was totally awash with oil in 1969. Sea life was damaged and the local tourist industry suffered as the beach was swept clean of the mess.

But, is it as barren and lifeless today as environmental activists would like you to believe; or is it a vibrant, life sustaining beach? The oil blow out of ’69 is a long forgotten event as far as nature is concerned. It only survives in the mind of the alarmists.

Many old oil fields in the Orcutt (Elkhorn golf course) and Santa Maria area have been cleaned up and houses, very expensive houses, now sit where oil was once produced and where waste was stored in open earthen containments next to the wells. Many spills occurred in these areas during the heyday of oilfield operations but the land is now healed and being put to good use.

An oil spill occurred at an offshore pipeline off of Surf Beach several years ago. Go to this beach today and there is absolutely no trace of this or any other spill that has occurred in the last 100-years. Sea and bird life are abundant, the Plovers play and breed and are oblivious to the environmental “damage” of the past.

Natural seeps in the Santa Barbara Channel have released 4,895 gallons of crude oil and 71 tons of methane gas each day for decades; however, this fact of nature seems irrelevant to environmental alarmists who wish to create the illusion that man alone is responsible for all the earth's “pollution.”

Yes my friends, nature is fully capable of renewing itself. In the process, other magnificent creatures can and are created to replace those that have expired. The large land mammals of centuries ago have been replaced with sleeker versions. Many plants have disappeared, only to be replaced by other hardier varieties. Whole populations of birds, bugs, snakes and fish have been replaced – by nature.

It almost seems as if a grand plan was concocted at some terrestrial level that allows man and nature to coexist. Just like the “delete” key on your home computer, nature has a delete key to erase our mistakes. When we build houses on a hillside – delete – a mudslide or wildfire corrects the mistake! When we spill oil at the beach the tidal action and wind erases the mistake.

I am not a scientist or biologist but if you try and digest all of the information that flows your way about the environment it just seems that “nature” is extremely durable and the ultimate “renewable resource.”